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

ACADEMIC PLAGIARISM - A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY OF INTERNET INFLUENCES AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

Antnio Bota *
* - Licenciado em Literatura Inglesa; Mestre em Ensinar Ingls como Lingua Segunda, INUAF, Ambota@mail.com

ABSTRACT The problem of cheating is not a new issue in the academic context. However, the recent growth and popularity of the Internet, which has increased over 300% during the last decade, brought into the academic setting new opportunities for those who plagiarize to achieve their goals. This study, in order to perceive different cultural views on traditional and digital forms of academic dishonesty, explored and compared students in the U.S. and students in Portugal. It was found that forms of traditional plagiarism are equally known in both settings and students do indeed plagiarize from traditional sources. Furthermore, results suggest that the frequency with which students use the Internet is not associated to a higher plagiarism propensity. There was found, however, a higher propensity to take others ideas from online sources when students from the U.S setting used the Internet for school purposes, whereas students in Portugal showed similar propensity for taking papers from the Internet. This propensity was correlated to the easiness of access and download available information. Moreover, this work presents the opinions of topic-expert teachers on pedagogical strategies that could help reducing plagiarism amongst students. RESUMO (Portuguese) O problema do plgio no uma questo nova no contexto acadmico. No entanto, o recente crescimento e popularidade da Internet, que aumentou mais de 300% durante a ltima dcada, trouxe para o ambiente acadmico novas oportunidades para aqueles que plagiam para atingir os seus objectivos. O presente estudo, a fim de perceber diferentes pontos de vista culturais em relao s formas "tradicionais" e "digitais" de desonestidade acadmica, explorou e comparou alunos dos E.U. com alunos em Portugal. Apurou-se que as formas tradicionais de plgio so conhecidas e practicadas em ambos os contextos e que os alunos de facto plagiam atravs de formas tradicionais. Alm disso, os resultados sugerem que a frequncia com que os alunos

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

usam a Internet no est associada a uma maior propenso para o plgio. Verificou-se, entretanto, uma maior propenso para plagiar idias dos outros a partir de fontes online quando os estudantes nos E.U. utilizam a Internet para fins escolares enquanto que os alunos em Portugal mostram semelhante propenso mas para plagiar trabalhos existentes na Internet. Existe uma correlaco entre esta propenso e a facilidade de acesso e de download das informaes disponiveis. Este trablaho apresenta ainda as opinies de professores especializados no assunto de plagio acadmico numa perspectiva de encontrar estratgias pedaggicas que possam contribuir para a reduo de plgio entre os estudantes.

Keywords: Academic dishonesty; Academic plagiarism; Cheating; Internet and Plagiarism; process oriented assessment; Plagiarism in Portugal; Plagiarism in the U.S. INTRODUCTION The Internet is one of the biggest innovations of the last decade and it is influencing the lives of many around the world. It is very trendy at the moment, and in the last decade, according to the World Internet Statistics (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm), it has expanded over 380% across the globe. In the US alone, its growth reached 138% while in Portugal, since the year 2000, the Internet reached 175% of growth. Both in Portugal and in the U.S., nowadays, almost every school has Internet available for its students and, it is becoming rare to find one household without an Internet connection. Thus, the possibilities for academic dishonesty in schools, if a reality before the Internet era, seem now to have increased substantially due to the facility with which any one can access online sources. For example, students have free access to study guides, quick notes, and critical analyzes for almost any academic topic and to any class assignment, from sites such as www.pinkmonkey.com, http://www.ukessays.co.uk,

www.sparknotes.com, including theses or even dissertations on demand and with guaranteed of confidentiality and originality. Even though academic dishonesty has always been around, recent researches seem to indicate that it is growing dramatically amongst college students. Some researchers have suggested that the Internet has contributed to this epidemic problem (e.g., Rumbought, 2001; Scanlon & Neumann, 2002). The Internet offers resources such as

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

encyclopedias and a plethora of available works from which students can copy and paste or perform complete downloads about multiple school subjects. There is a large volume of research examining academic plagiarism in the U.S., but, in sharp contrast, there is scant work to rely on when it comes to learn about this issue in Portuguese schools. The present study, far from being exhaustive on plagiarism issues, aims to explore cross cultural views of Internet influence on academic plagiarism amongst students in the U.S. and students in Portugal, thus, contributing to the existent data. Additionally, it examines the opinion of field experienced teachers with regard to pedagogical strategies to reduce plagiarism. Research Questions To gain a better cross-cultural understanding of how students perceive plagiarism and of their motivations, if any, for plagiarizing in English writing classes, especially from online sources, the researcher developed and administered a survey to student participants aiming to explore six research questions, as follows: (1) How does learner knowledge about plagiarism differ among students in colleges in Portugal versus students in English as a Second Language (ESL) writing courses in colleges in the U.S.? (2) How does learner awareness of a school honour code and teacher lectures about plagiarism differ among students in colleges in Portugal versus students in English as a Second Language (ESL) writing courses in colleges in the U.S.? (3) How does learner awareness of other students plagiarism differ among students in colleges in Portugal versus students in English as a Second Language (ESL) writing courses in colleges in the U.S.? (4) How does learner usage of the Internet differ among students in colleges in Portugal versus students in English as a Second Language (ESL) writing courses in colleges in the U.S.? (5) How do learner reports of committing plagiarism differ among students in colleges in Portugal versus students in English as a Second Language (ESL) writing courses in colleges in the U.S.? (6) To what extent are learners reported plagiarism practices associated with learner knowledge about plagiarism, perceptions of other students plagiarism, perceptions of teacher and school attitudes about plagiarism, and usage of the Internet among students in colleges in Portugal versus students in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing courses in colleges in the U.S.? This last research question generated 8 hypotheses that are discussed in the findings section. With the purpose to gather reports of teachers regarding their experience with pedagogical models of process-oriented assessment and whether such pedagogical

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

models help reduce the amount of plagiarism, a 5 open-ended questionnaire was designed and answered by experienced teachers in the field of ESL/EFL and across curriculum. The reports of teachers aim to clarify the last research question: (7) Do teachers believe that a pedagogical model of process-oriented assessment of writing lessens the amount of plagiarism in colleges Portugal and in the U.S.?

