Identification of plagiarism by Greek higher

education students.
Do I cheat?
Eugenia I. Toki
Technological Educational Institute (TEI) of Epirus,
School of Health and Welfare, Department of Speech and
Language Therapy, Ioannina, Greece
toki@ioa.teiep.gr

Abstract University teachers are facing plagiarism issues

more than before, since Internet made resources more accessible
for students. This research intended to find out how Greek
higher education students acknowledged or practiced the act of
plagiarism. 100 respondents replied online to 25 questions. Data
analysis revealed students' uncertainty on several aspects of
plagiarism and ethical issues. The findings formulate the need of
mobile web tools to educate and detect students academic
integrity.
Key words: ICT, plagiarism, why students cheat

I.

INTRODUCTION

There is a significant and growing literature on plagiarism

in higher education [1-5]. Researchers link this expansion (i) to
the growth of plagiarism incidents in higher education (ii) to
increased class sizes, number of students, and (iii) to some
point to the availability of information on the Internet [6-8],
which is a reality in Greek higher education.
Mobile learning fulfills educational needs and offers new
learning opportunities in a multidimensional manner [9]. In
addition social media allows easy collaboration for students
and academic staff [9-12]. The availability of mobile devices,
Internet access and communication services over the internet
allow information to be shared in a click of a button [11].
Although mobile learning can be helpful in promoting student
success, students might not always use it in an academic
manner and might get involved in plagiarism activities.
University staff has the ability to recognize plagiarism with
online services and the use of IT-based strategies [13-15], even
though there is evidence that academics also struggle to
recognize plagiarism in particular circumstances [15].
Nevertheless there is some agreement to what is an acceptable
academic behavior by them [15-18].
Also a long discussion in the literature is about the extent
students understand plagiarism, the lack of skills to

Dionysios C. Tafiadis
TEI of Epirus, School of Health and Welfare, Department of
Speech and Language Therapy, Ioannina, Greece
University of Ioannina, Medical School, Department of
Neural Sciences and Sensory Organs Ioannina, Greece
tafiadis@gmail.com

discriminate it-like proof read or resubmissions or previous

works, or having collusion as serious or not serious cheating [5,
6, 19-21]. Researches are undertaken on students populations
by asking them whether they have been engaged in plagiarism
or cheating at any stage of their studies. Broad approaches
make it hard to determine the actual extent of plagiarism and
there is a long discussion and how it will be reduced in
academic institutions (Martin, 1994). It has been reported that
it is unclear how much is the extent of plagiarism and if it is
detected more efficiently (Dean, 2000; Park, 2003).
The purpose of current study was to identify and analyze
how Greek higher education students acknowledge or
practiced the act of plagiarism, with a use of an online
questionnaire and to analyze if Greek students conceive
plagiarism as an act of moral offence and a violation of
copyright in a digital society.

II.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A. Participants
In this randomized study one hundred (100) native Greek
students (M: 24, F: 76) responded to an online questionnaire,
with mean age 24.1 (SD 5.1). All had been students in Greek
Higher Education, Universities and Technological Educational
Institutes (TEI).
B. Research tool
The research tool was an online questionnaire designed for
the purpose of the study and consisted of four sections. Section
one was composed of 5 questions, aiming to collect general
information regarding the participants age, sex, and studies.
Section two was composed of 9 questions, aiming to gather
information on cheating and plagiarism habits and attitudes.
Section three was composed of 6 questions, aiming to gather
information on plagiarism issues knowledge education and
consequences. Section four was composed of 5 questions,
aiming to gather information on ethical issues such as religion,
environmental awareness, theft experience, and future
intension on plagiarism.

978-1-4799-4743-0/14/$31.00 2014 IEEE

November 13-14, 2014, Thessaloniki, Greece
2014 International Conference on Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies and Learning
Page 364

C. Data Collection
All respondents replied to the online questionnaire that was
uploaded on students social media (Facebook) for 2 weeks
duration.
All data were analyzed with the use of SPSS 20.

III.

RESULTS

The sample of the study was divided in subgroups in

accordance with a) age (18 till 21, 21 till 25 and 25+ years old),
b) sex (male and female) and c) degree of study (undergraduate
and postgraduate).
The majority of the students participated in this study were
53% within Health Science, 28% within Social and Human
Science, 14% within Pure Science and 5% in other sciences.
76% of the students in this study were undergraduate
students and 26% of them were postgraduate students. 25% of
them where on the first and second year of their studies and
75% were over the third year of their study.

Figure 2: How many times did you plagiarize?

