Academic Integrity and Plagiarism: Australasian perspectives

Academic Integrity and Plagiarism:

Australasian perspectives

Donald Joyce*Unitec, New Zealand

This paper reviews nearly 80 published items concerned with promoting academic integrity and

reducing plagiarism. Nearly all of them were published in the last seven years and have authors

based in Australasia. Most of them have authors from computing departments and many were

published in computing journals or presented at computing conferences. The paper begins with a

description of how the reviewed items were selected, then dates and types of publication are

analysed, key concepts and terms are listed, perspectives and themes are identified, and the

referenced literature is reviewed by theme.

1. Introduction

In recent years the related issues of academic integrity and plagiarism have received a

lot of attention from teachers, educational administrators and the media. Many

observers see the heightened interest in promoting academic integrity and reducing

plagiarism as a reaction to the impacts of a changing student population and the

widespread adoption of electronic technologies (like the Internet) which can be used

for many purposes, including plagiarism and its detection or deterrence.

This paper attempts to provide an overview of Australasian perspectives on

academic integrity and plagiarism, with a particular focus on articles and papers

related to computing education. The target audience includes academics researching

cultural, educational, or technical issues, administrators developing and implement-

ing academic integrity policies, and teachers seeking guidance about how best to

promote academic integrity and deter plagiarism. The next four sections cover

methodology, dates and types of publication, terminology, and perspectives and

themes. The remaining sections review the referenced literature by theme and present

some conclusions.

*School of Computing and Information Technology, Unitec, Private Bag 92025, Auckland,

New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected]

Computer Science Education

Vol. 17, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 187 – 200

ISSN 0899-3408 (print)/ISSN 1744-5175 (online)/07/030187-14

� 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/08993400701538062

2. Methodology

At an early stage in the preparation of this paper, in order to see ‘‘what was on the

Internet,’’ Google searches were conducted using all possible combinations of the key

words ‘‘academic integrity,’’ ‘‘educational integrity,’’ ‘‘cheating’’ and ‘‘plagiarism’’

with ‘‘Australasia,’’ ‘‘Australia’’ and ‘‘New Zealand.’’ These searches located a

number of relevant papers in journals and conference proceedings, particularly those

of the Asia – Pacific Educational Integrity Conference, the Australasian Computer

Science Conference and the Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee

on Computing Qualifications.

After adding relevant items referenced in other articles and papers and eliminating

items that did not have authors based in Australasia or did not specifically address

plagiarism (or those aspects of academic integrity that relate to the proper

acknowledgement of sources), 136 items remained: a book, the transcript of a

television programme (on ‘‘The Newcastle plagiarism scandal’’), 11 newspaper

articles and 123 academic papers. Many of the academic papers (more than 50) had

been presented at one of the two Asia – Pacific Educational Integrity Conferences

(held in 2003 and 2005) and there was considerable overlap in content.

In the interests of producing a review that focuses on computing education, the

reference list has been pruned to 78 items, most of which have authors from

computing departments and were published in computing journals or presented at

computing conferences. A small number of other items have been included when

explaining key concepts or identifying issues. Nearly all articles and papers are

concerned with tertiary education, however, Cropp (2002) and Taylor (2003) focus

on secondary schools, and Joyce (2006a) and Kennedy (2005) discuss the situation in

primary schools.

2.1. Dates and Types of Publication

The 78 items include four papers from 1986, 1990, 1998, and 1999. There has been a

flurry of publication in the last six years: 5 in 2001, 7 in 2002, 15 in 2003, 18 in 2004,

23 in 2005, and 6 in 2006. Only one book is included in the references (Carroll,

2002); the author is a regular visitor to Australasia and has presented at Australasia

conferences, and it is an excellent and often cited resource. Most of the items were

presented at conferences (18 in all, including 9 that are focused on computing or the

use of computers in education; see Appendix). The rest of the academic papers were

published in journals (10 in all, including five that are focused on computing or the

use of computers in education; see Appendix).

2.2. Terminology

The language used by authors often suggests that they have taken a particular stance

on the issues surrounding academic integrity and plagiarism. A selection of the key

concepts found in the items reviewed in this paper is presented in Table 1, along with

188 D. Joyce

indicative citations. The table is followed by a brief discussion of the most commonly

used concepts (the negative terms ‘‘plagiarism’’ and ‘‘cheating,’’ and the positive

terms ‘‘academic integrity’’ and ‘‘educational integrity’’) that may assist readers in

their own analysis of the literature.

‘‘Plagiarism’’ appears in the titles of 47 of the 78 items. Martin (2004) identified

four types of plagiarism: ‘‘plagiarism of authorship,’’ ‘‘plagiarism of ideas,’’

‘‘plagiarism of sources’’ and ‘‘word-by-word plagiarism.’’ Several authors (see, for

example, Cohen, 2003) have written about ‘‘inadvertent’’ or ‘‘unintentional’’

plagiarism, while Arwin and Tahaghoghi (2006) addressed the problem of

‘‘interlingual plagiarism’’ in the context of computer programs. Collberg and

Kobourov (2005) discussed ‘‘self-plagiarism,’’ where the author(s) ‘‘recycles’’ the

content of one paper in another (as was found to be the case with two of the original

136 items that were considered for this review; these two nearly identical papers were

presented at two different conferences in the same week and are not included in the

references of this review). ‘‘Cheating’’ appears in the titles of 16 of the 78 items.