LITERATURE REVIEW Academic plagiarism is a big concern in schools and University campuses worldwide. It might vary amongst different cultures but there is common agreement about what academic dishonesty means. Kibler (1993) defines academic dishonesty as forms of cheating and plagiarism that involve students giving or receiving unauthorized assistance in an academic exercise or receiving credit for work that is not their own. James et al. (2002, p.5), argues that plagiarism varies in both intent and extent, ranging from deliberate fraud, to negligent or accidental failure to acknowledge sources of paraphrased material and misunderstandings about the conventions of authorship. Moreover, Burke (1997) defines that plagiarism is intentionally using or attempting to use unauthorized materials, information, or study aids in any academic exercise. In terms of types of plagiarism, many have been mentioned, including when students hand in someone else's work as their own, copy words or ideas from someone else without giving credit, use someone elses words without quotation marks, give incorrect information about the source of a quotation, copy full paragraphs and change the word order without giving credit, copy ideas that make up the majority of the work and do not mention authorship, and copy-and-paste or simply purchase works from online papermills (McCabe and Trevino, 1996; McCabe et al., 2003; McCabe, 2005; Rumbought, 2001; Cabe, 2003; Rocha & Teixeira, 2005, 2006). Although plagiarism is not a new issue in academia, there has been a proliferation of published work, in recent years, which might indicate that this issue is on the rise. Hawley (1984) surveyed 425 students with regards to their behaviors at school and reported that over 12% admitted asking someone to write a paper for them, and about 25% of these students agreed that plagiarism was common and acceptable. Collinson (1990, cited in Lawson, 2004) found that 37% of the surveyed students reported acts of cheating on their high school exams. Moreover, Bunn et al. (1992) researched two undergraduate courses in the U.S. and found that almost half of the students surveyed

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

admitted to having cheated with 80% considering cheating to be normal and known amongst them. Additionally, Davis et al. (1992) surveyed more than 6000 students where about 75% of the respondents admitted cheating in high school and college. To complete this brief scenario, there are researchers who claim that academic dishonesty is increasing and, progressively, influencing more followers (e.g., Haines et al., 1987; Davis et al., 1992; Burke, 1997; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; McCabe, 2005). A vast majority of the empirical studies exploring plagiarism issues focus on factors that influence plagiarism in the American context. For instance, motivation and seeking for high marks have been pointed as influencing factors (e.g., Whitley, 1998; Kerkvliet & Sigmund, 1999; Sheard et al., 2003;). Another factor extensively explored is the existence of an honour code at school (e.g., Kerkvliet & Sigmund, 1999; McCabe et al., 2003). And, amongst many different factors, the cheating environment or peer influence in the classroom was also object of research (Bunn et al., 1992; Genereux & McLeod, 1995; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Rocha & Teixeira, 2005, 2006). In the Portuguese context, even though scant, plagiarism and its motivations have been studied specially through the work of Rocha & Teixeira (2005, 2006). Rocha and Teixeira (2005) surveyed 2675 undergraduate students from main Portuguese public universities and found that the phenomenon exists and its propensity increases with the expectation of benefits and varies according to the area of the country, with a conclusion that an outstanding 92 % of Portuguese students have embraced cheating at least once. Moreover, undertaking one of the most exhaustive comparative researches on the topic, Rocha & Teixeira (2006) surveyed a total of 7213 students from 21 different countries, being 2805 subjects from 11 Universities across Portugal. The Portuguese students, from Economics and Business courses, were found to have values of cheating around 62%. The only country with higher number of incidences was Romania where dishonest students reached 94.0% of the inquired. Until recently, most studies explored traditional contexts where the Internet was not considered with a role on plagiarism. Some educators and researchers, however, claim that the rise on plagiarism is related to the spread of the Internet, since everyone relies on online sources to find information. Rumbought (2001) conducted a 55 item survey with 985 American college students and found that, amongst many different purposes, 17 % used the Internet to cheat on school assignments, being 19 % identified as students who copy and paste from the Internet without giving credit. McLenann (2003) reports that Scheidermair, a professor and the head of the German Universities

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

Association, admits that one third of all essays submitted to German Universities are plagiarized via the Internet. Moreover, Scheidermair is quoted to say that students are paying to [get] content for their essays from help sites. Moreover, in the UK, and due to the rise of academic cheating on different campuses, the author reports that more than 70 Universities have already signed up for software that detects Internet illegal copying. Lester (2002), however, surveyed four hundred fifty-three students and found that over 80 % had cheated using traditional methods and only about 12% had used the Internet to plagiarize. Scanlon & Neumann (2002) administered a survey to 698 college students from nine universities across America and reported that a minority of the surveyed students were found to have used the Internet to copy and paste text into their own papers without giving credit to sources they used in their writings, which declines the idea that the Internet is the major reason for the recent rise on academic plagiarism, taking into consideration these students were considered frequent users (at least 3 or 4 times a week) of the Internet. If results differ and reasons are various, most researchers agree that to curb down plagiarism, teachers must take preventive measures. A plethora of published papers is available with advice to reduce plagiarism ranging from limiting the opportunities for prospective plagiarizers on exams and assignments to take different approaches on assessing students writing outcomes. Tribble (1996) refers to a process-oriented assessment when assessing and giving feedback to students' writing skills as the student progresses through a series of drafts instead of just one moment of evaluation. Zamel (1987) shares the same opinion and reaffirms that teaching English language through writing should be teaching the language by using the creativity of the individual writer and not teaching with existent writing models. There are other authors who also prefer this type of methodologies and assessment, adding that a series of comments on different drafts, until the final product is achieved with expected quality, reduces the motivation students might have to plagiarize (Diffley & Lapp, 1998; Ferris, 2003; Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005). Then, the opinions of experienced teachers who deal with plagiarism issues in class should not be left aside and are also included in this paper.