According to the responses reported 59% have never

plagiarized on a coursework, 19% have done it once or twice
and 21% have been doing it more systematically. In particular
27 responders 18-21 years old reported never:16%, once or
twice:6% and regularly:5%, 44 responders 21-25 years old
reported never:25% once or twice:7% and regularly:12%,
and 28 responders over 25 years old reported, never:18%,
once or twice:6% and regularly:4% (Figure 2).
In the question about how did they cheat, the findings
revealed that, although 3% of students did not answer, 30%
stated that they do not cheat. The most common way of
cheating students reported to experience was that some other
students told them the answer (39%) or even shown their exam
answers (10%). Students responses showed that 27% is using
for that purpose their smartphone/tablet.

Figure 1: How many times did you cheat?

Regarding the times of cheating in an exam, participants

revealed that only 35% have never cheated on an exam, 61%
cheated once or twice and 39% are doing it systematically.
Precisely, 27 responders 18-21 years old reported
never:12%, once or twice:8%, regularly:15%, 44
responders 21-25 years old reported never:21%, once or
twice:7%,regularly:12%, and 29 responders over 25 years
old reported, never:15%, once or twice:4% and regularly:10%
(Figure 1).

The reasons stated in this sample about why they cheated

were 40% of them did not want to fail the subject, 18% wanted
a better mark, 15% did not devote enough time to study, 9%
because thought that they could not be caught and 4% because
others do it as well.
There was a statistically significant difference between
age subgroups and times of cheating as determined by oneway ANOVA (F(3.318) = 74.750, p = .040). There were no
statistically significant differences between group means age
and times of plagiarism, as determined by one-way ANOVA
(F(.547) = 65.414, p = .581). There was a statistically
significant difference between age subgroups and know
what plagiarism is before they enter higher education as
determined by one-way ANOVA (F (5.651) = 74.750, p=
0.005). There were no statistically significant differences
between group means age and know what plagiarism is
before they enter higher education, as determined by one-way
ANOVA (F(.547) = 65.414, p = .559). Also, there were no
statistically significant differences between group means age

978-1-4799-4743-0/14/$31.00 2014 IEEE

November 13-14, 2014, Thessaloniki, Greece
2014 International Conference on Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies and Learning
Page 365

and intention for future practice of plagiarism, as determined

by one-way ANOVA (F (.115) = 52.110, p = .891)
There was a statistically significant difference between
sex subgroups and times of cheating as determined by oneway ANOVA (F(5.901) = 74.750, p = .017). Furthermore,
there was a statistically significant difference between sex
subgroups and times of plagiarism as determined by one-way
ANOVA (F(27.517) = 65.414, p = .000). Besides, there was no
statistically significant difference between sex subgroups and
know what plagiarism is before they enter higher education
as determined by one-way ANOVA (F(3.653) = 74.750,
p=0.59). Nevertheless, there was a statistically significant
difference between sex subgroups and intention for future
practice of plagiarism as determined by one-way ANOVA (F
(14.059) = 52.110, p= .000).
There were no statistically significant differences between
group means of study level (under/post graduate) and times
of cheating as determined by one-way ANOVA (F(1.276) =
74.750, p=.261), of study level and times of plagiarism as
determined by one-way ANOVA (F (.028) = 65.414, p=.867),
and of study level and plagiarism software as determined
by one-way ANOVA (F(2.779) = 58.371, p=.099). But there
was a statistically significant differences between group means
of study level and know what plagiarism is before they
entered higher education as determined by one-way ANOVA
(F(6.561) = 74.750, p=.012) , and also of study level and the
intention for future practice of plagiarism as determined by
one-way ANOVA (F (5.694) = 52.110, p=.019).
Finally a paired sample t test was conducted to compare
(r= .281, p<.1) times of cheatings and times of plagiarism
[t(4.175) .424, p=.000] with (r= .188, p<.05) students
environmental awareness and theft victim [t(34.652) 3.500,
p=.000].

IV. DISCUSSION
In this study the negative effect of plagiarism and its
consequences in the academic field was studied and precisely
how students recognize and face it in their everyday reality.
Students were asked to indicate whether they had been
engaged in substantially similar behaviors themselves. The
majority of students indicated that they have been engaged in
this behavior at least once, even with clear plagiarism or with
combination of plagiarism and cheating during exams. Also
students had indicated that they have adopted different forms of
plagiarism and they regarded some forms of cheating to be less
serious than other. Following this, students tent to admit and
practice very easily less serious acts of cheating. It must be also
noted, that the ease of use of mobile devices and smartphones
with internet access and social media offer the opportunity to
some students to use them as a media for cheating and
plagiarism.
The results of the study revealed also a high level of
misunderstanding of what Greek students regard as cheating or

