Academic Honesty and Plagiarism on College Campuses

Introduction

How serious is the matter of plagiarism on college and university campuses? What are the moral standards being violated by students who cheat? How do students perceive the issue of plagiarism, and what punishment do they believe is appropriate for those caught using others' work without attribution? This paper uses peer-reviewed, scholarly sources to examine those and other questions regarding academic honesty.

Student Perceptions of Plagiarism

One widely cited definition describes plagiarism as "knowingly presenting the work or property of another person as one's own, without appropriate acknowledgment or referencing" — a definition drawn from a large, multi-campus Australian university (Yeo, 2007, p. 200).

Shelley Yeo conducted a survey of first-year science and engineering students, exploring what these students perceive as plagiarism. Published in the journal Higher Education Research & Development, Yeo's article points clearly to the fact that plagiarism is "not a universally understood or accepted concept in academia" (Yeo, 2007, p. 200). Yeo presents six examples of plagiarism: a) word-for-word copying; b) close paraphrasing without attribution; c) using another person's ideas, research, or work without acknowledgment; d) submitting someone else's work as if it were the student's own; e) copying computer files with no indication of their origin; and f) "falsely representing" collaborative work as though it were produced by an individual (Yeo, 2007, p. 200).

Why explore this topic? Yeo claims that academic dishonesty is widespread "and appears to be increasing." She asserts that "results reporting in excess of 50% of undergraduate students admitting cheating are common" (Yeo, 2007, p. 201). Why do students plagiarize? In general, students do not see plagiarism as a "particularly serious misdemeanor," Yeo explains (p. 201). She identifies six reasons students give for cheating: a) they did not have time to do their own work (poor time management); b) they perceive that their rewards for being honest will be "insufficient"; c) their curricula are excessively demanding; d) they fear receiving a poor grade or disappointing others; e) they believe they "can get away with it"; or f) they simply wish to "defy authority" (Yeo, 2007, p. 201).

The prevailing view among the 30 first-year students Yeo surveyed was that only two actions absolutely constitute plagiarism: "copying an assignment" and "Internet cut and paste" (Yeo, 2007, p. 212). When it came to collusion on a science project — turning in identical results — students did not regard this as serious because "the right answer" matters more than demonstrating how it was achieved (Yeo, 2007, p. 212). In their view, they were simply "working together," not cheating.

Plagiarism as a Moral Issue

Julianne East presents plagiarism as a moral issue and argues that those who make judgments about plagiarism should reflect carefully: are their actions a violation of social values and morality, or merely a matter of convention? (East, 2010, p. 69). East clearly believes plagiarism carries a moral dimension and reports evidence that "over 70% of students admit to some form of cheating" (East, 2010, p. 70). One problem she identifies is that because cheating is "assumed to be universally understood," it is rarely well defined for students new to the university experience. Students will "declare that cheating is immoral," yet they do not always "perceive plagiarism as a serious misdemeanor" (East, 2010, p. 71). Students tend to view success as far more important than "avoiding plagiarism." Part of this cavalier attitude stems from the fact that students' benefits lie "beyond the university" — they see themselves needing to graduate and move on.

What type of student is most likely to plagiarize? East contends that if this were known, it could help universities identify and address dishonesty. However, there is "little agreement" on this question. Some studies suggest that students with high grades plagiarize to maintain their grade point average, while others suggest that low-achieving students are more likely to cheat. Still other research indicates that postgraduate students are "less likely to cheat because they are motivated to learn" (East, 2010, p. 72). East argues that faculty must make clear decisions about how to handle plagiarism and that far more attention should be paid to the ethics of cheating as students enter universities. She believes ethical codes should be taught formally and, while it may not be a university's primary role to judge morality, "maintaining and supporting academic integrity is in a university's interests" (East, 2010, p. 80).

Conclusion

The evidence presented in this paper — drawn from peer-reviewed scholarly articles — demonstrates that plagiarism is rampant on university campuses. There are many opinions, surveys, and research proposals regarding how to address the problem. Of those considered here, East's recommendation carries the most credibility: colleges and universities should formally teach students about the dangers and immorality of plagiarism, ideally through dedicated coursework. Assuming that students already know better, or will always do their own work out of a desire to learn, is naive. Academic integrity must be actively cultivated, not simply assumed.

Works Cited

East, Julianne. (2010). Judging plagiarism: a problem of morality and convention. Higher Education, 59(1), 69–83.

Sikes, Pat. (2009). Will the real author come forward? Questions of ethics, plagiarism, theft and collusion in academic research writing. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 32(1), 13–24.

Yeo, Shelley. (2007). First-year university science and engineering students' understanding of plagiarism. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(2), 199–216.