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

METHODOLOGY Procedures This study was conducted between the winter and summer 2009. It has two types of participants: student participants and teacher participants. Students were required to have at least high school level of English, being enrolled in an English writing class, and be at least 18 years old. They participated voluntarily and after being explained (by the researcher) the purposes of the survey, and upon individual permission, they filled in the surveys keeping anonymity. After surveys were collected, they were marked with a demographic code for each school, and all survey items were entered into crosstabulations with chi-squares that examined differences between students from the U.S. academic setting and from the Portuguese. Scales were created to better classify the items. A scale for awareness of plagiarism included items 3 (recoded 0 = not aware, 1 = aware), 4 (recoded 0 = not aware, 1 = aware), 5a, b, and c; and 18 (recoded 0 = not aware, 1 = aware). It had an acceptable level of internal reliability, with Cronbachs alpha above .50 for students in the U.S. (alpha = .58) and students in Portugal (alpha = .54). A scale for knowing peers who plagiarize from the Internet (question 13) or from printed sources (question 14) was also constructed; alpha was .81 for students in Portugal and .67 for students in the U.S. Additionally two scales were constructed for plagiarism practices. One had to do with using ideas from others work as ones own, and included items 11a, b, c and d. Cronbachs alpha was .62 for students in Portugal and .74 for students in the U.S. Another scale had to do with copying others work as ones own, and included items 6, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 16 (use same items). Cronbachs alpha was .58 for students in Portugal and .79 for students in the U.S. Teachers participants were randomly invited via e-mail as they listed their e-mail addresses on their published works. Their reply, as explained, meant their consent to participate. Student Participants Initially, 47 responses from City College of San Francisco (CCSF), 21 from San Francisco State University (SFSU), 16 from the Universidade de Evora (UE) [University of Evora, Portugal], and 14 from the Universidade Nova de Lisboa (UNL) [New University of Lisbon, Portugal], were collected. Participants were informed about the details of their participation before they anonymously answered the survey. This study, after eliminating those surveys that were incomplete or whose anonymity was not completely secure, had a final count of 58 participants attending colleges in the U.S. and

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

28 participants attending colleges in Portugal. There were two subcultures (2 Latino students and 6 Asian students) in the group of students from the U.S. but since statistical analysis did not reveal any differences amongst them or comparing them with the other subjects, all are considered part of the same culture for this purpose. Picture 1 depicts the final participation for analysis.

Teachers Participants To avoid any type of conflict between teachers and their students, teachers who were teaching classes from which students participated were not invited or allowed to respond the 5 open-ended questions survey. Instruments There are four methods of collecting data on academic plagiarism (Kerkvliet and Sigmund, 1999). The method of "inspection via direct questions and answers" was used in this study. The decision was based on the fact that several studies of academic dishonesty use this same procedure (e.g., Bunn et al., 1992; Sheard et al., 2003; Rocha & Teixeira, 2005, 2006). The student questionnaire was comprised of a 20-item survey questionnaire. There were several categories of questions such as awareness of plagiarism, social context of plagiarism (know students who plagiarize, teacher spoke about plagiarism, honour code at school), frequency and type of Internet usage, motivations for plagiarizing, and types of plagiarizing behaviors students have performed. Some questions were presented as binary (yes-no) items, others in a five-point Likert-scale items and some others were presented in a multiple choice from where participants could choose a single answer or as many as applied. Due to the sensitivity of the topic, some questions were asked more than once to verify its accurateness, or were asked in different sections of the survey.

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

Table 1 shows the strategy in which different questions from different groups were analyzed together. Table 1 -Research Questions and Most Important Corresponding Questions ______________________________________________________________________ Research questions Questions ______________________________________________________________________ 1. Learner knowledge about plagiarism 3, 4, 5a-d, 18 2. Awareness of other students plagiarism 13, 14 3. Awareness of school honour code 19, 20 and frequency of teacher lectures on plagiarism 4. Learner use of Internet For school-related information and chat rooms 7, 8b, d, 10a For English classes 8e, 10b Use ideas found with search engines 12b Use ideas found from on-line resources 8a, c All other items 11, 12c, d 5. Learner reports of committing plagiarism Copy from others, use hidden notes 6b 6. All other items Other questions ______________________________________________________________________ The teachers questionnaire was comprised of a five open-ended questions. It aimed to collect diverse answers from experienced teachers or researchers in the field of English composition and ESL/EFL. The criterion for formulating the questionnaire was developed upon concerns regarding teaching practices to lessen students plagiarism. The data collected from the instrument used for students was entered into crosstabulations with chi-squares and t-tests to examine differences between cultures and subcultures (e.g., Asian and Hispanic students in the U.S.). all data was correlated with items about awareness of plagiarism, social context of plagiarism, Internet usage, and motivation to plagiarize; Spearmans one-tailed correlations were used. The analysis of the data received via teachers responses was done similarly to what McCabe et al. (1999) previously did. To identify trends, notable insights, and pedagogically useful opinions, answers were read holistically to find any recurring trends. Then, those trends were extracted and grouped into topics and sub-topics. Tests were also performed for significance of frequency of trends and other significant comments. PART I FINDINGS of the STUDENT SURVEY The results of this study are presented in two parts. The first reports the results of the survey administered to students attending colleges in the U.S. (hereafter called Group U) and in Portugal (hereafter called Group P) and links the results with the first six

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

research questions. The second part reports the opinions collected from the open-ended teacher questionnaire and addresses the seventh research question. To address the first six research questions of this study, the two sets of data were collected and then analyzed and compared: one from Group U and one from Group P. Despite that there are 22 questions in the survey this paper will depict only those questions which are significant for the cross cultural understanding of Internet influences on academic plagiarism or to understand the dimension of this academic concern.

