This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 08 October 2014, At: 14:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Assessment & Evaluation in HigherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caeh20

Undergraduate plagiarism: apedagogical perspectiveKaren Ellery aa School of Environmental Sciences , University of KwaZulu‐Natal,Howard College , Durban, South AfricaPublished online: 12 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Karen Ellery (2008) Undergraduate plagiarism: a pedagogical perspective,Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33:5, 507-516

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930701698918

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher EducationVol. 33, No. 5, October 2008, 507–516

ISSN 0260-2938 print/ISSN 1469-297X online© 2008 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/02602930701698918http://www.informaworld.com

Undergraduate plagiarism: a pedagogical perspective

Karen Ellery*

School of Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Howard College, Durban, South AfricaTaylor and Francis LtdCAEH_A_269774.sgm10.1080/02602930701698918Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education0260-2938 (print)/1469-297X (online)Original Article2008Taylor & Francis0000000002008KarenElleryelleryk@ukzn.ac.za Student plagiarism is a pervasive and increasing problem at all levels of study in tertiary

institutions. This study attempted explicitly and implicitly to address issues of plagiarismwithin the broad context of an academic writing framework in tutorials in a first-year moduleat the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa. Despite these interventions, a quarter ofthe students were judged to have plagiarised in an essay assignment. The study revealed littledeliberate intention to deceive but instead poor understanding of both technical matters suchas correct referencing norms that had been addressed in the module and higher-order issuessuch as writing as process, knowledge as constructed and the establishment of authorial voicethrough language and referencing. Lack of real engagement with plagiarism and referencingissues was also a problem, with certain groups of students being more at risk in terms ofcommitting plagiarism than others. It is argued that, particularly in a demographically diversesociety, acquiring values, attitudes, norms, beliefs and practices that help prevent plagiarismshould be viewed as a long-term and iterative process.

Plagiarism as a problem in tertiary institutions

Student plagiarism, a pervasive and increasing problem at all levels of study in tertiary institu-tions worldwide (Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead 1995; Ashworth et al. 1997; Larkham andManns 2002; Park 2003; Pickard 2006), has given rise to a dichotomy of responses in thepractitioner-oriented literature. On the one hand are post facto disciplinary responses of exposureand punishment, which are dependent on the adoption of institutional honour codes (McCabe andTrevino 1993, 2002), good detection procedures and disciplinary proceedings (Karlesky andStephenson 1971). On the other hand are pedagogic responses, which rely on proactive deterrencepractices such as teaching necessary skills and setting appropriate assignments (Carroll 2000;Roach 2001; Procter 2003) as well as discussing ethical behaviour with students (Goodman1996).

Reasons for plagiarism

In a review paper on plagiarism Park (2003) provides a list of reasons for plagiarism by indi-vidual students. These include: lack of understanding; efficiency gain; time management;personal values or attitudes; defiance; attitudes towards teachers; denial; temptation and oppor-tunity; and lack of deterrence (Park 2003, 479). The review also highlights studies that suggestcertain groups of students are more likely to commit plagiarism than others based on gender,age and maturity, academic ability, social life, peer disapproval, personality factors and attitudetowards classes (Park 2003, 480). Although not mentioned by Park, studies have shown thatstudents writing in a language that is not their mother tongue can also be vulnerable to plagia-rism (Deckert 1993; Burnett 2002), although this is sometimes linked to different intellectual

*Email: elleryk@ukzn.ac.za

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

4:31

08

Oct

ober

201

4

508 K. Ellery

traditions (Myers 1998) and attitudes towards cheating based on nationality (Kuehn et al.1990).