Many authors use the terms ‘‘cheating’’ and ‘‘plagiarism’’ interchangeably, but

Marsden (2003) defined cheating as ‘‘non-plagiaristic dishonesty.’’

‘‘Academic integrity’’ appears in the titles of 10 of the 78 items. It has also been

adopted by a consortium of more than 400 American colleges and universities who

have established the Center for Academic Integrity, which ‘‘strives to teach five

fundamental values to campuses across the nation: honesty, trust, fairness, respect,

and responsibility’’ (Walker Teaching Resource Center, 2006). The aspect of

academic integrity that this review focuses on is ‘‘proper acknowledgment of sources’’

Table 1. Concepts and citations

Concept Citations

Academic integrity Emerson, Rees, and MacKay (2005), Mulcahy and Goodacre

(2004), Muller (2005), Partridge and McNamara (2005),

Phillips (2005)

Academic plagiarism Kock (1999)

Acknowledgment of sources East (2005), Melles (2003)

Appropriation Clerehan and Johnson (2003)

Attribution East (2005), Hussin and Hanisch (2003)

Authenticity Gajadhar (1998)

Cheating Marsden (2003)

Coderivative documents Hoad and Zobel (2003)

Educational integrity Sutherland-Smith and Carr (2005)

Inappropriate copying Kuiper (2005)

Intertextuality Chandrasoma, Thompson, and Pennycook (2004), Eira (2005)

Originality East (2005), Johnson and Clerehan (2005), Mann and Frew

(2006)

Plagiarism Arwin and Tahaghoghi (2006), Cohen (2003), Collberg and

Kobourov (2005), Martin (2004)

Unacknowledged copying Melles (2003)

Academic Integrity and Plagiarism 189

(East, 2005; Melles, 2003). ‘‘Educational integrity’’ appears in the title of only one of

the 78 items, despite featuring prominently in the names of the two conferences

where many of the papers appeared and in the title of the International Journal for

Educational Integrity. According to one of the (anonymous) reviewers of this review

‘‘this term is used in Australia to differentiate the work here from the Center for

Academic Integrity in the USA, and also to encourage researchers and practitioners

from all levels of education (not just tertiary) to investigate and focus on integrity.’’

3. Perspectives and Themes

Close examination of the academic papers reveals some marked differences in the

perspectives of the authors. Many of these differences can be categorized in terms of

distinctions like academic/administrative, educational/disciplinary, positive/negative,

and proactive/reactive. Some authors have highlighted these different perspectives in

their papers, for example ‘‘policy against cheating or policy for learning’’ (Martin,

2004) and ‘‘teach-them-to-be-good or catch-them-at-it’’ (Taylor, 2003). However,

these distinctions are often subjective and need not be seen as oppositions; many

authors have looked at the issues from several perspectives and some papers (see,

for example, Allan, Callagher, Connors, Joyce, & Rees, 2005) are the result of

collaborations between academics and administrative staff.

A more objective framework for viewing the literature was adopted for this review,

based on the following nine themes (the numbers in parentheses indicates how many

of the 78 items had a major focus on that theme):

. assessment design (8);

. attitudes and perceptions (26);

. cultural differences (9);

. detection and prevalence (21);

. discipline and penalties (6);

. education and support (19);

. ethics, morality and values (5);

. evaluation of software (16);

. policies and processes (10).

These themes are explored further in the following sections. It should be noted that

most papers focus on more than one theme and some papers (see, for example, Alam,

2004; Dick et al., 2003) cover nearly all of them to a lesser or greater extent.

3.1. Assessment Design

Several authors (see, for example, Goddard & Rudzki, 2004; Hawthorn, 2001; Le

Heron, 2001; Stoney & McMahon, 2004) have argued that assessments can and

should be designed to minimize the likelihood of cheating and/or plagiarism. Alam

(2004) offered 11 suggestions, including minimizing the number of assessments,

190 D. Joyce

coordinating their timing, having more in-class assessments, encouraging critical

thinking, making clear what is expected, clarifying when collaboration ends and

collusion begins, not recycling assignments, breaking up large assignments into

components and requiring progress reports, and providing samples of accepted

standard and academic conventions. Dick et al. (2003) and Hornlund (2003)

suggested that individualized assessments be created, and Gajadhar (1998)

recommended using case studies and scenarios.