Research Question 1 (Survey questions 3, 4, 5 and 18) asked how learner knowledge about plagiarism differs among students in both settings. Question 3 asked participants to agree or disagree with the statement that to plagiarize is to take and turn in anothers person ideas, writing, or inventions as ones own. From observing the results, it is clear that the majority of students self-reported being aware of the definition of plagiarism stated in the dictionary. There is a marginally significant difference between students in Group U and in Group P, with students in Portugal being slightly more aware of the definition. Question 4 asked whether participants agreed or disagreed that plagiarism also includes cheating from hidden notes and the use of others works as ones own. Results from a cross-tabulation with chi-squares indicate that most students understand that cheating from hidden notes is also a form of plagiarism, with no difference between the two groups. Question 5 asked participants whether they confirm being considered plagiarists if engaging in different forms of plagiarism. This question showed that most students are aware what is considered plagiarism. It is also clear that there was no significant difference in plagiarism awareness between students in the two settings. Question 18 asked students if they believed that they could copy works from the Internet without citation because that work is in the public domain. Cross-tabulations with chi squares, depicted in table 2, indicate that about 60% of all participants understood that it was wrong to copy from the Internet without citation. Overall, about 20% each of participants were not sure or agreed that copying from the Internet without citing was acceptable because the work is in the public domain.

10

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

Table 2 - Copy from Internet without citation because work is in public domain: Cross-tabulations with chi squares ______________________________________________________________________ ________Setting_________ Total _U.S._ Portugal N % N % N % X2 df p ______________________________________________________________________ Copy from Internet without citation because work is in public domain Disagree Dont know Agree 44 60% 13 18% 17 23% 26 57% 10 22% 10 22% 18 64% 1.46 3 11% 7 25% 2 .48

______________________________________________________________________

Research Question 2 (survey question 19 and 20) asked how does learner awareness of a school honour code and teacher lectures about plagiarism differs among students in both settings. Question 19 asked if the college the student was attending had a code of honour, meaning the school had rules regarding consequences for acts of plagiarism. Answers showed that few students reported that they knew the school had an honour code regarding plagiarism, and the majority didnt know or said no. Students from Group P were significantly more likely not to know than students in Group U. Question 20 asked whether or not the participants had received academic instruction regarding plagiarism practices and its consequences. Results from t-tests comparing both groups showed that Group U was more likely to report that their teachers more often told them about plagiarism and its academic consequences.

Research Question 3 (Survey question 13 and 14) asked how learner awareness of other students plagiarism differs among students in both settings. Question 13 asked if participants knew any other student who had copied from the Internet and used works as his/her own, and question 14 asked if participants knew any other students who had copied from printed sources and used the work as his/her own. Table 3 depicts results from t-tests that show that compared to students from Group U, students of group P were significantly more likely to know other students who had plagiarized for classes using printed sources and were marginally more likely to know other students who had used the Internet to plagiarize for English classes. Half of students in Portugal knew at least one student who had plagiarized from the Internet for

11

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

an English class compared to 32% of students in the U.S. Regarding traditional sources of plagiarism, 61% of students in Portugal knew at least one student who had plagiarized from books for any class compared to 33% of students in the U.S.

Table 3 - Social context for plagiarism: T-tests ______________________________________________________________________ _______Setting______ Social context for plagiarism N M (S.D.) t df p ______________________________________________________________________ Know students who plagiarized from books for any class U.S. setting Portugal 49 28 1.41 (.64)-2.79 1.93 (.86) 44.54.008

Know students who plagiarized from Internet for English classes U.S. setting Portugal 48 26 1.42 (.68)-1.95 1.81 (.90) 40.89.06

______________________________________________________________________ Items coded 1 = Dont know any students who plagiarized, 2 = Know one student who plagiarized, 3 = Know some or many students who plagiarized Research Question 4 (Survey question 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12) asked how learner usage of the Internet differs among students in both settings. Question 7 asked students to self-report their frequency of usage of Internet resources. Table 4 depicts their answers showing that in both groups, more than half of the students used the Internet at least once a day, with no significant difference in frequency of usage between the groups. Table 4 - Students frequency of the Internet usage: Cross-tabulation with chi squares ______________________________________________________________________ ________Setting_________ Total _U.S._ Portugal Frequency of Internet usage N % N % N % X2 df p ______________________________________________________________________ A few times a week or less 32 38% 19 34% 13 46% 2.43 2 .30 Once a day Several times a day 9 11% 43 51% 5 9% 4 14% 11 39%

32 57%

______________________________________________________________________

12

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

Question 8 asked students their main reason(s) to use the Internet. Table 5 shows that students in both settings reported they were most likely to use the Internet to check email, followed by finding information related to their studies. Finding non-school-related information and chatting on-line appeared to be less popular ways to use the Internet. Compared to students in the U.S. setting, students in Portugal were more likely to report using the Internet to find school-related information and to chat on-line, and were less likely to report using the Internet to find information for their English classes. Table 5 - Students usage of the Internet: Cross-tabulation with chi squares ______________________________________________________________________ ________Setting_________ Total _U.S._ Portugal Usage of the Internet N % N % N % X2 df p ______________________________________________________________________ Type of Internet usage Check e-mail 77 92% 51 91% 26 93% .08 1 .78 Find school-related information 57 68% 34 61% 23 82% 3.93 1 .05 Find non-school-related information 44 52% 28 50% 16 57% .38 1 .54 Chat on-line 42 50% 23 41% 19 68% 5.36 1 .03 Find information for English classes 37 44% 31 55% 6 21% 8.72 1.003 Question 10 asked students for which classes they would use works from the Internet. Table 6 shows that the majority of students self-reported not using works from the Internet for their college classes. About one-fifth of the participants said they would use the Internet for a variety of classes, and fewer reported using works from the Internet for English classes or both English and other classes. Table 6 - Use of works from the Internet for English classes and other classes: Cross-tabulations with chi squares ______________________________________________________________________ ________Setting_________ Total _U.S._ Portugal Use of works from the Internet N % N % N % X2 df p ______________________________________________________________________ Types of classes for which works are used None 48 60% 29 56% 19 68% 3.24 3 .36 A variety of classes 16 20% 10 19% 6 21% English classes only 10 13% 9 17% 1 4% English classes and other classes 6 8% 4 8% 2 7% ______________________________________________________________________ Question 11 asked how students have copied from Internet resources for their schoolwork. Table 7 shows that slightly more than half of the students in Group U said