Park (2003) comments on the multifaceted nature of the underlying causes of plagiarism. Thisis highlighted in the study by Bennet, who develops a predictive model for the occurrence ofplagiarism based on three main factors: attitude (ethics, fear of punishment, fear of being caught)and personality (goal orientation and academic integrity) of students as well as situational factors(financial, grade achieved, staff approach to plagiarism) affecting them (2006, 137). As inBennet’s (2006) research paper, many studies that examine and explain the incidence of plagia-rism are of a survey questionnaire nature which probe the attitudes and approaches of studentstowards academic dishonesty, and rely on self-reporting of acts of dishonesty such as plagiarism(Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead 1995; Björkland and Wenestam 1999; Norton et al. 2001; Austinet al. 2005). Empirically based studies in which actual incidents of plagiarism are recorded(Culwin, 2006) or approaches preventing plagiarism are evaluated (Walden and Peacock 2006)are only recently starting to appear in the literature.

Apart from the work by Angélil-Carter (2000) it appears no formal studies of plagiarism havebeen conducted in South Africa, where this study was conducted. In her book on student plagia-rism she contends that plagiarism is a difficult issue that ‘may be a surface manifestation ofcomplex learning difficulties which relate to the educational environment, the nature of academicdiscourse and nature of language’ (Angélil-Carter 2000, 2). Whilst many students are grapplingwith the academic writing discourse, they are simultaneously taking on one or more new disci-pline discourses from which they are ‘socially and conceptually distanced’ (Angélil-Carter 2000126). For second-language students also struggling with English as the medium of communica-tion this difficulty is further compounded.

Purpose and context of the study

Prior to this study first-year students in a first-semester geography module in the School ofEnvironmental Sciences at the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) were informed aboutplagiarism and the penalties they would incur if they plagiarised, which could range from obtain-ing zero for an assignment to expulsion from the university. Despite this, student plagiarism inwritten assignments was extremely common.

This study, rather than placing the emphasis on detection and punishment, attempted toaddress the issue of plagiarism by creating a climate of understanding, involvement and goodacademic practice, as advocated by Carroll (2000). This entailed expanding the tutorialprogramme, which previously concentrated on aspects of style and structure of academic essaywriting, to explicitly and implicitly address issues of plagiarism. Despite these interventions itwas anticipated that some students would still plagiarise, since producing unplagiarised text is ahighly complex process. Using a well-structured first-year essay assignment within the contextof a supportive academic environment, the aim of the study was therefore to:

● investigate why students plagiarise;● identify whether there is a link between the incidence of plagiarism and belonging to differ-

ent gender, language or ethnic groups; and● educate students about plagiarism.

Since South Africa is a culturally and linguistically diverse country, aspects of ethnicity andmother tongue were, a priori, identified as factors worth investigating in this study. Other possiblefactors influencing plagiarism, however, emerged in an inductive manner during the study.

There were 151 students registered for the module when the study was conducted. A demo-graphic analysis revealed a fairly even split across ethnic lines, with Indian and black African

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

4:31

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 509

students being slightly more dominant in numbers (35% each) than white students (30%). In total,64% of the class spoke English as their first language; 27% spoke isiZulu; and the remaining 9%spoke isiXhosa, Afrikaans, Setswana, SeSotho, siSwati, Urdu or French as their mother tongue.There were more females (58%) than males (42%).

Although this study has a particular South African focus, the issues raised should be ofrelevance to a much wider audience as most tertiary institutions are increasingly admittingstudents with diverse economic, cultural, educational and language backgrounds.

Approach to the study

Having identified plagiarism as a problem, tutorials were devised addressing the following issues:plagiarism; reading for understanding; accessing information; note-taking; essay-writing andessay structure; academic writing style; essay assessment criteria; and referencing. A number ofacademic papers were used in these tutorials to familiarise students with the discourse ofacademic writing. Tutorials were conducted in groups of 12–15 students, facilitated by a seniorpostgraduate tutor.

Towards the end of the semester students were required to write an essay as a major classassignment. Two academic journal papers were made available, and students were required tolocate at least one other printed academic resource. Students were invited to submit drafts of theiressay to their tutors or to me for feedback. In their final submission they were required to attacha signed declaration to the effect that the essay was not plagiarised, with plagiarism being definedas ‘using someone else’s ideas, words or data without proper acknowledgement, and presentingit as your own work’. Since the purpose of the intervention was for learning to take place, nopenalty was imposed for first-attempt plagiarism, although students were unaware of this at thetime.