3.2. Attitudes and Perceptions

Many authors take the view that it is important to understand how staff and students

perceive issues concerned with academic integrity and plagiarism. Particularly

relevant for computing educators are the series of papers in which Dick, Sheard and

their collaborators explored the motivation, perspectives, and practices of computing

students (Dick et al., 2003; Dick, Sheard, & Hasen, 2005; Dick, Sheard, & Markham,

2001a, 2001b; Sheard, Carbone, & Dick, 2002; Sheard & Dick, 2003; Sheard, Dick,

Markham, Macdonald, & Walsh, 2002; Sheard, Markham, & Dick, 2003). Other

researchers who focus on attitudes of computing students include Alam (2004),

Brook and Sewell (2006), Green, Lindemann, Marshall, and Wilkinson (2005a,

2005b), Gururajan and Roberts (2004), Hawthorn (2001), Joyce (2003), Le Heron

(2001), Marshall and Garry (2005), Paynter and Mills (2004), Savage (2004), Zobel

(2004), and Zobel and Hamilton (2002). Of these, Alam, Dick et al., Green et al.,

Hawthorn, Joyce, and Savage also discussed the views of staff. Goddard and Rudzki

(2005), Joyce (2002a, 2002b), Ryan (2004), and Sutherland-Smith and Carr (2005)

reported on staff perspectives on plagiarism detection software.

3.3. Cultural Differences

The rapid increase in cultural/ethnic diversity in Australasian tertiary institutions has

led to the publication of a lot of articles and papers that focus on perceived differences

in attitudes towards ‘‘textual borrowings.’’ Nine of the academic papers specifically

relate to computing students (Alam, 2004; Baskett, Collings, & Preston, 2004; Brook

& Sewell, 2006; Dick et al., 2003; Green et al., 2005a, 2005b; Hawthorn, 2001;

Marshall & Garry, 2005; Zobel & Hamilton, 2002). Most conclude that differences in

attitudes do exist and suggest that special efforts may be needed to help some

international students (and new immigrants) to understand what is required in the

Australasian academic context.

3.4. Detection and Prevalence

Many papers describe the experiences that the authors and their institutions have had

with software designed to detect plagiarism in (or ‘‘check the originality of’’) written

assignments or essays (see, for example, Allan et al., 2005; Mulcahy & Goodacre,

2004). Others focus on special purpose software to detect plagiarism in computer


programs (see, for example, Arwin & Tahaghoghi, 2006; Burrows, Tahaghoghi, &

Zobel, 2004; Chawla, 2003; Vamplew & Dermoudy, 2005; Whale, 1986, 1990).

Phillips (2005) compared detection practices across Australasian tertiary institutions.

Emerson, Rees, and MacKay (2005), Joyce (2004a, 2004b, 2005), and Mann and

Frew (2006) have pointed out that it is dangerous to rely totally on software for

plagiarism detection. Most electronic originality checkers can only highlight sections

of text or code that can be located elsewhere (e.g. in electronic books and journals, in

other students’ assignments or on the Internet) and human interpretation is required

to decide, first, whether plagiarism has occurred, second, whether it was intentional

or unintentional, and, third, what is the appropriate response. There is also a concern

that students may copy from non-electronic sources or use techniques such as

systematic word replacement or translation from another language (human or

computer) to disguise plagiarized material (Arwin & Tahaghoghi, 2006; Joyce,

2004a). Joyce (2005) suggested that ‘‘the staff member should also apply some of the

traditional methods . . . to pick up instances of plagiarism that have not been detected

by the software.’’

Most papers that discuss the prevalence of plagiarism refer to the results of surveys

conducted by other authors in which students were asked to say how often they had

cheated or plagiarized in different contexts (see, for example, Dick et al., 2003;

Emerson et al., 2005; Marsden, 2003). Alam (2004) and Paynter and Mills (2004)

conducted such surveys of computing students and analysed the percentages of

students plagiarizing across different forms of assessment. Alam also computed

correlations between plagiarism and demographic, situational, and perceptual factors.

A different approach was taken by Hasen and Huppert (2005) and by Simon (2005),

who conducted experiments to identify how many students cheated in particular

assessments (an essay and an online examination, respectively). Zobel and Hamilton

(2002) reported ‘‘a significant reduction in the number of students caught cheating’’

following the introduction of ‘‘rigorous systems for detecting and penalising

plagiarism.’’

3.5. Discipline and Penalties

Phillips (2005) compared disciplinary approaches across Australasian tertiary

institutions. Dick et al. (2003) listed 11 common responses to ‘‘suspected or

apparent cases of cheating,’’ ranging from ‘‘no action’’ to ‘‘retract degree and notify

others.’’ Joyce (2002a) reported a situation where three students were found to have

colluded on three assignments. Two of them admitted their role, but the third denied

his culpability even after the others had implicated him in his presence. All three were

suspended for 12 months. Zobel (2004) described a case (the ‘‘Uni Cheats Racket’’)

where a tutor at one institution wrote assignments and sat exams for students at

another institution. The police were called in and the tutor and one student were

convicted by the local court, but the tutor subsequently resumed his activities.

Paynter and Mills (2004) provided two lists of penalties: lighter ones that can be

imposed by a department, school, or faculty and heavier ones that can only be

192 D. Joyce

imposed by an institute-wide disciplinary committee. Kuiper (2005) explained the

role of the university proctor in dealing with ‘‘matters of dishonest academic

practice.’’