13

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

they copy ideas from the Internet and develop them as their own, compared to about one-third of Group P students who reported doing the same. Slightly more than half of the students in Portugal reported that they had never copied works from the Internet. Only about 5% of students reported copying whole sentences, and only about 1% reported copying whole paragraphs or papers. Table 7 - How students have used the Internet for schoolwork: Cross-tabulation with chi squares ______________________________________________________________________ ________Setting_________ Total _U.S._ Portugal Usage of the Internet N % N % N % X2 df p ______________________________________________________________________ Copy ideas and develop them 41 49% 31 55% 10 36% 2.88 1 .09 Never done it 37 44% 22 39% 15 54% 1.55 1 .21 Copy whole sentences 4 5% 2 4% 2 7% .53 1 .47 Copy and pasted whole paragraphs 1 1% 0 0% 1 4% 2.02 1 .33 Copy whole papers 1 1% 0 0% 1 4% 2.02 1 .33

Question 12 asked students which on-line sources they used when searching for articles for their schoolwork. Table 8 shows that the most commonly reported source used on the Internet was ideas found with search engines, followed by the use of academic online resources such as Wikipedia. Overall, about one-third of students reported reading essays on free web-sites. Very few students reported buying papers from on-line papermill resources. Compared to Group U students, group P self-reported much higher usage of the Internet for finding ideas with search engines and using on-line resources. Table 8 - Students usage of Internet resources: Cross-tabulations with chi squares ______________________________________________________________________ ________Setting_________ Total _U.S._ Portugal Usage of Internet resources N % N % N % X2 df p ______________________________________________________________________ Use ideas found with search engines50 60% 25 45% 25 89%15.44 1.0001 Use on-line resources (Wikipedia) Read essays on free web-sites Buy papers from paper-mills 33 39% 24 29% 3 4% 14 25% 14 25% 3 5% 19 68%14.37 10 36% 1.05 0 0% 1.56 1.0001 1 .31 1 .55

______________________________________________________________________

14

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

Research Question 5 (Survey questions 6, 9, 15, 16 and 17) asked how learner reports of committing plagiarism differ among students in colleges in both settings. Question 6 asked participants to describe the type of students they see themselves as being with regards to academic plagiarism. Table 9 shows that, overall, students from both settings were more likely to report using the Internet for writing compositions than turning in homework done by others or cheating with electronic devices, with no significant differences across settings. Students in Group P were more likely to report traditional methods of cheating, such as copying from their peers or using hidden notes than students in Group U. Table 9 - Reports of plagiarism practices: Cross-tabulations with chi squares ______________________________________________________________________ ________Setting_________ Total _U.S._ Portugal Reports of plagiarism practices N % N % N % X2 df p ______________________________________________________________________ Use texts from the Internet when 22 27% 17 31% 5 18% 1.62 1 .20 writing compositions Copy from others, use hidden notes 11 13% Turn in homework done by others Cheat with electronic devices None of the above 9 11% 3 4% 1 2% 10 36%18.54 3 11% .00 0 0% 1.59 1.0001 1 .98 1 .55 1 .39

6 11% 3 6%

47 57%

33 60%

14 50% .76

______________________________________________________________________ Question 9 asked students about their frequency of taking someones ideas from the Internet and using them as their own. Table 10 below shows that about half of students in both settings self-reported not taking ideas from the Internet and using them as their own. About a quarter in each setting self-reported engaging in this practice at least once, and the same percentages reported engaging in this practice a few times. Only two students in the U.S. setting admitted doing so very often, which imply that there was no significant difference between settings.

15

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

Table 10 - Frequency of taking others ideas from the Internet: Cross-tabulation with chi-squares ______________________________________________________________________ ________Setting_________ Total _U.S._ Portugal Frequency of taking others ideas N % N % N % X2 df p ______________________________________________________________________ Never 43 51% 28 50% 15 54%1.10 3 .78 At least once A few times Very often 20 24% 19 23% 2 2% 13 23% 13 23% 2 4% 7 6 0 25% 21% 0%

______________________________________________________________________

Question 15 asked participants if they had bought papers from other students who had taken the course before and turned them in as their own, and question 16 asked if participants had bought papers from paper mill web-sites and turned them in as their own. Table 11, depicting results from cross-tabulations with chi-squares, shows that almost 90% of students in both settings reported that they never bought and turned in papers from other students, and a slightly higher percentage reported that they never bought and turned in papers from on-line paper mills. Table 11 - Frequency of buying work from others or from the Internet: Crosstabulation with chi-squares ______________________________________________________________________ ________Setting_________ Total _U.S._ Portugal Frequency of buying work N % N % N % X2 df p ______________________________________________________________________ Buy papers from other students who have taken the course before Never At least once or several times Buy papers from paper mills Never At least once or several times 75 93% 6 7% 50 94% 3 6% 25 89% .68 3 11% 1 .41 68 87% 10 15% 45 88% 6 12% 23 85% .15 4 15% 1 .70

______________________________________________________________________ Next, question 17 asked students the reasons to use works downloaded from the Internet. When participants were asked to self-report their reasons for using works from the Internet for their English classes, the majority reported never using works from the Internet for those classes. The most common reason for using works from the Internet