plagiarism. This is in agreement with previous studies such as

Andersons (1998, pg. 5) who found that it is hardly surprising
that at least in some cases of students they were confused when
plagiarism appeared in acceptable form and it was well done
formatted.
Focusing on this matter, students have to learn that the
appropriate use of information requires care and students must
acquire skills to develop appropriate academic writing
(Howard, 1995; Wilson, 1997).
On the other hand, many students (in accordance with their
discipline) they were not fully aware of the extent of penalties,
as well as of a formal definition of what plagiarism and
cheating is, in conjunction with common knowledge,
institutional regulations, and code of ethics. Some institutions
in Greece (http://www.eap.gr/view.php?artid=1084) and
abroad are trying to standardize their definitions as part of a
formalization of processes for punishing plagiarism [22-24].
Still it remains unclear if this will normalize academic reality,
but the results of the study point that it could be a good practice
for Greek higher institutions as well. It was found that it is
certainly clear that poor assessment processes is comforting in
the expansion of plagiarism acts [22] and this indicates the
need to use ICT and plagiarism software in this process and in
Greek Higher Institutions.
It is challenging while the concepts of copyright violation
and plagiarism overlaps and students are confused [25-27].
Concerning the ethical issue on how students perceive
plagiarism also depends on their own perceptions of human
rights [22, 28]. Academic teachers have to give open courses
on ethical issues and the way people have to accept the
diversity and the intellectual property. As a result students will
have a better ground to realize the academic culture and
develop the understanding of what academic behavior is [2931].
Factor age in this study revealed that older students had
higher standards in ethics than younger ones in agreement to
other studies [32-34], however this evidence is not a strong
indication. Same with the role of gender in ethical issues is
challenging [36] and this study suggests that males in
comparison with females are generally more accepting of
ethically questionable situations [32, 37] but still appears that
can decide to cheat more easily than female students [38].
As to cheating and plagiarism influenced by ethical issues
the results of this study indicated that, although students were
aware of what they should, they underestimated the moral
issues and they violated copyright.
Limitations of the study can be considered that the process
relied heavily on a questionnaire provided by social media.
Future work may include other options and extend on a larger
sample of students from various schools, universities.

V.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the above indications highlight the

importance of the presence of various methods that can serve
as tools for educators to adapt the changes on students

978-1-4799-4743-0/14/$31.00 2014 IEEE

November 13-14, 2014, Thessaloniki, Greece
2014 International Conference on Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies and Learning
Page 366

attitudes, contributing to the availability of innovative

traditional and computerized methods to enhance students
academic integrity. As a result, this can guide us:

to investigate new ideas that accommodate open

access mobile tools for web plagiarism detection,

to design and develop in institutional level, open

access mobile web educational tools focusing on enhancing
students academic integrity according to current trends and
technology in the Greek reality.

REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]
[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]
[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

Breen, L., & Maassen, M. (2005). Reducing the incidence of plagiarism

in an undergraduate course: the role of education. Issues in Educational
Research
15:
Available
online
at
http://
www.iier.org.au/iier15/breen.html (accessed 13 April 2007).
Brimble, M., & Stevenson-Clarke, P. (2005). Perceptions of the
prevalence and seriousness of academic dishonesty in Australian
universities. Australian Educational Researcher, 32(3), 1944.
Hasen, M., & Huppert, M. (2005). The trial of Damocles: An
investigation into the incidence of plagiarism at an Australian university.
In P. L. Jeffery (Ed.), Proceedings of AARE Annual Conference.
Parramatta, NSW: AARE. Retrieved May 1, 2006 from
http://www.aare.edu.au/ 05pap/has05273.pdf
Marsden, H., Carroll, M., & Neill, J. (2005). Who cheats at university?
A self-report study of dishonest academic behaviours in a sample of
Australian university students. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57(1),
110.
Marshall, S. J. (2005). Copyright with an international perspective for
academics. In C. Howard, J. V. Boettcher, L. Justice, K. Schenk, P. L.
Rogers, & G. A.Berg (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distancelearning (pp. 440
454). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Gullifer, J., & and Tyson, G. A. (2010). Exploring university students
perception of plagiarism: a focus group study. Studies in Higher
Education 35(4): 463-481
Joyce, D (2007). Academic integrity and plagiarism: Australasian
perspectives. Computer Science Education 17(3): 187-200
Pickard, J (2006). Staff and student attitudes to plagiarism at University
College Northampton. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
31(2): 215-232
Avramidou, E. and Kekkeris, G. (2012). The case of plagiarism on
students blogs [in Greek:
], 8th ETPE Conference, Volos, Greece, 575-582.
Creighton, J. L., Foster, J. W., Klingsmith, L., & Withey, D. K. (2013). I
just look it up: Undergraduate student perception of social media use in
their academic success. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 2(2).
Henry, S. (2012). On social connection in university life. About Campus,
16(6), 18-24.
Avramidou, E. and Kekkeris, G. (2013). Digital Literacy. The case of
plagiarism [in Greek: .
], i-Teacher, 6, 19-28.
Austin, M., & Brown, L. (1999). Internet plagiarism: developing
strategies to curb student academic dishonesty. The Internet and Higher
Education 2, no. 1: 2133. Adam, A. (2000). Gender and computer
ethics. Computers and Society, 30(4), 1724.
Evans, R. (2006). Evaluating an electronic plagiarism detection service:
the importance of trust and the difficulty of proving students dont cheat.
Active Learning in Higher Education 7, no. 1: 8799.
Park, C. (2003). In other (peoples) words: plagiarism by university
studentsliterature and lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education 28, no. 5: 47188.