Detection of plagiarism was done by me whilst marking the essays. An inconsistent qualityin the writing, use of complex or inappropriate language or jargon, lack of or incorrect citations,change in font and font size, and well-written text that was not related to the topic were all indi-cators of possible acts of plagiarism. The Google search facility was used to locate plagiarismfrom the internet. When a source was located and plagiarism confirmed, the essay was returned,with the suggestion that students consult with me before attempting a re-write. When I suspectedplagiarism but could not confirm it, students were called in and we jointly decided whether theiressay could be considered plagiarised. By using this method it is possible that a few plagiarisedessays went undetected. Second-time plagiarisers were again urged to consult, although they wereawarded zero for the assignment at this stage.

In order to evaluate the efficacy of the tutorial interventions two sources of data were used:first, from a detailed analysis of the essay assignments; and second, from the unstructured inter-views held with students who had plagiarised. Informed consent was obtained from all partici-pants with regard to their involvement in the research, with the interviews being taped and fullytranscribed.

Which students committed plagiarism?

Of the essays submitted, 39 (26%) were returned because of plagiarism (Table 1). Twenty-one ofthese students consulted with me to clarify issues, and a total of 32 essays were resubmitted forassessment. Of the resubmissions, six (19%) were still considered to be plagiarised and wereawarded zero.

Table 1 provides a breakdown of numbers of plagiarised essays submitted by different ethnic,language and gender groups. In terms of the assignment, 24% of English first-language speakers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

4:31

08

Oct

ober

201

4

510 K. Ellery

submitted plagiarised essays, compared with 29% submitted by English second-language speak-ers. In a gender breakdown, 33% of males and 20% of females in the class plagiarised in their firstsubmission. Based on ethnic differences, Indian students submitted the most plagiarised essays(16), closely followed by black African students (15) then white students (8), representing 30%,28% and 17% of the groups respectively. Of the six plagiarised essays from the second submis-sion, five were from Indian English first-language speakers. Two of these were females and threemales. The sixth student was a black African, male, English second-language speaker.

Chi-squared tests were conducted on each of the ethnic, gender and language groups forplagiarism in their first-submission essay to establish whether observed differences were statisti-cally significant. The results, summarised in Table 2, show that at the 0.05 significance level noneof the differences was statistically significant. Despite this, it is worth exploring the trends briefly.

Although a number of studies show cheating to be more common amongst males than females(Davis et al. 1992; Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead 1995; Newstead et al. 1996), none suggestsreasons for the observed trends. In studies on differences in moral behaviour, however, genderrole socialisation is suggested as a cause. Ward and Beck (1989) put forward that females have agreater dependency on external authority and are more accommodating with rules, and Leming(1980) found that females are more influenced by the threat of disciplinary procedures.

The literature also points to plagiarism being more prevalent in English second-languagestudents (Deckert 1993; Burnett 2002). Some view this as a result of not having developed thelanguage proficiency required of them (Cummins and Swain 1986; Burnett 2002). Others take abroader ‘literacy’ stance based on work by Gee, who defined literacy as ‘mastery or fluentcontrol over a secondary discourse’ (1990, 153), where secondary is referring to a discourse thatis not the ‘primary’ or ‘home’ discourse. From this point of view the university culture, normsand social practices are integral to academic literacy practices (Boughey 2002), which in this

Table 1. Demographics of plagiarisers.

Category No. in classNo. plagiarised (first attempt) %1

No. plagiarised (second attempt) %1

Indian 53 16 30 5 9Black African 53 15 28 1 2White 45 8 17 0 0English first language 97 23 24 5 5English second language 54 16 29 1 2Female 88 18 20 2 2Male 63 21 33 4 4Total 151 39 6

Note: 1n varies in each calculation, using the values in the second column.