16

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

for English classes had to do with the difficulty of writing in English. There were no significant differences in these items for the two settings. Research Question 6 explores to what extent are learners reported plagiarism practices associated with learner knowledge about plagiarism, perceptions of other students plagiarism, perceptions of teacher and school attitudes about plagiarism, and how usage of the Internet differ in colleges in both settings. To check for correlated significant values across questions, several tests were run, including ANOVA, t-tests and chi squares. The results that were significant across questions are reported below in Table 12. The two categories in which results correlate across settings are taking ideas from the internet and taking works from the Internet. Table 12 depicts the correlations of the two categories with the items that presented significant values and serve to prove right or wrong the five hypotheses formulated in this study. Overall, correlations between taking ideas from the Internet and taking works are more highly correlated for Group P than for Group U. Table 12 - Significant correlations of plagiarism practices with other survey items _____________________________________________________________________ Take ideas Take work U.S. Portugal U.S. Portugal r p r p r p r p ______________________________________________________________________ Awareness scale -.22 .05a -.34 .04a -.34 .007a -.12 .27 Use quotation marks.00 .49 -.31 .06 -.25 .04a -.09 .33 a a Honour code .26 .04 .19 .17 -.35 .008 .33 .05a a Teacher lecture .11 .23 .02 .46 -.26 .04 -.08 .35 See others plagiarize.22 .06 .02 .46 .25 .04a .21 .14 Find school information.03.40 .27 .08 -.14 .16 -.14 .23 a Find information .32 .008 .07 .36 -.08 .28 -.30 .06 for English classes Frequency Internet-.18 .10 -.38 .03a .10 .24 .08 .35 a Search engines .46 .001 .19 .17 -.12 .20 -.09 .33 a Online sources .28 .02 -.15 .23 -.15 .14 -.28 .08 Paper-mills -------.07 .31 ------.38 .003a Easy download essays -.09 .26 -.07 .37 .03 .41 .31 .06 Lack English skills .18 .10 .03 .45 .28 .03a .18 .18 ______________________________________________________________________ a- Significant findings.

17

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

The findings shown above clarified the hypotheses proposed under research question 6, as follows: Hypothesis A It proposed that students who have a higher degree of plagiarism awareness would be less likely to plagiarize in both settings. Table 12 shows that in both settings, if students knew more about plagiarism they were in fact less likely to report taking ideas from others work. Also, if students in Group U knew more about plagiarism and also understood how to use quotation marks, they were less likely to self-report taking other peoples work; however the correlation of these items for Group P students was not significant.

Hypothesis B It proposed that students who knew that the school had an honour code and heard teachers lecture about plagiarism more often would be less prone to plagiarize in any form. Results showed that students in Group U who knew about the school honour code were less likely to plagiarize by taking ideas or work, and students from group U who self-reported hearing teachers lecture about plagiarism more often were also less likely to report taking others work. In contrast, Group P students who thought the school had an honour code were more likely to report taking other peoples work. Hypothesis C Hypothesis C proposed that students who knew other students who plagiarized would be more prone to plagiarize in any form. Results showed that students in the U.S. who knew other students who plagiarized were somewhat more likely to report taking other peoples ideas and significantly more likely to report taking other peoples work. Hypothesis D It proposed that students who were more likely to report using the Internet to find schoolrelated information and to find information for their English classes would be more likely to report plagiarizing in any form. Results show that students in Portugal who were more likely to report using the Internet for school-related purposes were somewhat more likely to report taking other peoples ideas, whereas in the U.S. setting, students who were more likely to report using the Internet for English classes were more likely to report taking other peoples ideas.

18

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

Hypothesis E It proposed that students who reported using the Internet more often in general would have more chances to download information and would be more likely to report plagiarizing. The hypothesis was not confirmed since results show that the more frequently students reported using the Internet, the less likely they were to report taking ideas from others; the findings were significant for students in Portugal and marginally significant for students in the U.S. Hypothesis F It proposed that students who were more likely to report that they regularly used on-line sources and search engines to search for information would be more likely to report plagiarizing in any form. Results show that if students in the U.S. reported that they regularly used on-line sources and search engines to search for information, they were more likely to report taking other peoples ideas, but less likely to report taking their work. The findings for students in Portugal were not significant. Hypothesis G It proposed that students who were more likely to report that they used paper mills would be more likely to report plagiarizing in any form. The hypothesis was confirmed in the Portuguese setting, where students who reported using paper mills were more likely to report taking other peoples work. Findings also showed that if students in Portugal thought it was easy to download information from the Internet, they were somewhat more likely to report taking others work. Hypothesis H Hypothesis H proposed that students who were less confident of their English skills would be more likely to report plagiarizing in any form. The results show that for students in the U.S. setting, perceived lack of English skills was associated with reporting that the students took others work. The findings for Portuguese students were not significant.

DISCUSSION The results of this study have some shortcomings. One of the most obvious is related to the topic itself. Being dishonest is something that most societies refute. Despite the fact that in this research some strategies were used to overcome the problem, the topic itself might have created a certain unwillingness to admit it and report it accurately. As so, the results of this report must be seen according to the above stated and also with the limitations of the number of respondents. However, many studies of this kind survey

19

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

students in the same context, whereas, this study gathered data to explore different cultural views on a topic that is concerning most professors and school administrators worldwide. The results, then, must be considered within this perspective and the data, even though not extensive, could serve the purpose of adding to the existent studies that share the same goal. One of the conclusions that must be highlighted is the fact that the majority of students self-reported being aware of the definition of plagiarism and its many forms. In all questions that were made to verify whether students were aware of the meanings and different forms of plagiarism, either traditional or Internet related, respondents, in both settings, reported complete knowledge about this topic. This fact alone might suggest that, regardless cultures or school settings, as seen in other works (e.g., Hawley, 1984; Rocha & Teixeira, 2006), plagiarism is part of the worlds academic life. The presence of an honour code in the school was somewhat deterrent for plagiarism acts. To my best knowledge, the schools where students in Group U were enrolled have honour code and teachers lecture on it, whereas schools where students from Group P were enrolled do not highlight their honour code, if existent. There is no surprise then that Group U and Group P, proved that honour code was influential for plagiarism propensity, corroborating with the results reported on Kerkvliet and Sigmund (1999), and Rocha & Teixeira (2005), in which the propensity for cheating lowered by the existence of an honour code at school. It is probably a measure to promote in the Portuguese school system taking into consideration the results elsewhere and in this study. The influence of peers has been related to cheating propensity in many studies (Bunn et al., 1992; Genereux & McLeod, 1995; McCabe et al. 2003; McCabe & Trevino, 1997). With regards to the influence of peers and its consequences on plagiarism, the results showed that in Portugal and in the U.S. setting students had different levels of knowledge about other students plagiarism. Half of students in Portugal knew at least one student who had plagiarized from the Internet for an English class compared to 32% of students in the U.S. Regarding traditional sources of plagiarism, 61% of students in Portugal knew at least one student who had plagiarized from books for any class compared to 33% of students in the U.S. According to McCabe and Trevino (1997) peerrelated contextual factors are very influential in terms of academic dishonesty. In fact, results corroborated those findings with subjects reporting higher propensity for plagiarism if they knew colleagues who did it. Similarly, Genereux and McLeod (1995) reported that the prevalence of cheating among peers significantly increased cheating

