ELTIN JOURNAL: p-ISSN 2339-1561 Journal of English Language Teaching in Indonesia e–ISSN 2580-7684 39 PLAGIARISM IN THE INDONESIAN HIGHER EDUCATION: A STUDY OF NON-ENGLISH MAJOR UNDERGRADUATES Dang Arif Hartono1*, Stefanus Angga Badara Prima2 1dang.arif@podomorouniversity.ac.id, 2stefanus.angga@podomorouniversity.ac.id UNIVERSITAS AGUNG PODOMORO ABSTRACT This study aims to investigate the prevalence of plagiarism among university students and identify the specific types of plagiarism that are most commonly committed in their written work. To examine the extent of plagiarism among university students, the present study employed a textual analysis approach and utilized the iThenticate, a professional and subscription-based plagiarism checker. A sample of 39 participants, all students from an intact class, were recruited for the study and they each independently composed argumentative essays. The essays were subjected to analysis using iThenticate to determine the prevalence of plagiarized content and manual analysis was subsequently performed to validate the results obtained from iThenticate and classify the types of plagiarism present in the essays. The results reveal that the students' essays contained a relatively low level of plagiarized content, comprising only 9.87% of the total text. The most prevalent form of plagiarism detected was mosaic plagiarism, with 39 cases identified. This was followed by verbatim plagiarism, with 16 cases identified. The findings of this research suggest that the students may have difficulty dealing with mosaic plagiarism and may require comprehensive training on proper paraphrasing techniques. Keywords: Plagiarism, Plagiarism checker, iThenticate A. INTRODUCTION Higher education institutions place a great emphasis on students' ability to demonstrate their understanding and mastery of course material through various types of assignments. These assignments can include essays, research papers, lab reports, and other forms of written work that are designed to challenge students as they progress through their studies. In Indonesia, the expectation for students to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding is even higher. In order to graduate from an undergraduate or postgraduate program, students are required to complete a thesis. This thesis is a significant and often complex piece of work that requires students to conduct independent research and demonstrate their ability to think critically and analytically about a particular subject. To help students prepare for this important assignment, universities and colleges in Indonesia offer academic writing and research methodology courses as part of their curriculum. These courses are designed to teach students the skills and techniques they need to successfully complete their thesis. The focus and delivery of these courses can vary depending on various factors such as the Hartono & Prima: Plagiarism in Indonesian Higher … 40 institution, the program of study, and the level of the students. However, typically at least one or two sessions are devoted to discussing academic misconduct, including plagiarism. Despite efforts to prevent it, plagiarism remains prevalent in Indonesian colleges and universities. Patak et al. (2021) believe it is a widespread practice in these institutions. Similarly, Akbar and Picard (2019) view plagiarism as a "critical issue that hinders development and innovation" in the Indonesian academic community. Previous research (Gottardello et al., 2017; Gullifer & Tyson, 2014) has indicated that there exist varying definitions of plagiarism, even among academia, which can result in confusion. Additionally, Akbar and Picard (2019) highlight that the definitions established by the Ministry of Education and Culture of Indonesia may still allow for varying interpretations. It is worth mentioning that perhaps the most comprehensive definition and categorization of plagiarism to date has been presented by Harvard College (2023). The classification of plagiarism proposed by Harvard College (2023) includes six types: verbatim plagiarism, mosaic plagiarism, inadequate paraphrasing, uncited paraphrasing, uncited quotation, and using material from another student’s work. Verbatim plagiarism, also known as copy-and-paste plagiarism, is the act of reproducing the language of an original source, word for word, without proper acknowledgement through citation (Harvard College, 2023). This form of plagiarism is a serious academic offense, as it involves the direct duplication of source material without giving credit to the original author. While, mosaic plagiarism refers to the act of using words, phrases, or sentences from multiple sources without proper citation (Harvard College, 2023). This form of plagiarism occurs when an individual combines various sources, paraphrases them, and presents the work as their own. Furthermore, inadequate paraphrasing is the act of using language from an original source, but changing only a few words or phrases without fundamentally altering the structure of the text (Harvard College, 2023). This form of plagiarism is a serious academic offense as it involves the misrepresentation of authorship, failure to give credit to the original source and misleading the audience into thinking the paraphrase is original work. Moreover, uncited paraphrasing and quotation refer to the use of language from an original source without proper acknowledgement through citation (Harvard College, 2023). While the paraphrasing or quotation may be well done, the failure to give credit to the original source constitutes academic misconduct. These actions are often viewed as less severe because they may be a result of a lack of knowledge about academic writing conventions. The last, using materials form other people’s work can come in some