Table 2. Chi-squared values for ethnic, language and gender groups – relating to plagiarism in the first-submission essay.

Variable Calculated χ2 value Degrees of freedom Significance

Ethnic 2.19 2 Not significantLanguage 0.66 1 Not significantGender 3.13 1 Not significant

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

4:31

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 511

study could favour English first-language students who have been more immersed in suchpractices. This may, in part, also explain the observed differences in ethnic groups, with Indianand black African students being more culturally and socially alienated from the Anglophoneenvironment of our university than white students. Leask comments that although all studentsare initially outsiders to the academic discourses, those who are ‘culturally distant from these[academic discourse] communities’ (2006, 188) – referred to as ‘cultural others’ (2006, 189) –need to make many fundamental adjustments to their value systems as well as learn new anddifficult skills. Furthermore, Leask (2006) remarks that the transition requires time and effort,with much support from staff. Interestingly, studies by Calabrese and Cochran (1990) andBannister and Ashworth (1998) have shown that alienation in this context can also result incheating behaviours.

The demographic patterns revealed in this study are interesting but, as has already been stated,the differences are not statistically significant. Perhaps the value of the findings lies in the factthat groups of students may be more at risk than others. Creative pedagogic responses to languagedifficulties, contextual and cultural alienation, motivation and attitudes towards authority, forexample, will evidently need to be sought. A tutorial on university culture that provides opportu-nities to discuss these issues is currently being incorporated into the teaching programme.

How and why did they plagiarise?

In recognising the difficulty in getting students to admit to inappropriate behaviour, I took greatcare during the interviews to emphasise that I did not view their behaviours as dishonest, and thatthey should use the opportunity to learn from the experience. The overwhelming impression withthe 21 interviewees was that plagiarism was inadvertent. Instead, most seemed perplexed aboutwhy they were considered to have plagiarised, and all were seeking better guidance than had beenprovided in this regard. However, it is recognised that deliberate dishonesty, driven by a desirefor better grades, is an oft-cited cause of plagiarism (Davis et al. 1992; Whiteman and Gordon2001; Straw 2002), and that some or all of the 18 students who avoided discussion of theirplagiarised essay in this study may have done so because of fraudulent intentions.

The issue of deliberate intent to deceive is closely linked to the likelihood of being found out.It has been shown that if students believe that there is only a small chance of being caught, or thatpunishment will be minor, they are prepared to risk plagiarising (Davis and Ludvigson 1995) orcheating (McCabe and Trevino 1993). In this study the chance of being caught was high. Studentswere well aware we were looking for plagiarism and that the expected punishment would besevere, as they were not informed initially that they would be given an opportunity to re-write.Despite this, a quarter of the students plagiarised in their assignments. Nonetheless, this repre-sents a considerable improvement from previous years where plagiarised essay assignments wereconsistently received from 40% or more of students.

Based on an analysis of the essays, six broad categories of plagiarism were recognised,although these groups are not necessarily mutually exclusive (Table 3). The majority of studentswho committed plagiarism had paraphrased but did not acknowledge their sources in the text (n= 28, Table 3). Upon enquiry, the students provided a number of reasons for this type of plagia-rism. These included being unaware of the need to acknowledge sources in text (n = 3, Table 4);thinking they were required to acknowledge an author only once (n = 4) or only for direct quotes(n = 6); being unaware of how to (n = 3), or indeed that they had to (n = 5), acknowledge aninternet source.

The second most widespread form of plagiarism was presentation of text that was very closeto the original, often with only one or two words changed (n = 22, see Table 3). Upon discussionwith students (n = 10, see Table 4) it was clear that they had felt the changes they had made, such

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

4:31

08

Oct

ober

201

4

512 K. Ellery

as the use of some synonyms, or the addition and omission of occasional words, were sufficient:‘but I did write it in my own words …’; ‘I’m sure I did change it, I didn’t just copy …’; ‘I thoughtI had changed it enough…’.