20

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

behaviors in the classroom. This is concerning for the Portuguese context since, not only from this work but also from the work of Rocha & Teixeira (2005, 2006), percentages indicate that academic dishonesty in Portuguese classrooms is very common. As mentioned before, with the popularity of the Internet amongst students (e.g., Rumbought, 2001; Lester 2002), it would be expected that the more students reported using online sources the higher propensity for digital plagiarism. For instance, 18% of the subjects on Scanlon & Neumann (2002) self-reported having used the Internet for cheating on class assignments. But only 12 % reported using Internet for cheating on the research of Lester (2002). In the present study, both settings reported using the Internet with the same frequency, yet, results showed that compared to students in the U.S., students in Portugal were less likely to use the Internet to get information for English classes and more likely to use the Internet to get other school-related information. As an average, this study found that about 5% of the surveyed students used the Internet to plagiarize, which, even though is concerning, it is not as high as first expected. The students in this study self-reported that they would plagiarize if the information was easy to download. This could be explained by the fact that students in Portugal have less English language practice or even that these students are not under the pressure of writing in English for all the subjects in school, whereas in the U.S., where English is the schools official language, students have to write everything in English, gaining thus more comfort with the language and with the Internet itself where most is printed in English. These results, however, are conclusive to affirm that the Internet is not a main motivator for academic plagiarism, at least within the limitations of this study, which corroborates with the findings of Scanlon & Neumann (2002) where only a minority, out of 698 subjects, reported using the Internet for cheating. Also, the findings of Lester (2002) seem to prove this study accurate as only 1,2 % of the 12 % self-reported Internet plagiarizers actually did use solely the Internet for their academic dishonesty. Conclusive is also the fact that there is plagiarism being committed in the settings explored by this research. Results here show that 38 % of students in Portugal were more likely to cheat from hidden notes on exams (traditional forms), but the students did not differ on other items across settings. Similar results were reported by Rocha & Teixeira (2005, 2006). In the U.S., Bunn et al. (1992) and McCabe and Trevino (1997) reported numbers of academic dishonest students that reached 40% also regarding exam cheating. Once again, despite the percentages and the differences and similarities between this study and many others, the numbers collected do not impede us to see that

21

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

cheating is a reality, even though the Internet appears to have nothing to do with plagiarisms dramatic growth. PART II INTERPRETING the TEACHER SURVEY Teacher Feedback For this portion of the research, a number of teachers were contacted for participation. Some of these individuals were those who were cited as having written prior research regarding the issue of academic dishonest, while others were associated with a participating class or learning institute. Unfortunately, of the many teaching individuals solicited (92), only 7 responded to the questionnaire sent. However, though small in number, the knowledge and insights of these individuals will be of great importance as they mirror their knowledge from experience. The teacher responses were analyzed and compared for consistency in their findings with those of this study, effective means of controlling for plagiarism (both in a preventative capacity and in a disciplinary capacity), their reporting of cases, and, finally, their input regarding the practicality and effectiveness of using process-oriented model of assessment. Due to the small sample of responses, these insights cannot, probably, be reliably applicable to a larger population. However, interesting findings did emerge and are reported below. All answers were organized by recurring themes using the Grounded theory method, following what McCabe et al. (1999) previously did with similar type of questionnaires. This analysis was mainly qualitative. No attempt was made to quantify teachers opinions or views on assessment procedures that are effective in reducing plagiarism. The main goal was to gather reports from teachers regarding their experiences with pedagogical models of process-oriented assessment in writing regarding the effectiveness of a model of process-oriented assessment in lessening the amount of plagiarism.

Major Trends from teachers responses After grouping the teachers opinions, the first trend emerging was that

dishonest academic behavior existed and seemed to occur at all levels of coursework, not just at lower classes (where the students may be in need of extra help already);

22

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

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

where teachers recognized that in order to identify plagiarized works they would need to spend time which was precious for other needed activities. In addition, if a student was caught plagiarizing, then, taking punitive actions would become even worse due to bureaucracy. Similar conclusions were reached by Bunn et al. (1992) and Kerkvliet and Sigmund (1999) where the time consuming was much higher than the consequences of reporting such behavior; Last, a common trend was the recognition of a better and personalized

assessment to curb down plagiarism. However, when teachers were asked to exemplify in detail how such dishonesty or plagiarism could be prevented, some gave a disciplinary response (attending to the issue after it has occurred), while others offered preventative advice in the form of lectures to students to raise their awareness. Nevertheless, it seemed that even those teachers, who reported being users of such tools as turnitin.com, commented that it was simply a time-consuming process that was not always feasible. CONCLUSION In sum, much is known about plagiarism and many deterrent forms to prevent it but all that we know is not enough to stop students from engaging in academic dishonesty. It is a reality in our schools, whether in the U.S. culture or in any other country, including Portugal as seen on the work of Rocha & Teixeira (2005, 2006) and on this present work, and might become even worse as the traditional type of students enrolling in colleges are changing status from teenagers-full-time students to adults-with-busy-lives students, but very motivated to complete their degrees. Also, very interesting to highlight here is the fact that the Internet became part integral of the lives of millions of students around the world, and yet, these same students show more propensity to be dishonest through traditional methods rather than through the Internet. Nevertheless, what seems to be emerging from previous work and this present is that plagiarism is present in our schools, and might be necessary that administrators, and specially professors in Portugal, adopt some strategies that have been mentioned as effective for lessening plagiarism propensity by several different researchers. Those strategies include raising students awareness about plagiarism and its consequences, the existence of a school honour code, alternative versions of tests, exams that do not ask for definitions but

