Organizacija, Volume 50 Research Papers Number 1, February 2017 DOI: 10.1515/orga-2017-0002 Reasons for Plagiarism in Higher Education Polona Šprajc1, Marko Urh1, Janja Jerebic1, Dragan Trivan2, Eva Jereb1 1 University of Maribor, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, Kidričeva cesta 55a, 4000 Kranj, Slovenia polona.sprajc@fov.uni-mb.si, marko.urh@fov.uni-mb.si, janja.jerebic@um.si, eva.jereb@fov.uni-irib.si 2 UNION-Nikola Tesla University, Faculty of Business Studies and Law, Staro Sajmiste 29, 11070 Belgrade, Serbia dtrivan@gmail.com Background and Purpose: The survey was performed to determine the reasons that lead students to possibly commit plagiarism during their studies. By doing so, we wanted to determine the main reason for the appearance of plagiarism and how, within this main reasons, various indicators of plagiarism are judged and, finally, how demographic data and student motivation for study are associated with the reasons for plagiarism. Design/Methodology/Approach: A paper-and-pencil survey was carried out among 17 faculties of the University of Maribor in Slovenia. A sample of 139 students 85 males and 54 females participated in this study, ages ranged from 19 to 36 years. The questionnaire contained 95 closed questions referring to: (i) general data, (ii) education, (iii) social status, (iv) awareness of plagiarism, and (v) reasons for plagiarism. Parametric and nonparametric statistical tests were performed depending on distributions of the answers. Results: The results reveal that information and communication technology is largely responsible for the plagiarism with two reasons highlighted: ease of copying and ease of access to materials and new technologies. We also found some differences between low and high motivated students. Different average values of the answers considering motivation for study were confirmed for academic skills, teaching factors and other reasons for plagiarism, where the average for lower motivated students is significantly different (higher) than the average for higher motivated students. At the end we could find no direct relationship between the average time spent on the Internet and plagiarism. Conclusion: The transmission of knowledge is the basic mission of faculties. This mission is based on moral beliefs about the harmfulness of its abuse, and plagiarism is exactly such abuse. Regardless of the students past at this point professors are those who could greatly contribute to the right set of skills to keep students off plagiarising. Keywords: plagiarism, higher education, reasons for plagiarism, academic skills, teachers 1 Introduction Plagiarism is a recurring problem in higher education (Jiang, Emmerton, & Mckange, 2013; Lorenz, 2013). While we search for a common definition of plagiarism, we are coping with a challenge for which no answer yet exists. Various authors advocate different definitions: citing direct text without attribution (Belter & DuPre, 2009), citing parts of text of another author, using parts of text without citing (Colnerud & Rosander, 2009), presentation of foreign ideas as their own, without a clear reference to the source ((Hard, Conway, & Moran, 2006). Furthermore, Perrin (2009), Larkham (2002) and Culwin (2001) define plagiarism as the use of the author's words, ideas, reflections and thoughts without proper acknowledgment of the source. An extended definition of plagiarism takes into account the fact that if a student does not think about it and doesn't write his text all alone and does not apply the appropriate bibliographical references, this is indeed plagiarism (Lathrop & Foss, 2000). Students are under enormous pressure from family, peers, and instructors to compete for scholarships, admissions, and, of course, place in the job market. They often see education as a rung in the ladder to success, and not an active process valuable in itself. Because of this, students tend to focus on the end results of their research, Received: August 18, 2016; revised: October 10, 2016; accepted: December 9, 2016 33 Organizacija, Volume 50 Research Papers Number 1, February 2017 rather than the skills they learn in doing it (Turnitin.com and Research Resources). This often results in plagiarism. Students justify plagiarism by pointing out that since their peers plagiarize, they must do the same to keep up (Turni-tin.com and Research Resources, n.d.). It