I frequently commented on the need for students to write in their own words, a concept thatparticularly concerned interviewees. A commonly expressed sentiment was that the more theychanged a text the less ‘factual’ or ‘academic’ or ‘good’ it sounded. As one English second-language student stated, ‘I don’t know so many fancy words, so if I write it [in my own words] itwon’t sound so good’. A few also expressed anxieties that in using their own words they wouldchange the meaning of the original text. These concerns indicate a lack of confidence in their ownability both in the academic writing discourse, which requires a certain style of expression, andin the discourse of the discipline, which depends on language and jargon with which many

Table 3. Broad categories of plagiarism identified in the students’ essays.

Form of plagiarism Number (n = 151)

Well paraphrased, but source not acknowledged in text 28Poor paraphrasing, with acknowledgement 22Originator of idea incorrectly acknowledged 20Verbatim (but not quoted), with acknowledgement 10Verbatim and no acknowledgement 17Verbatim off the internet 19

Table 4. Students’ understanding and perceptions of their plagiarism.

Students’ reasons for plagiarismNumber (n = 21) (%)

Poor understanding of what was required:

Students:– thought that changing one or a few words was acceptable 10 48– thought they only needed to acknowledge a source if it was a direct quote 6 29– thought verbatim text did not need quotation marks if acknowledged 5 24– did not know they had to reference off the internet 5 24– thought a reference list at the end was sufficient 4 19– thought that if they had referenced a source once, they did not need to again – especially

if it was in the same or next paragraph4 19

– didn’t know they had to reference in text 3 14– had difficulty knowing how to reference since everything they wrote was from a source 3 14– had been unsure of how to reference off the Internet 3 14– had never needed to reference off the Internet before 3 14– referenced correctly in some places and not others, but were unsure why 2 10– had written in their own words, and were unaware they had to acknowledge source 1 5

Other:

Students:– thought lecturers wanted facts, which meant it could not be in their own words 4 19– lack of in-text internet acknowledgement had not been penalised in other modules 3 14

had been pressed for time and stressed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

4:31

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 513

students are unfamiliar. For those whose first language is not English, writing in their own wordsmust be particularly difficult, as they lack the linguistic repertoire necessary for such writing. Hulland Rose (1990), Howard (1995) and Angélil-Carter all comment on the need for novice studentwriters to ‘try on’ (2000, 36) the discourse by copying closely and ‘borrowing’ (Pennycook 1996,227) words and phrases of others as a means of learning. Howard (1995) refers to this ‘patchwrit-ing’ as an essential phase in the learning of a new discourse. In this context, initial inadequaciesin paraphrasing would be viewed as an acceptable part of the learning process.

Another common form of plagiarism presented itself in the form of incorrect acknowledgementof origin of an idea (n = 20, Table 3). For example, if Visser wrote about and cited Smith’s work,many students incorrectly cited Visser as the originator of the idea. Discussion with the studentsrevealed that they perceived this to be purely a technical problem that could be mastered by learningthe rules. It is not surprising they took this superficial view, as referencing was addressed as suchin the module. Unfortunately correct acknowledgement is more complex and Angélil-Carter(2000) and Hendricks and Quinn (2000) suggest it is linked to recognition of authorial stance inacademic writing and how this is indicated through the use of language and referencing, as wellas to how academic texts are constructed. In this regard, Nightingale and Archer (2000) advocatethat, in order for students to improve their writing, issues around identity and voice need to beaddressed explicitly by teachers. Furthermore, in-depth exploration of the subtleties of the use oflanguage to establish the authorial voice is suggested (Angélil-Carter 2000). Although these issueswere touched on in one of the tutorials in this intervention, it clearly was insufficient for many.