23

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

personal interpretations, more individualized projects related to the students present reality, student portfolios instead of exams, and a constant effort to maintain an environment of trust and proper academic integrity in the classroom (Burke, 1997; Kerkvliet & Sigmund, 1999; McCabe & Trevino, 1996, 1997; Whitley, 1998; Sheard et al., 2003). These strategies should prevent plagiarism to reach undesirable values that could jeopardize the quality of the degrees awarded by institutions worldwide. With regards to teachers opinions in this work, what their opinions further suggest is that, again, prevention is the key and a process-oriented approach, even though time consuming itself, may be a possible methodology to utilize in deterring academic dishonesty and, simultaneously, help students to enhance their language skills, which after all is the teachers main duty.

REFERENCES
Bunn, D. N., Caudill, S. B. and Gropper, D. M., 1992, Crime in the classroom: an economic analysis of undergraduate student cheating behavior, in Journal of Economic Education N 23, pp. 197-207. Burke, J. L., 1997, Faculty perceptions of and attitudes toward academic dishonesty at a twoyear college, Unpublished dissertation. (ED 431 486). Cabe, P., 2003, Examples of plagiarism a taxonomy, in About Plagiarism (from TIPSters, Teaching in Psychological Science). in http://psych.skidmore.edu/plagiarism.htm. Davis, S. F., Grover, C. A., Becker, A. H., & McGregor, L. N., 1992, Academic dishonesty: Prevalence, determinants techniques, and punishments, in Teaching Psychology N 19,pp. 16-20. Diekhoff, G. M., LaBeff, E. E., Shinohara, K. and Yasukawa, H., 1999, College Cheating in Japan and the United States, in RESEARCH IN Research in Higher Education N 40 (3), pp.343-353. Diffley, F., and Lapp, R.,1988, Responding to student writing: teacher feedback for extensive revision - a workshop presented at TESOL, Chicago. Ferris, D. R., 2003, Response to student writing: Implications for second language students, Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ferris, D. R. and Hedgcock, J. S., 2005, Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Genereux, R. L., & McLeod, B. A., 1995, Circumstances surrounding cheating: A questionnaire study of college students, in Research in Higher Education N 36, pp. 687-704. Harris, R.A., 2001, The plagiarism handbook: Strategies for preventing, detecting, and dealing with plagiarism, California, Pyrczak Publishing. Haines, V, LaBeff, E., Clark, R., and Diekhoff, G. M., 1987, A factor analysis of variables related to college cheating, in Social Sciences Perspectives N 1, pp. 1-29. Hawley, C. S., 1984, The thieves of academe: Plagiarism in the university system, in Improving College & University Teaching N 32(1), pp. 35-39. Howard, R.M., 1995, Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty, in College English N 57(7), pp. 788-806. James, R., McInnes, C. & Devlin, M., 2002, Assessing learning in Australian universities, in http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/CSD1618.pdf Kerkvliet, J. and Sigmund, C. L., 1999, Can We Control Cheating in the Classroom?, in Journal of Economic Education N 30(4), pp. 331-351.

24

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

Lawson, R., 2004, Is Classroom Cheating Related to Business Students Propensity to Cheat in the Real World?, in Journal of Business Ethics N 49, pp. 189199. Lester, M. C., 2002, A comparison of traditional and internet cheaters," in Journal of College Student Development, retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3752/is_200211/ai_n9166002/. Kibler, W., 1993, Academic Dishonesty: A Student Development Dilemma, in NASPA Journal N 30, pp. 253. McCabe, D., 2005, Cheating among college and university students: A North American perspective, in International Journal for Educational Integrity N 1(1). McCabe, D. L. and Trevino, L. K., 1993, Honor Codes and Other Contextual Influences, in Journal of Higher Education N 64, pp. 522538. McCabe, D. L. and Trevino, L. K., 1997, Individual and Contextual Influences on Academic Dishonesty: A Multicampus Investigation, in Research in Higher Education N 38 (3), pp. 379-396. McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D. and Trevino, L. K., 2003, Faculty and Academic Integrity: The Influence of Current Honor Codes and Past Honor Code Experiences, in Research in Higher Education N 44 (3), pp. 367-385. McCabe, D.L. and Trevino, L.K., 1996, What we know about cheating in college, in Change, pp. 29-33. McLenann, L., 2003, Briefing: Plagiarism at Universities, in http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tools_and_services/specials/article809537.ece. Rocha, M. F. and Teixeira, A. A. C., 2005, College cheating in Portugal: results from a large scale survey, in FEP Working Papers N 197. Rocha, M. F. and Teixeira, A. A. C., 2006, A Country Evaluation of Cheating in Academia: is it related to business world ethics?, in FEP Working Papers N 214. Rumbough, T.B., 2001, Controversial Uses of the Internet by College Students, in http://www.fluxcard.com/fake-id-info/fake-id reports/Fluxcard_Fake_ID_Documents_and_Articles_Controversial_Uses_of_the_Interne t_Timothy_B_Rumbough.pdf. Scanlon, P. and Neumann, D., 2002, Internet Plagiarism among College Students, in Journal of College Student Development N 43, pp. 37485. Sheard, J., Markham, S. and Dick, M., 2003, Investigating Differences in Cheating Behaviours of IT Undergraduate and Graduate Students: the maturity and motivation factors, in Higher Education Research & Development N 22 (1), pp. 91-108. Tribble, C., 1996, Writing, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Whitley, B. E., 1998, Factors associated with cheating among college students: A Review, in Research in Higher Education N 39(3), pp. 235274. Zamel, V., Recent research in writing pedagogy, in TESOL Quarterly N 21(4), pp. 697- 715.

Citing this work:

Bota, A. (2011). Academic Plagiarism - A Cross-Cultural Study of Internet Influences and Pedagogical Implications. Studia (14), Loule.

25