3.6. Education and Support

Since 2003 there has been a strong trend to focus more on education and support and

less on detection and discipline. Many authors argue that academics cannot expect

students to arrive at Australasian tertiary institutions with a clear understanding of

academic conventions concerning acknowledgement of sources. They stress the need

for raising the awareness and skill levels of students through induction programmes

and reinforcing their learnings through workshops and feedback on assessments (see,

for example, Baskett et al., 2004; Hamilton, Tahaghoghi, & Walker, 2004; Joyce,

2004a, 2004b, 2005). Another common strategy is to develop online learning

resources (see, for example, Brooks & Ellis, 2005; Callagher, Smith, & Mitchell,

2004; Hussin & Hanisch, 2003; Kett, 2003; Partridge & McNamara, 2005).

Several authors (see, for example, Alam, 2004; Allan et al., 2005; Dick et al.,

2003; Joyce, 2006a, 2006b; Mulcahy & Goodacre, 2004) have pointed out the need

to educate and support staff as well as students. Phillips (2005) summarized

learning activities and resources that are used with staff and students across

Australasian tertiary institutions and Muller (2005) assessed ‘‘the perceived value of

web-based academic integrity resources for staff.’’ Hawthorn (2001) advocated the

adoption of ‘‘teaching approaches that get students to make use of resources in the

computing environment in a way that develops their learning while discouraging

cheating.’’

3.7. Ethics, Morality and Values

Many academics consider plagiarism to be immoral or unethical and this influences

their attitude towards researchers and students who plagiarize. Hawthorn (2001)

discussed whether student cheating should be seen as part of a general moral and

social decline in wider society and concluded that ‘‘we are not immune to the joys of

the moral high ground but this may affect our accuracy.’’ Dick et al. (2003) observed

that ‘‘some academics perceive willingness to do anything to pass a course as a

reflection of this moral and social decline.’’ Brook and Sewell (2006) noted that ‘‘the

social, political and sporting milieu are shot through with examples of people getting

ahead by cheating,’’ but argued that social and cultural factors should not be used as

an excuse for plagiarism. Gajadhar (1998) argued that ‘‘these core ethical issues

[plagiarism and authenticity] need addressing immediately and proactively.’’ In order

to ‘‘better understand how students make decisions to cheat,’’ Dick et al. (2003)

proposed a model of moral decision-making that takes into account demographic,

personal, situational, societal, and technological factors. Marsden (2005) asked

whether Australian universities should consider adopting honour codes like those

common in American academic institutions.


3.8. Evaluation of Software

Many academics still rely on Internet search engines like Google to search the

Internet for suspicious sections of text (Dick et al., 2003; Joyce, 2005). However, a lot

of purpose built software has been written to detect plagiarism, including a Perl

program written by a 13-year-old boy (Hinds, 2004). The Centre for the Study of

Higher Education (2003) and Morrison (2001) compared some of the available

software, while Hasen and Huppert (2005) reported the results of a trial of a program

called Damocles. Hoad and Zobel (2003) evaluated two families of methods for

identifying ‘‘coderivative documents,’’ one based on information retrieval techniques

and the other on hashing. Arwin and Tahaghoghi (2006) analysed the performance of

a tool which can ‘‘detect plagiarism involving multiple languages using intermediate

program code produced by a compiler suite.’’

Turnitin (http://turnitin.com/static/index.html) is widely used in Australasia and

has been the subject of a number of comparisons and trials. It compares the text of

submitted documents with each other and with a selection of web sites, journals, and

electronic books and highlights significant matches. Emerson et al. (2005) and

Goddard and Rudzki (2004, 2005) concluded that the reports provided by Turnitin

require careful study before determining whether plagiarism has occurred and, if so,

how serious it is. Green et al. (2005a, 2005b) and Savage (2004) reported on staff and

student reactions/responses to a trial of Turnitin. Their studies found that different

groups of students responded differently and that staff and students expressed a

number of concerns, although staff were generally positive. Sutherland-Smith and

Carr (2005) explored staff perspectives about the effectiveness and usability of

Turnitin and concluded that ‘‘such software should not be considered a panacea for

plagiarism.’’ Brook and Sewell (2006) found that changing about 10% of a document

will completely defeat the techniques used by Turnitin.

3.9. Policies and Processes

Joyce (2004a, 2004b, 2005) and Kuiper (2005) emphasized the importance of having

appropriate procedures in place to deal with suspected cases of plagiarism (or other

forms of ‘‘academic misconduct’’). Allan et al. (2005) and Phillips (2005) compared

policies and processes across Australasian tertiary institutions. Mulcahy and

Goodacre (2004) discussed several legal issues, including copyright and intellectual

property rights, whether student agreement to the use of plagiarism detection

software could be considered consent under coercion, and the status of Turnitin

reports as evidence in plagiarism cases. Phillips (2005) observed that ‘‘academic

integrity policies tend to focus on academic integrity for students, without addressing

staff issues at all, including the need for ethical behaviour and appropriate

assessment.’’ Dick et al. (2003) argued that ‘‘without support from all academics,

an institution’s policies are limited in their effectiveness’’ and reported a variety of

suggestions for improvements in institutional processes. Zobel (2004) noted the

importance of requiring that ‘‘staff report cases centrally and thus not collude with

194 D. Joyce

students in cover-ups,’’ conducting formal hearings, maintaining careful records and

operating a system of central coordination.