Ten students presented verbatim text, without quotation marks but with acknowledgement(see Table 3). Those questioned on this all said they had understood this to be sufficient. A largernumber (17) had, however, copied text verbatim without quotations or any acknowledgement.Interestingly, these students had, with only one exception, copied and pasted from the internet.The reasons students provided for poor internet referencing were: uncertainty on how to do (n = 3,see Table 4), or the need for (n = 5), internet referencing; that lack of in-text acknowledgementof the internet in other modules had not been penalised (n = 3); and that they had never beenrequired to reference the internet before (n = 3). There is no doubt that the internet opens up aPandora’s Box in the plagiarism debate, and should be the focus of further investigation.

Students provided various reasons other than poor understanding for plagiarising (see Table4). Some felt lecturers wanted ‘facts’ which they understood to mean that it could not be in theirown words (n = 4, Table 3). Three students mentioned time constraints contributing to poor refer-encing. Silverman (2002) claims that time pressure, as a result of many competing social, finan-cial and academic demands on today’s students, is considered a major contributing factor towardsplagiarised assignments. Upon questioning the three students in this study it did not come acrossas an intentional attempt to cheat, but rather as having done their best under tight time constraints.As one student said: ‘I was working in such a hurry. Like, I had all my notes and things at thecomputer so I was just, like, typing in as fast as I could on the day [the essay had to be handedin]. It’s like … I wasn’t really thinking about referencing and all that….’

From the above discussion it is clear that the reasons given by students for plagiarising relatedmainly to poor understanding of what was required (see Table 4), despite having received directinstruction and practising of in-text and end-of-text referencing, quoting, paraphrasing, andrecognising common knowledge. However, it became clear in the discussions with the studentsthat one of the main underlying reasons for poor understanding was in fact a lack of real engage-ment with the issues at hand. As one student said: ‘I didn’t really take it [referencing] thatseriously because I have never done it before’; another commented that: ‘it seemed like a lot ofwork to do [referencing and avoiding plagiarism] and I didn’t … didn’t know how important it is…’; and for another student there was a serious lack of transfer: ‘I did not know we had to usewhat we learned in tutorials. You know, we just do the tutorials and then forget about them.’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

4:31

08

Oct

ober

201

4

514 K. Ellery

This inability or reluctance to engage therefore seems, in part, due to laziness and misreadingcues on matters of importance. It also could be related to the perception of writing as a productrather than as a process. Despite an open invitation to students, only nine presented drafts for feed-back in this study, suggesting few viewed writing as a process, and most were unaware of the impor-tance of feedback and rewriting in producing a good essay. Unless students take on this notion ofwriting as a process, with many stages of feedback and reworking resulting in a final product thatdiffers vastly from the first draft, it is likely we will continue to receive plagiarised essays. In thecontext of this study and future work, it is suggested that the process and learning view of writing,and construction view of knowledge, be acknowledged and discussed with students in a concreteway, with feedback on essay plans and drafts being a required part of the procedure.

Conclusion

Integrating plagiarism into an academic writing framework in which clear instruction is providedand with considerable opportunity for debate on what can be considered the norms of the disci-pline is a pedagogically sound approach and has clearly benefited students in this study. What hasbeen highlighted, however, is that acquiring attitudes, values, norms, beliefs and practices is anongoing and long-term process, and if we are serious about improving the writing skills ofstudents in general, and preventing plagiarism in particular, we need to acknowledge that ‘literacyis attained only by degrees’ (Taylor 1988, x). In other words, interventions such as these need tobe incorporated into the curriculum at all levels of study, in a variety of different ways and withsustained effort. Macdonald and Carroll (2006) suggest that low-stakes, formative assessmentprocedures are particularly useful in this regard.