is clear that a lot of students plagiarise intentionally. Many authors tried to explain the reasons which led students to plagiarise. These reasons vary from being lazy (Dordoy, 2002), poor time management (Dordoy, 2002), pressure from other students, (Devlin, & Gray, 2007; Dordoy, 2002; Errey, 2002; Park, 2003; Wilhoit, 1994;), pressure to receive higher grades (Dordoy, 2002; Park, 2003; Wilhoit 1994), gaining easy access to material via the internet (Dordoy, 2002), fear of failure and taking risks because they think they will not get caught (Dordoy, 2002, & Sutherland, 2004). Reasons for plagiarising unintentionally may include collaborative team work in producing an assignment (Wilhoit 1994), misunderstanding of rules (Dordoy, 2002) and not being aware of what plagiarism entails (Dordoy, 2002). Along these lines, the purpose of our study was to investigate the reasons for plagiarism in higher education. Our findings might aid in preventing or reducing plagiarism among students. The survey was aimed at obtaining a view toward the retention and the continuation of academic integrity. We wanted to highlight how students evaluate individual sets of causes for possible plagiarism, which of this causes are dominant and what the correlations between the general and opinion parts of the survey are. Furthermore, we wanted to find out, how the wider academic community, and finally the social environment could support the student in coping with this problem. We classified the reasons for plagiarism as following: information and communication technology, control, punishment and consequences, academic skills, teacher factor, different pressures of the external public, pride, and other reasons. The research questions of the study were divided into three groups: RQ group 1: What are the reasons for plagiarism in higher education, according to students? Are there any differences between male and female students regarding this? Are the reasons for plagiarism connected with specific study areas (formal, social, natural sciences)? RQ group 2: Does the student's motivation affect his/ her reasons for plagiarism? Do higher motivated students plagiarise less? RQ group 3: Is plagiarism correlated with time spent on the internet (web)? Does social status connected with work and scholarship affect plagiarism? Next the theoretical background is presented. 2 Theoretical background The reasons for the plagiarism such as self-esteem, achievement desire and study motivation, are discussed by many authors (Angell, 2006; Rettinger & Kramer, 2009; Williams, Nathanson, & Paulus, 2010). In contrast Barnas (2000) claims that one of the main causes is the teacher factor. Songsriwittaya, Kongsuwan, Jitgarum, Kaewkue-kool, and Koul (2009) state that the reason that motivates students to plagiarize is the goal to get good grades and to compare their success to their peers. Students with performance goals are more likely to engage in plagiarism than students with mastery goals. The views of Engler, Landau, & Epstein (2008), Hard, Conway, & Moran (2006) are also noteworthy. They say that plagiarism arises out of social norms and peer relationships. As a very common cause, the growing diversity of sources and form is emphasized, which (as such) often represents uncertainty regarding correct information usage (Evering & Moorman, 2012). The flood of online resources, without precisely stated authorship, may be one of the problems where students have difficulty determining what is right and what is wrong. Online resources are also available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and enable a flood of information, which often leads to a confused state in a student. Given students' ease of access to both digital information and sophisticated digital technology, several researchers have noted that students may be more likely to ignore academic ethics and to engage in plagiarism than would otherwise be the case (Chang, Chen, Huang, & Chou, 2015). Many students simply do not view copying homework answers as wrong-at least not when it is done with technology (Yang, 2014). A common reason is the poor preparation of notes on lectures (Rettinger & Kramer, 2009), which can lead to inadequate referencing of the text. We need to know that authors' words are not only written but also oral. Many students come with the question of primary and secondary sources, which can