4. Conclusions

Staff in tertiary institutions were concerned about academic integrity, cheating, and

plagiarism long before computers and access to the Internet became widespread.

However, it does seem that there has been a dramatic increase in public airing of these

concerns in the last 6 years. Many observers and researchers suggest that

technological changes, rapid expansion of tertiary education, and greater diversity

in the student population are significant contributing factors in the apparent growth

in academic misconduct. Some point to perceived changes in ethical standards in

wider society and argue that educational institutions should introduce more stringent

disciplinary processes and harsher penalties. We should note, however, that the

development of software that can identify ‘‘borrowed words’’ and plagiarized

programs may have led to much higher rates of detection, revealing the extent of a

problem that was previously largely hidden from view. Also many articles and papers

have talked about cultural differences in relation to ethnicity but have overlooked

another important difference: most staff are ‘‘digital immigrants’’ whereas most

students are ‘‘digital natives,’’ used to freely accessing and sharing electronic

information, so there may be a clash of perceptions and values as well as a

technological gap.

What seems certain is that academic and administrative staff will need to

continue spending precious time and resources in meeting the challenges posed by

a lack of understanding of academic conventions and by the availability of electronic

tools and resources that can be misused. As many authors have suggested, there is

no single remedy, so we must ensure that we give equal emphasis to the necessary

ingredients: assessment design, education of staff and students, detection tools,

academic integrity policies, and disciplinary processes. Hopefully this review may

serve as a map of the wide territory covered by the many publications produced

by Australasian academics and adminstrators in recent years. The references in

those publications can be used as ‘‘signposts’’ to the very extensive worldwide

literature.

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges the advice provided by the reviewers and editors

of this paper.

References

Alam, L. S. (2004). Is plagiarism more prevalent in some forms of assessment than others?

ASCILITE Conference. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/

perth04/procs/alam.html‘‘\t’’top


Allan, G., Callagher, L., Connors, M., Joyce, D., & Rees, M. (2005). Some Australasian

perspectives on academic integrity in the Internet age. EDUCAUSE Conference. Retrieved

March 21, 2007, from www.copyright.mq.edu.au/pdf/austperspect.pdf

Arwin, C., & Tahaghoghi, S. M. M. (2006). Plagiarism detection across programming languages.

29th Australasian Computer Science Conference. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://portal.

acm.org/citation.cfm?id¼1151699.1151730&coll¼&dl¼acm&CFID¼15151515&CFTOKEN¼6184618

Baskett, J., Collings, P., & Preston, H. (2004). Plagiarism or support? What should be the focus for

our changing graduate coursework cohort? Australian Universities Quality Forum. Retrieved

March 21, 2007, from www.auqa.edu.au/auqf/2004/program/papers/Collings.pdf

Brook, P., & Sewell, A. (2006). Trouble at t’paper mill. In S. Mann & N. Bridgeman (Eds.), 19th

Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications. Wellington:

NACCQ.

Brooks, C., & Ellis, J. (2005). Fidelity to scholarly practice: Academic honesty and information

literacy in the Faculty of Arts. ASCILITE Conference. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from

www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/11_Brooks.pdf

Burrows, S., Tahaghoghi, S. M. M., & Zobel, J. (2004). Efficient and effective plagiarism detection

for large code repositories. 2nd Australian Undergraduate Students’ Computing Conference.

Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.cs.berkeley.edu/*benr/publications/auscc04/papers/

burrows-auscc04.pdf

Callagher, L., Smith, P., & Mitchell, L. (2004). From vexation to motivation—e-learning to counter

plagiarism. Paper presented at CPD Teaching Showcase Conference, University of Auckland,

November 19.

Carroll, J. (2002). A handbook for deterring plagiarism in higher education. Oxford: Oxford Brookes

University.

Centre for the Study of Higher Education. (2003). Comparison of plagiarism software features.

Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/assessinglearning/03/plag3.html

Chandrasoma, R., Thompson, C., & Pennycook, A. (2004). Beyond plagiarism: Transgressive and

nontransgressive intertextuality. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 3(3), 171 – 193.

Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327701jlie0303_1?

cookieSet¼1&journalCode¼jlie

Chawla, M. (2003). An indexing technique for efficiently detecting plagiarism in large volumes of source

code. Honours thesis, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.

Clerehan, R., & Johnson, A. (2003). Ending the war on plagiarism: Appropriation in context.