With regard to addressing plagiarism in its overall context at a tertiary level, it seems logicalto assume that there comes a point where institutional disciplinary procedures must be broughtinto play. The findings in this study indicate that the first year may be too early for such drasticmeasures. However, the lack of real engagement in plagiarism and referencing issues by somestudents in this study also point towards a combined carrot (using pedagogical processes withongoing feedback and support) and stick (threat of discipline) approach being necessary from theoutset if we are to address plagiarism in any meaningful way.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Prof. Martie Sanders, Ms Jennifer Houghton, and two anonymousreviewers for their extremely helpful comments on drafts of the paper, and the students and tutorsfor their willing participation and honest feedback in the study. The study was funded by theQuality Promotions Unit of the University of KwaZulu-Natal.

Notes on contributor

Karen Ellery is an Educational Development lecturer in the School of Environmental Sciences at theUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal. She has an MSc in Plant Ecology and an MEd in Higher Education. Herresearch interests relate mainly to how students learn, and to developing autonomy, independence, respon-sibility and critical thought in learners.

References

Austin, Z., S. Simpson, and E. Reynen. 2005. ‘The fault lies not in our students, but in ourselves’:academic dishonesty and moral development in health professions education – results of a pilot studyin Canadian pharmacy. Teaching in Higher Education 10, no. 2: 143–56.

Angélil-Carter, S. 2000. Stolen language? Plagiarism in writing. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

4:31

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 515

Ashworth, P., P. Bannister, and P. Thorne. 1997. Guilty in whose eyes? University students’ perceptions ofteaching and plagiarism in academic work and assessment. Studies in Higher Education 22, no. 2:187–203.

Bannister, P., and P. Ashworth. 1998. Four good reasons for cheating and plagiarism. In Improving studentlearning: improving students as learners, ed. C. Rust, 233–40. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff andLearning Development.

Bennet, R. 2006. Factors associated with student plagiarism in a post-1992 university. Assessment andEvaluation in Higher Education 31, no. 2: 137–62.

Björkland, M., and C.-G. Wenestam. 1999. Academic teaching: frequency, methods and causes. InProceedings of the 1999 European Conference on Educational Research, Lahti, Finland. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/;00001364.htm.

Boughey, C. 2002. ‘Naming’ students’ problems: an analysis of language-related discourses at a SouthAfrican University. Teaching in Higher Education 7, no. 3: 295–307.

Burnett, S. 2002. Dishonor and distrust. Community College Week 14, no. 24: 6–8.Calabrese, R.L., and J.T. Cochran. 1990. The relationship of alienation to cheating among a sample of

American adolescents. Journal of Research and Development in Education 23, no. 2: 65–72.Carroll, J. 2000. How to avoid plagiarism. http:www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsd/2 learntch/plagiarism.

html.Culwin, F. 2006. An active introduction to academic misconduct and the measured demographics of

misconduct. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 31, no. 2: 167–82.Cummins, J., and M. Swain. 1986. Bilingualism in education: aspects of theory, research and practice.

London: Longman.Davis, S.F., C.A., Grover, A.H. Becker, and L.N. McGregor. 1992. Academic dishonesty: prevalence,

determinants, techniques and punishments. Teaching of Psychology 19: 16–20.Davis, S.F., and H.W. Ludvigson. 1995. Additional data on academic dishonesty and a proposal for reme-

diation. Teaching of Psychology 22, no. 2: 119–21.Deckert, G.D. 1993. Perspectives on plagiarism from ESL students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second

Language Writing 2, no. 2: 131–48.Franklyn-Stokes, A., and S.E. Newstead. 1995. Undergraduate cheating: who does what and why? Studies

in Higher Education 20, no. 2: 159–72.Gee, J. 1990. Sociolinguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.Goodman, B. 1996. What is misconduct? The Scientist 10, no. 2: 8–9.Hendricks, M., and L. Quinn. 2000. Teaching referencing as an introduction to epistemological empower-

ment. Teaching in Higher Education 5, no. 4: 447–57.Howard, R.M. 1995. Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English 57, no. 7:

788–806.Hull, G., and M. Rose. 1990. Toward a social-cognitive understanding of problematic reading and writing.