also become a reason for plagiarism. Additional reasons are related to the problem of increasing the number of students per professor, the pressure for high estimates, time pressures and the dissatisfaction of students with their study (Carrol, 2002). As we mentioned before the reason for plagiarism may also arise from personal factors, such as student age, sex, study program, study level and cultural background. Fish and Hura (2013) think that plagiarism is much more likely to occur if students have an unclear perception of plagiarism and that plagiarism is quite common among their peers, and that the consequences are minor Okoro (2011) also highlights studies that reveal that 90% of students are aware that plagiarism is wrong and unethical but, at the same time, there is the academic world that is aware of the facts that students plagiarize (despite all the mentioned risks), because they feel that nobody will catch them. Some studies argue that students do not know 34 Organizacija, Volume 50 Research Papers Number 1, February 2017 the actual nature of plagiarism because they have not been taught about proper citation methods (Blum, 2009; Carrol, 2007; Hansen, 2003). The results of a study conducted in the US and Canadian universities present the incidence of plagiarism, since one of five students admitted that he/she has cheated on tests or exams at least once in the last year, but the number rises to 59% for undergraduate students (McCabe, 2005). Selwyn (2008) presents results from the UK, where about 60% of undergraduate students admitted plagiarism connected to the internet in the previous year and the fact that those who work on the internet better are more prone to plagiarism. The idea of our research is presented in the initial part of the paper. The method and results of the research are presented in the next chapter. 3 Method Sample The paper-and-pencil survey was carried out in 2015 among 17 faculties of the University of Maribor in Slovenia. The survey was carried out by the Faculty of Organisational Sciences, University of Maribor. A sample of 139 students (85 males (61%) and 54 (39%) females) participated in this study. Ages ranged from 19 to 36 years, with a mean of 21 years and 7 months (M=21.57 and SD=2.164). More than half (53%) of the participants were formal sciences students, 23% were social sciences and 23% natural sciences students. The majority (75.5%) attended traditional courses, and 24.5% blended learning. More than half (52.5%) were working at the time of the study, and 42% of all participants had scholarships. More than two thirds (70%) of them were highly motivated for study and 30% less so; 27.5% of students spend 2 or fewer hours per day on the internet, 40.5% spend between 2 and 5 hours and 32% spend 5 or more hours on the internet per day. The general data can be seen in Table 1. Instrument The questionnaire contained 95 closed questions referring to: (i) general data (gender, age, study motivation, time spent on the internet), (ii) education (study level, study area, way of study, average grade), (iii) social status (working status, scholarship, financial situation, residence, father's and mother's educational level), (iv) awareness of plagiarism, and (v) reasons for plagiarism (ICT and web, control, academic skills, teaching factors, pressure, pride, other). The items in the (iv) and (v) groups used a 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), with larger values indicating stronger orientation. 4 Results All statistical tests were performed with SPSS at the significance level of 0.05. Parametric tests (Independent - Sam- Table 1: General data Gender Male 85 61% Female 57 39% Study level Bachelor 118 85% Masters 21 15% Study area Formal sciences 74 53% Social sciences 32 23% Natural sciences 32 23% Way of study Classic learning 105 75.5% Blended learning 34 24.5% Working within time of study Yes 73 52.5% No 66 47.5% Scholarship Yes 58 42% No 81 58% Motivation for study Lower 41 30% Higher 97 70% Average time spent on the internet in hours 2 or fewer hours 38 27.5% between 2 and 5 hours 56 40.5% 5 or more hours 44 32% 35 Organizacija, Volume 50 Research Papers Number 1, February 2017 Table 2: Average values and standard deviations of the answers Mean St. deviation 1.1 It is easy for me to copy/paste due to contemporary technology 4.22 0.805 1.2 I do not know how to cite electronic