Educational Integrity: Plagiarism and Other Perplexities Conference. Retrieved March 21, 2007,

from www.unisa.edu.au/educationalintegrity/apeic2003/Breakout%20program.htm

Cohen, J. (2003). Addressing inadvertent plagiarism: A practical strategy to help non-English

speaking background (NESB) students. Educational Integrity: Plagiarism and Other Perplexities

Conference. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.unisa.edu.au/educationalintegrity/apeic2003/

Breakout%20program.htm

Collberg, C., & Kobourov, S. (2005). Self-plagiarism in computer science. Communications of the

ACM, 48(4), 88 – 94.

Cropp, A. (2002, August 25). Modern cheating 101: Confessions of a copycat. Sunday Star Times,

p. c3.

Dick, M., Sheard, J., Bareiss, C., Carter, J., Joyce, D., Harding, T. et al. (2003). Addressing

student cheating: Definitions and solutions. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(2), 172 – 184.

Dick, M., Sheard, J., & Hasen, M. (2005). What to do about cheating? Using the student pers-

pective to develop curriculum to address the problem. 2nd Asia-Pacific Educational Integrity

Conference. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.newcastle.edu.au/conference/apeic/

papers.html

Dick, M., Sheard, J., & Markham, S. (2001a). Is it okay to cheat?—The views of postgraduate

students. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(3), 61 – 64.

196 D. Joyce

Dick, M., Sheard, J., & Markham, S. (2001b). The reasons for student cheating: A survey of

postgraduate students. International Conference on Computers in Education. Retrieved March 30,

2003, from www.icce2001.org/cd/pdf/p08/Au102.pdf

East, J. (2005). Proper acknowledgment? Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 2(3).

Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.jutlp.uow.edu.au/2005_v02_i03a/pdf/east_005.pdf

Eira, C. (2005). Obligatory intertextuality and proscribed plagiarism: Intersections and contra-

dictions for research writing. 2nd Asia – Pacific Educational Integrity Conference. Retrieved March

21, 2007, from www.newcastle.edu.au/conference/apeic/papers.html

Emerson, L., Rees, M., & MacKay, B. (2005). Scaffolding academic integrity: Creating a learning

context for teaching referencing skills. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice,

2(3). Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://jutlp.uow.edu.au/2005_v02_i03a/emerson005.

html

Gajadhar, J. (1998). Issues in plagiarism for the new millenium: An assessment odyssey. Retrieved March

21, 2007, from http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/dec98/gajad1.htm

Goddard, R., & Rudzki, R. (2004). The problems of plagiarism and their detection using software.

E-fest Conference. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.efest.org.nz/2004/doc/Robert_

Goddard_Paper.DOC

Goddard, R., & Rudzki, R. (2005). Using an electronic text-matching tool (Turnitin) to detect

plagiarism in a New Zealand university. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 2(3).

Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://jutlp.uow.edu.au/2005_v02_i03b/goddard006.html

Green, D., Lindemann, I., Marshall, K., & Wilkinson, G. (2005a). Student perceptions of a trial of

electronic text matching software: A preliminary investigation. Journal of University Teaching

and Learning Practice, 2(3). Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://jutlp.uow.edu.au/

2005_v02_i03a/green005.html

Green, D., Lindemann, I., Marshall, K., & Wilkinson, G. (2005b). Staff and student reactions to a

trial of electronic text matching software. 2nd Asia – Pacific Educational Integrity Conference.

Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.newcastle.edu.au/conference/apeic/papers.html

Gururajan, R., & Roberts, D. (2004). Attitude towards plagiarism in information systems in Australian

universities. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://eprints.usq.edu.au/archive/00000856/01/

Gururajan_Roberts.pdf

Hamilton, M., Tahaghoghi, S. M. M., & Walker, C. (2004). Educating students about plagiarism

avoidance—a computer science perspective. International Conference on Computers in Education.

Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/*mh/Papers/157_Hamilton.pdf

Hasen, M., & Huppert, M. (2005). The trial of Damocles: An investigation into the incidence of

plagiarism at an Australian university. Australian Association for Research in Education Conference.

Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.aare.edu.au/05pap/has05273.pdf

Hawthorn, D. (2001). Helping cheats prosper. New Zealand Journal of Applied Computing and

Information Technology, 5(1). 43 – 48. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.in-site.co.nz/

misc_links/papers/hawthorn139.pdf

Hinds, N. (2004). Punching plagiarism. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.rsnz.org/education/

dream/2004/hinds.php

Hoad, T., & Zobel, J. (2003). Methods for identifying versioned and plagiarised documents. Journal of

the American Society of Information Science and Technolgy, 54(3), 203 – 215. Retrieved

March 21, 2007, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id¼766444&dl¼acm&coll¼&CFID¼15151515&CFTOKEN¼6184618

Hornlund, S. (2003). Spreadsheets can help reduce plagiarism. Educational Integrity: Plagiarism

and Other Perplexities Conference. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.unisa.edu.au/

educationalintegrity/apeic2003/Breakout%20program.htm

Hussin, V., & Hanisch, J. (2003). Reducing student plagiarism through targeting the assessment

task and embedding online learning development. Educational Integrity: Plagiarism and Other