In The right to literacy, eds A.A. Lunsford, H. Moglen and J. Slevin. New York: Modern LanguageAssociation of America.

Karlesky, J., and G. Stephenson. 1971. Student disciplinary proceedings: some preliminary questions.Journal of Higher Education 42, no. 8: 648–56.

Kuehn, P., D. Stanwyck, and C. Holland. 1990. Attitudes towards cheating behaviours in the ESL class-room. Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Quarterly 24, no. 2: 313–17.

Larkham, P.J., and S. Manns. 2002. Plagiarism and its treatment in higher education. Journal of Furtherand Higher Education 26, no. 4: 339–49.

Leask, B. 2006. Plagiarism, cultural diversity and metaphor – implications for academic staff development.Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 31, no. 2: 183–99.

Leming, J.S. 1980. Cheating behaviour, subject variables and components of the internal–external scaleunder high and low-risk conditions. Journal of Educational Research 74, no. 2: 83–7.

Macdonald, R., and J. Carroll. 2006. Plagiarism – a complex issue requiring a holistic institutionalapproach. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 31, no. 2: 233–45.

McCabe, D.L., and L.K. Trevino. 1993. Academic dishonesty: honor codes and other contextualinfluences, Journal of Higher Education 64, no. 5: 522–38.

———. 2002. Honesty and honor codes. Academe 88, no. 1: 37–42.Myers, S. 1998. Questioning author(ity): ESL/EFL, science and teaching about plagiarism. Teaching of

English as a Second Language (TESL) – Electronic Journal 3, no. 2: 11–20.Newstead, S., A. Franklyn-Stokes, and P. Armstead. 1996. Individual differences in student teaching.

Journal of Educational Psychology 88, no. 2: 229–41.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

4:31

08

Oct

ober

201

4

516 K. Ellery

Nightingale, P., and A. Archer. 2000. Improving student writing. In Improving teaching and learning inhigher education: a handbook for Southern Africa, ed. S. Makoni, 131–66. Johannesburg: Witwa-tersrand University Press.

Norton, L.S., A.J. Tilley, S.E. Newstead, and A. Franklyn-Stokes. 2001. The pressures of assessment inundergraduate courses and their effect on student behaviours. Assessment and Evaluation in HigherEducation 26, no. 3: 269–84.

Park, C. 2003. In other (people’s) words: plagiarism by university students – literature and lessons. Assess-ment and Evaluation in Higher Education 28, no. 5: 471–88.

Pennycook, A. 1996. Borrowing others’ words: text, ownership, memory and plagiarism. Teaching ofEnglish to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Quarterly 30, no. 2: 201–30.

Pickard, J. 2006. Staff and student attitudes to plagiarism at University College Northampton. Assessmentand Evaluation in Higher Education 31, no. 2: 215–32.

Procter, M. 2003. Deterring plagiarism. http://www.utoronto.ca/writing/plagiary.html.Roach, R. 2001. Safeguarding against online cheating. Black Issues in Higher Education 18, no. 8: 92.Silverman, G. 2002. It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s plagiarism buster! Newsweek July 15: 12.Straw, D. 2002. The plagiarism of generation ‘why not?’ Community College Week 14, no. 24: 4–7.Taylor, G. 1988. Preface. In Literacy by degrees, eds G. Taylor, B. Ballard, V. Beasley, H.K. Bock, J.

Clanchy, and P. Nightingale, ix–x. Milton Keynes: Society for Research into Higher Educationand Open University Press.

Walden, K., and A. Peacock. 2006. The i-Map: a process-centered response to plagiarism. Assessment andEvaluation in Higher Education 31, no. 2: 201–14.

Ward, D.A., and W.I. Beck. 1989. Gender and dishonesty. Journal of Social Psychology 130: 333–39.Whiteman, S.A., and J.L. Gordon. 2001. The price of an A: an educator’s responsibility to academic

honesty. English Journal 91, no. 2: 25–31.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

4:31

08

Oct

ober

201

4