[16] Foltnek, T., Rybika, J., & Demoliou, C. (2013). Do students think
what teachers think about plagiarism? Proceedings of International
Conference Plagiarism across Europe and Beyond, 12-13 June 2013,
Brno, Czech Republic, 127-135.
[17] Gynnild, V. & Gotschalk, P. (2008). Promoting academic integrity at a
Midwestern University: Critical review and current challenges.
International Journal for Educational Integrity 4(2): 41-59.
[18] McCabe, D. 2005. Cheating amongst college and university students: a
North American perspective. International Journal of Educational
Integrity 1, no. 1. Available online at http://www.ojs.
[19] Baker, R. K., Berry, P. & Thornton, B. (2008). Student attitudes on
academic integrity violations. Journal of College Teaching & Learning
5(1): 5-13
[20] Curtis, G. J., & Popal, R. (2011). An examination of factors related to
plagiarism and a five-year follow-up of plagiarism at an Australian
university. International Journal for Educational Integrity 7(1): 30-42
[21] Owunwanne, D., Rustagi, N., & Dada, R. (2010). Students perceptions
of cheating and plagiarism in higher institutions. Journal of College
Teaching and Learning 7(11): 59-68
[22] Carroll, J. (2002). A handbook for deterring plagiarism in higher
education. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development,
Oxford Brookes University.
[23] Carroll, J. (2003). Setting plagiarism tariffs: An institutional approach
seeking fairness and consistency. Paper presented at the HERDSA 2003
conference.
Retrieved
August
2004,
http://surveys.canterbury.ac.nz/herdsa03/pdfsnon/N1024.pdf
[24] Walker, J. (1998). Student plagiarism in universities: What are we doing
about it? Higher Education Research and Development, 17(1), 89106.
[25] Marshall, S., & Garry, M. (2005). How well do students really
understand plagiarism? In H. Goss (Ed.), Balance, fidelity, mobility:
Proceedings of the 2005 ASCILITE Conference. Brisbane: Queensland
University of Technology, 457-467.
[26] Snapper, J. W. (1999). On the web, plagiarism matters more than
copyright piracy. Ethics and Information Technology, 1, 127136.
[27] Standler, R. B. (2000). Plagiarism in colleges in USA. Retrieved August
9, 2004, from http://www.rbs2.com/plag.htm
[28] Dick, M., Sheard, J., & Markham, S. (2001). Is it okay to cheat? The
views of postgraduate students. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 33(3): 61-64.
[29] St. Onge, K. R. (1988). The melancholy anatomy of plagiarism.
Lanham, MD: University Press of America
[30] Martin, B. (1992). Plagiarism by university students: The problem and
some proposals. Paper presented at Tertangala, July 20 August 3,
1992.
Retrieved
August
2004,
from
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/92tert.html
[31] Anderson, J. (1998). Plagiarism, copyright violation and other thefts of
intellectual property. Jefferson, NC:McFarland and Company.
[32] Borkowski, S., & Ugras, Y. (1998). Business students and ethics: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 11171127.
[33] Miesing, P., & Preble, J. (1985). A comparison of five business
philosophies. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 465476.
[34] Ruegger, D., & King, E. W. (1992). A study of the effect of age and
gender upon student business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 11,
179186.
[35] Terpstra, D., Rozell, E., & Robinson, R. (1993). The influence of
personality and demographic variables on ethical decisions related to
insider trading. Journal of Psychology, 127(4), 375390.
[36] Adam, A. (2000). Gender and computer ethics. Computers and Society,
30(4), 1724.
[37] Longenecker, J. G., McKinney, J. A. Moore, C. W., & Weeks, W. A.
(2001). An empirical study of the relationship between past experiences
and how individuals perceive ethical dilemmas. Paper presented at the
Hawaii Conference on Business. Retrieved August 9, 2004, from
http://business.baylor.edu/web/DEPT/COMM&MKT/Ethics2.doc
[38] Straw, D. (2002). The plagiarism of generation why not?. Community
College Week, 14(24), 47.

978-1-4799-4743-0/14/$31.00 2014 IEEE

November 13-14, 2014, Thessaloniki, Greece
2014 International Conference on Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies and Learning
Page 367