information 2.35 1.054 1.3 It is hard for me to keep track of information sources on the web 2.93 1.075 1.4 I can easily access material from the internet 4.20 0.800 1.5 Easy access to new technologies 4.20 0.800 1.6 I can easily translate from other languages 3.49 1.093 1.7 I can easily combine material from multiple sources 3.82 1.002 1.8 It is easy to share documents, information, data 4.14 0.844 1 ICT and Web 3.67 0.577 2.1 There is no teacher control on plagiarism 2.50 0.912 2.2 There is no faculty control on plagiarism 2.35 0.859 2.3 There is no university control on plagiarism 2.27 0.839 2.4 There are no penalties 2.12 0.910 2.5 There are no honour codes on plagiarism 2.41 0.915 2.6 There are no electronic systems of control 2.14 0.929 2.7 There is no systematic tracking of violators 2.60 1.034 2.8 I will not get caught 2.17 1.096 2.9 I am not aware of penalties 2.55 1.078 2.10 I do not understand the consequences 2.58 1.135 2.11 The penalties are minor 2.51 0.898 2.12 The gains are higher than the losses 2.57 1.008 2 Control 2.40 0.615 3.1 I run out of time 3.39 1.113 3.2 I am unable to cope with the workload 2.79 1.087 3.3 I do not know how to cite 2.54 1.088 3.4 I do not know how to find material 2.40 1.004 3.5 I do not know how to research 2.31 0.939 3.6 My reading comprehension skills are weak 1.75 0.790 3.7 My writing skills are weak 2.14 0.967 3.8 I sometimes have difficulty expressing my ideas 2.58 1.089 3 Academic skills 2.49 0.708 4.1 The tasks are too difficult 2.84 0.968 4.2 Poor explanation - bad teaching 3.11 1.081 4.3 Too many assignments in a short time 3.36 1.022 4.4 Plagiarism is not explained 2.78 1.220 4.5 I am not satisfied with course contents 3.05 1.038 4.6 Teachers do not care 2.76 0.989 4.7 Teachers do not read students' assignments 2.65 0.962 4 Teaching factors 2.93 0.702 36 Organizacija, Volume 50 Research Papers Number 1, February 2017 Table 2: Average values and standard deviations of the answers (continued) 5.1 Family pressure 1.86 0.827 5.2 Peers pressure 1.93 0.881 5.3 Under stress 2.76 1.221 5.4 Faculty pressure 2.64 1.183 5.5 Money pressure 2.37 1.105 5.6 Afraid to fail 2.83 1.197 5.7 Job pressure 2.32 1.131 5 Pressure 2.39 0.845 6.1 I do not want to look stupid in front of peers 2.40 1.108 6.2 I do not want to look stupid in front of professor 2.47 1.131 6.3 I do not want to embarrass my family 2.38 1.182 6.4 I do not want to embarrass myself 2.45 1.240 6.5 I focus on how my competences will be judged relative to others 2.45 1.047 6.6 I am focused on learning according to self-set standards 3.04 1.128 6.7 I am afraid to ask for help 2.26 0.981 6.8 My fear of performing poorly motivates me to plagiarize 2.27 0.997 6.9 Assigned academic work will not help me personally/professionally 2.19 1.078 6 Pride 2.43 0.845 7.1 I do not want to work hard 2.48 1.132 7.2 I do not want to learn anything, just pass 2.00 0.956 7.3 My work is not good enough 2.09 0.900 7.4 It is easier to plagiarize than to work 2.65 1.148 7.5 To get better-higher mark (score) 2.71 1.124 7 Other reasons 2.39 0.811 ples t-Test, Paired - Samples t-Test, One-Way ANOVA) were selected for normal and near normal distributions of the answers. Nonparametric tests (Mann-Whitney Test, Kruskal-Wallis Test, Friedman's ANOVA) were used for significantly non-normal distributions. RQ group 1 The average values of the answers (and standard deviations) in the sample, referring to the reasons for plagiarism are shown in Table 2. According to Friedman's ANOVA, the reasons for plagiarism can be divided into three homogeneous groups. First and dominating are ICT and Web reasons (Group 1), the second group consists of teaching factors (Group 4) and all the other reasons (2, 3, 5, 6 and 7) belong to Group 3. The distributions of the average values of the answers in Groups 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are not significantly different (p=.066; see Table 3). ICT and Web reasons were detected as dominating reasons for plagiarism and, as such, they were investigated in more detail (Table 2). That the distributions of the answers to the questions 1.1, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.8 are not significantly different was confirmed by Friedman Test (Chi-Square = 1.638, p=.651). Consequently, the average values (means) of the answers to the questions 1.1, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.8 are not