Perplexities Conference. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.unisa.edu.au/educationalintegrity/

apeic2003/Breakout%20program.htm


Johnson, A., & Clerehan, R. (2005). A rheme of one’s own: How ‘original’ do we expect students to

be? Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 2(3). Retrieved March 21, 2007, from

http://jutlp.uow.edu.au/2005_v02_i03a/johnson005.html

Joyce, D. (2002a). Responding to electronic cheating. Netsafe Conference. Retrieved March 21,

2007, from www.netsafe.org.nz/Doc_Library/netsafepapers_donaldjoyce_cheating.pdf

Joyce, D. (2002b). Cheating, outsourcing, plagiarism: A growing problem? 15th Annual Conference

of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from

http://site.tekotago.ac.nz/staticdata/papers02/papers/joyce245.pdf

Joyce, D. (2003). Checking originality and preventing plagiarism. In S. Mann (Ed.), Proceedings of

the 16th Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications

(pp. 303 – 306). Palmerston North: NACCQ.

Joyce, D. (2004a). Reducing plagiarism: A three-pronged approach. Plagiarism: Prevention, Practice

& Policy Conference. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.jiscpas.ac.uk/documents/abstracts/

2004abstract13.pdf

Joyce, D. (2004b). Plagiarism: Meeting new challenges. In S. Mann & T. Clear (Eds.), Proceedings

of the 17th Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications

(p. 504). Christchurch: NACCQ.

Joyce, D. (2005). Academic integrity, educational practice and ICT. Proceedings of the Annual

Conference of the Higher Education Academy—Information and Computer Sciences (p. 149). York:

Higher Education Academy.

Joyce, D. (2006a). Promoting academic integrity among staff and students. In F. Duggan (Ed.),

Proceedings of the 2nd International Plagiarism: Prevention, Practice & Policy Conference (pp. 131 –

136). Newcastle upon Tyne: Northumbria University Press.

Joyce, D. (2006b). Raising awareness about academic integrity. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(3), 350.

Kennedy, I. (2005). Homework—is this a project for plagiarism? 2nd Asia – Pacific Educational

Integrity Conference. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.newcastle.edu.au/conference/apeic/

papers.html

Kett, G. (2003). Assessing the referencing practices of first year computer science students.



Kock, N. (1999). A case of academic plagiarism. Communications of the ACM, 42(7), 96 – 104.

Kuiper, A. (2005). Proctors, plagiarism and problems: A case study in developing procedures for

dealing with dishonest academic practice. Proceedings of the HERDSA Conference. Retrieved

March 21, 2007, from http://conference.herdsa.org.au/2005/pdf/refereed/paper_261.pdf

Le Heron, D. (2001). Why do they do it? What can we do? The contextual realities of cheating in

information systems. New Zealand Journal of Applied Computing and Information Technology,

5(2), 28 – 34.

Mann, S., & Frew, Z. (2006). Similarity and originality in code: plagiarism and normal variation in

student assignments. In D. Tolhurst & S. Mann (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Australasian

Computing Education Conference (pp. 143 – 150). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer

Society.

Marsden, M. (2003). When academic dishonesty isn’t plagiarism: An overview of the literature on

other kinds of cheating. Educational Integrity: Plagiarism and Other Perplexities Conference.

Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.unisa.edu.au/educationalintegrity/apeic2003/

Breakout%20program.htm

Marsden, H. (2005). Reinventing ethical education in Australia : Too ocker for honour? 2nd Asia –

Pacific Educational Integrity Conference. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.newcastle.edu.

au/conference/apeic/papers.html

Marshall, S., & Garry, M. (2005). How well do students really understand plagiarism? ASCILITE

Conference. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/

proceedings/52_Marshall.pdf

198 D. Joyce

Martin, B. (2004). Plagiarism: Policy against cheating or policy for learning? Nexus, 16(2), 15 – 16.

Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/04plag.pdf

Melles, G. (2003). Challenging discourses of plagiarism and the reproductive ESL learner.



Morrison, T. (2001). Selecting a strategy for combating plagiarism. Proceedings of the 14th Annual

Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications (pp. 351 – 356). Hamilton,

New Zealand: National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications.

Mulcahy, S., & Goodacre, C. (2004). Opening Pandora’s box of academic integrity: Using

plagiarism detection software. ASCILITE Conference. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from

www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/mulcahy.html

Muller, R. (2005). An evaluation of the perceived value of web-based academic integrity resources

for staff. 2nd Asia – Pacific Educational Integrity Conference. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from

www.newcastle.edu.au/conference/apeic/papers.html

Partridge, L., & McNamara, B. (2005). Addressing the wandering naı̈ve: The development of an

online resource to educate students about a university-wide academic integrity policy. 2nd

Asia – Pacific Educational Integrity Conference. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.newcastle.

edu.au/conference/apeic/papers_pdf/partridge.pdf

Paynter, J., & Mills, C. (2004). Academic plagiarism: An analysis of current technological issues.

Operational Research Society of New Zealand Conference. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from

www.orsnz.org.nz

Phillips, R. (2005). Audit of academic integrity and plagiarism issues in Australia and New Zealand.

Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.tlc.murdoch.edu.au/project/acode‘‘\t’’new

Ryan, S. (2004). Turnitin: One lecturer’s perspective. Paper presented at Electronic Plagiarism

Software: The Good, the Bad, the Reality Workshop, University of Newcastle, November

26.

Savage, S. (2004). Staff and student responses to a trial of Turnitin plagiarism detection software.

Australian Universities Quality Forum. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.auqa.edu.au/auqf/

2004/program/papers/Savage.pdf

Sheard, J., Carbone, A., & Dick, M. (2002). Determination of factors which impact on IT students’

propensity to cheat. 5th Australasian Computing Education Conference. Retrieved March 21,

2007, from http://crpit.com/confpapers/CRPITV20Sheard.pdf

Sheard, J., & Dick, M. (2003). Influences on cheating practice of graduate students in IT courses:

What are the factors? ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(3), 45 – 49.

Sheard, J., Dick, M., Markham, S., Macdonald, I., & Walsh, M. (2002). Cheating and plagiarism:

Perceptions and practices of first year IT students. 7th Annual Conference on Innovation and

Technology in Computer Science Education. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://portal.acm.

org/citation.cfm?id¼544468&dl¼acm&coll¼&CFID¼15151515&CFTOKEN¼6184618

Sheard, J., Markham, S., & Dick, M. (2003). Investigating differences in cheating behaviour of IT

undergraduate and graduate students: The maturity and motivation factors. Higher Education

Research and Development Society of Australasia, 22(1), 91 – 108.

Simon (2005). Blatant cheating detected in an online examination. 2nd Asia – Pacific Educational

Integrity Conference. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.newcastle.edu.au/conference/apeic/

papers.html

Stoney, S., & McMahon, M. (2004). Bulletproof assessment, war stories, and tactics: Avoiding

cybercheating. ASCILITE Conference. Retrieved March 21, 2007 from www.ascilite.org.au/

conferences/perth04/procs/stoney.html

Sutherland-Smith, W., & Carr, R. (2005). Turnitin.com: Teachers’ perspectives of anti-plagiarism

software in raising issues of educational integrity. Journal of University Teaching and Learning

Practice, 2(3). Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://jutlp.uow.edu.au/2005_v02_i03b/

sutherland-smith006.html


Taylor, G. (2003). The critical role of pedagogy in plagiarism prevention: The Unley ten point

counter plagiarism strategy. Educational Integrity: Plagiarism and Other Perplexities Conference.

Retrieved March 21, 2007, from www.unisa.edu.au/educationalintegrity/apeic2003/Breakout%

20program.htm

Vamplew, P., & Dermoudy, J. (2005). An anti-plagiarism editor for software development curses.

7th Australasian Computing Education Conference. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://

crpit.com/confpapers/CRPITV42Vamplew.pdf

Walker Teaching Resource Center. (2006). Academic integrity conference to cover more than

plagiarism. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://www.utc.edu/news06/academicintegrity.

php

Whale, G. (1986). Detection of plagiarism in student programs. Proceedings of the 9th Australian

Computer Science Conference (pp. 231 – 241). Canberra, Australia: Australian Computer Society.

Whale, G. (1990). Identification of program similarity in large populations. The Computer Journal,

33(2). Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id¼79237&dl¼acm&

coll¼&CFID¼15151515&CFTOKEN¼6184618

Zobel, J. (2004). ‘‘Uni Cheats Racket’’: A case study in plagiarism investigation. 6th Australasian

Computing Education Conference. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://crpit.com/confpapers/

CRPITV30Zobel.pdf

Zobel, J., & Hamilton, M. (2002). Managing student plagiarism in large academic departments.

Australian Universities Review, 45(2). Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://goanna.cs.rmit.

edu.au/*jz/abstracts/aur02.html

Appendix: List of conferences and journals

Conferences

Annual Conference of the Higher Education Academy—Information and Computer

Sciences; Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing

Qualifications; Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer

Science Education; Art of Excellent Teaching Conference; ASCILITE Conference;

Asia – Pacific Educational Integrity Conference; Australasian Computer Science

Conference; Australian Association for Research in Education Conference;

Australian Undergraduate Students’ Computing Conference; Australian Universities

Quality Forum; EDUCAUSE Conference; E-fest Conference; Electronic Plagiarism

Software Workshop; Higher Education Research and Development Society of

Australasia Conference; International Conference on Computers in Education;

Netsafe Conference; Operational Research Society of New Zealand Conference;

Plagiarism: Prevention, Practice and Policy Conference.

Journals

Australian Universities Review; Communications of the ACM; Higher Education Research

and Development Society of Australasia; Journal of Language, Identity and Education;

Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology; Journal of

University Teaching and Learning Practice; Nexus; New Zealand Journal of Applied

Computing and Information Technology; ACM SIGCSE Bulletin; The Computer Journal.

200 D. Joyce

Documents

Academic Integrity and Plagiarism: Australasian perspectives