significantly different, whereas the distributions of the answers for all the other pairs were confirmed to be significantly different. Different distributions of the answers considering gender were confirmed for 1.2 and 1.4 by the Mann-Whitney Test (p=.020; p=.048). It seems that male students on average have more problems with knowing how to cite electronic information than female students do; female students can also access material from the internet more easily (Table 4). Different distributions of the answers con- 37 Organizacija, Volume 50 Research Papers Number 1, February 2017 Table 3: Homogeneous subsets according to Friedman's ANOVA Sample average rank Group Subset 1 Subset 2 Subset 3 5 3.094 2 3.216 7 3.295 6 3.511 3 3.543 4 4.903 1 6.439 Test Statistic 8.806 Sig (2-sided) .066 Table 4: Descriptive statistics for individual statements (ICT and Web) according to gender and results for Mann-Whitney Test ICT and Web Male Female Mann-Whitney Test Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Z P 1.2 I do not know how to cite electronic information 2.49 1.042 2.11 1.040 -2.322 .020 1.4 I can easily access material from the internet 4.08 0.862 4.39 0.656 -1.976 .048 Table 5: Descriptive statistics for individual statements (ICT and Web) according to study area and results for Kruskal-Wallis Test ICT and Web Formal Sciences Social Sciences Natural Sciences Kruskal-Wallis Test Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Chi-Square P 1.2 I do not know how to cite electronic information 2.54 1.088 1.91 1.027 2.31 0.896 9.574 .008 1.6 I can easy translate from other languages 3.73 0.983 3.25 1.136 3.22 1.184 6.065 .048 sidering study area were confirmed for 1.2 and 1.6 by the Kruskal-Wallis Test (p=.008; p=.048). Students enrolled in social sciences seem to have fewer problems with citing electronic information than students of formal and natural sciences. However, students of formal sciences find translating from other languages easier than students from the other two science areas do (Table 5). Different average values of the answers considering gender were confirmed by the Independent /-Test (t=2.247, p=.026). This was also done for the pride reasons, where the average for male (M=2.56 and SD=.854) is significant- ly different (higher) than the average for female (M=2.24 and SD=.797). The normality of distribution for average values of the answers within groups (male and female) was checked with a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the results of which were not significant. The average values of the answers for individual statements 6.5, 6.7 and 6.9 and the significances for /-Test for equality of means are shown in Table 6. The average values of the answers for these three statements are significantly different (higher for male than female). 38 Organizacija, Volume 50 Research Papers Number 1, February 2017 Table 6: Descriptive statistics for individual statements (pride group) and results for t-Test Pride Male Female /-Test Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. t P 6.5 I focus on how my competences will be judged relative to others 2.65 1.081 2.13 0.912 3.067 .003 6.7 I am afraid to ask for help 2.44 1.017 1.98 0.858 2.826 .005 6.9 Assigned academic work will not help me personally/professionally 2.42 1.100 1.83 0.947 3.207 .002 Table 7: Descriptive statistics for individual statements (academic skills, teaching factors and other reasons) according to motivation and results for t-Test Lower motivation Higher motivation t-Test Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. t P 3.1 I run out of time 3.71 1.209 3.25 1.051 2.244 .026 m 3.2 I am unable to cope with the workload 3.10 1.136 2.65 1.041 2.248 .026 M 'Si 3.3 I do not know how to cite 2.95 1.176 2.38 1.015 2.844 .005 a e 3.4 I do not know how to find material 2.71 1.031 2.27 0.974 2.380 .019 d C3 O 3.5 I do not know how to research 2.61 0.972 2.19 0.905 2.461 .015 < 3.8 I sometimes have difficulty expressing my own ideas 2.88 1.208 2.44 1.010 2.177 .031 tg ö s" J ° 4.2 Poor explanation - bad teaching 3.44 1.001 2.97 1.094 2.363 .020 4.3 Too many assignments in a short time 3.66 0.938 3.23 1.036 2.299 .023 ra ert .u 43 H 4.5 I am not satisfied with course contents 3.34 1.087 2.94 0.998 2.113 .036 4.6 Teachers do not care 3.13 0.939 2.61 0.977 2.807 .006 7.1 I do not want to work hard 2.80 1.269 2.35 1.051 2.178 .031 ■ C3