ways. A student can copy other people’s work with or without their permission and submit it as his writing. Collaboration on assignments that are intended to be completed individually, without proper acknowledgment, also constitutes a violation that falls into this category. Research has also provided some insight into understanding the causes of plagiarism. According to Jereb et al. (2018) the high incidence of plagiarism among university students is primarily due to greater access to information and technology. Other researchers, such as Bloch (2012), Ehrich et al. (2016), and Kayaoğlu et al. (2016), suggest that cultural norms and values may also play a role. Ehrich et al. (2016) further argue that students from some Asian countries may not view plagiarism as morally questionable, as rote memorization is often emphasized in education systems in those countries. Additionally, Doss et al. (2016) ELTIN Journal: Journal of English Language Teaching in Indonesia, Volume 11/No 1, April 2023 41 point out that insufficient linguistic competence and inability to articulate ideas or concepts can also lead to plagiarism among students. While previous studies have helped understand the causes of plagiarism, research on the severity and types of plagiarism committed by university students is limited, particularly in the Indonesian context. One study addressing this topic in the Indonesian context was conducted by Sulaiman and Sulastri (2018). Utilizing essays written by 44 English-major students, they found that verbatim plagiarism was the most common type. However, this study has a significant limitation. The study utilized a free version of an online plagiarism checker (Duplichecker) with a 1,000-word limit for each check, which limits its ability to detect plagiarism. Additionally, it is unclear whether Duplichecker compares documents against an extensive database of scholarly articles and theses, raising questions about its rigor as a plagiarism checker service. This study is set to investigate and uncover the most prevalent forms of plagiarism among essays written by undergraduate students and assess the degree of their severity, thus addressing a gap in the literature. Specifically, this study focuses on non-English-major students, as there is little research on this group in Indonesia. B. METHOD The present study was conducted with the aim of examining the prevalence of plagiarism among university students using text analysis approach and the iThenticate plagiarism detection tool as the instrument. iThenticate is a professional, subscription-based plagiarism checker specifically designed for researchers, scholars, publishers, and universities. iThenticate compares documents against scholarly databases (e.g., ProQuest, Elsevier, etc.), theses, and open content found on the internet to detect instances of plagiarism. The software generates a report indicating the similarity percentage that a document shares with various sources on the internet. The higher the percentage, the greater the likelihood that the document contains plagiarized contents. The present study was conducted at a private university in Jakarta, Indonesia. Many lecturers at this institution hold graduate degrees from overseas universities in Australia, the United States, and Taiwan. Several of these lecturers have expressed concerns about instances of plagiarism that they have encountered within their classes. Moreover, in total, 39 students participated in this study. Of these, 22 were female, and 17 were male. They were drawn from two different academic programs: nine students were majoring in law, while thirty were majoring in product design. Most of these students were in the fifth semester of their studies, as their curricula required them to take an academic writing course during their third year. Over the course of a half-semester, students were expected to focus on the development of an argumentative essay, which was to be submitted for mid-semester evaluation. Specifically, in the fourth week of the course, the class discussed famous cases of plagiarism, the various types of plagiarism, and the potential consequences of committing plagiarism. The students also learned how to paraphrase and cite properly, working on some exercises using authentic texts. Subsequently, during the fifth and sixth weeks, students were provided with an opportunity to research their chosen topics, develop an outline for their essays, and begin drafting their essays. In the seventh week, the class conducted peer-review sessions, providing students with the opportunity to receive feedback and revise their essays Hartono & Prima: Plagiarism in Indonesian Higher … 42 accordingly. Finally, in the eighth week, the students submitted their final essays for evaluation. The implementation of this rigorous and well-structured process was intended to provide students with ample time to produce their best work, while also emphasizing the importance of proper citation and paraphrasing to avoid plagiarism. The essays were subsequently analyzed for plagiarism using iThenticate. Quantitative data from iThenticate reports were analyzed statistically to measure the severity of plagiarism cases. To ensure accuracy, the reports generated by iThenticate were also manually reviewed to avoid false alarms or inaccurate detections. Finally, confirmed cases of plagiarism were also categorized into types of plagiarism set by Harvard College (2023). Harvard’s classification was chosen as it eliminates room for multiple interpretations. C. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION The average word count for the essays was 794.44, with a standard deviation of 248.88. The maximum word count was 1751, while the minimum was 205. These results suggest that the students were given a sufficient amount of time and opportunity to produce original work. Descriptive statistics for these findings can be found in Table 1. Table 1. Descriptive Statistics N Min Max M SD Word count 39 205 1,751 794.44 248.88 Percentage of plagiarized content 39 0 59 9.87 12.02 An examination of iThenticate reports revealed a range of plagiarism instances. The mean percentage of plagiarism identified was 9.87%, with a standard deviation of 12.02%. This data suggests that the submitted essays generally had a minimal amount of plagiarized content. However, it is important to note that a significant number of essays were found to have confirmed cases of severe plagiarism. One particular essay, for example, had a similarity index of 59% and upon further investigation, was determined to contain a substantial number of plagiarized materials. In addition to analyzing the essays as a whole, we also looked into any potential differences between the male and female students. The results showed that the female participants had an average word count of 851.55, with a standard deviation of 219.40, while the male participants had an average word count of 720.53, with a standard deviation of 271.38. In terms of plagiarism, the female participants had an average percentage of 9.36%, with a standard deviation of 10.04%, and the male students had an average percentage of 10.53%, with a standard deviation of 14.50%. Moreover, an independent samples t-test was performed to compare the similarity index of essays written by the male and female students. There was no significant difference in similarity index (percentage of plagiarism) between male students (M = 10.52, SD = 14.50) and female students (M = 9.36, SD = 10.03); t(37) = -.297, p = .768. These results suggest that while female students tended to produce longer essays, there was no significant difference in the percentage of plagiarism between male and female participants. Our analysis also revealed that the most prevalent form of plagiarism detected was mosaic plagiarism, with 39 cases identified. This was followed by verbatim plagiarism, with 16 cases identified. Additionally, we identified 7 cases of inadequate paraphrase. However, it ELTIN Journal: Journal of English Language Teaching in Indonesia, Volume 11/No 1, April 2023 43 should be noted that no instances of uncited paraphrasing, uncited quotation, or copying another student's work were identified in our sample. Another important consideration that emerged from our comparison and categorization of iThenticate reports is that the percentages displayed on the reports should not be regarded as definitive. For instance, in one essay, iThenticate reported a similarity index of 13%, which is a relatively high percentage for an essay of 681 words. However, upon close examination, it was discovered that these detections were mostly false positives (e.g., short phrases consisting of fewer than five words, titles of articles, or names of academic journals). These findings underscore the importance of carefully interpreting and evaluating the results generated by plagiarism detection software. Our analysis of iThenticate reports has led to the identification of a pattern. Specifically, essays with a similarity index of 0-5% have been found to be free of plagiarized materials. However, essays with a similarity index of 6-10% may contain a limited degree of plagiarized materials, which in most instances are considered to be insignificant or false positives. Conversely, essays with a similarity index of 11-20% have been found to contain plagiarized materials of varying degrees of severity. Lastly, essays with a similarity index beyond 20% are likely to contain a substantial proportion of plagiarized materials, whether in the form of verbatim plagiarism or mosaic plagiarism. The data from which this analysis is drawn can be found in Appendix A. Our research examines two key issues: the prevalence of plagiarism among university students, and the specific types of plagiarism most commonly committed in their writing. Our findings indicate that, overall, the students' essays contained a relatively low level of plagiarized content, comprising just 9.87% of the texts they produced. This is a positive outcome. We believe that this relatively low percentage may be attributed to a three-hour session we conducted with the students, which provided an in-depth discussion of plagiarism, paraphrasing, and quoting. This session was held during the fourth week of the semester, approximately one month prior to the deadline for submitting the essays. In other words, the issue of plagiarism was brought to the students' attention well before they began writing, which may have prompted them to make a conscious effort to avoid plagiarism. Despite the low overall prevalence of plagiarism in the submitted essays, we did identify a number of instances of severe plagiarism, particularly in the form of mosaic plagiarism. This type of plagiarism, also known as patchwork plagiarism, can often be the result of a lack of understanding of how to properly paraphrase and integrate sources into one's own writing. The results of our study indicate that some students may still have difficulty understanding the idea of plagiarism and how to prevent it. This is supported by previous research by Mustafa (2019) and Gullifer and Tyson (2014), who have found that students lack sufficient knowledge or understanding of what constitutes plagiarism. Our study did not reveal any substantial disparities in the rates of plagiarism among male and female students, which is at odds with the results of the study conducted by Jereb et al. (2018), who found that female students had a less tolerant attitude towards plagiarism in comparison to male students. Our study, however, analyzed students' essays, rather than just measuring their attitudes towards plagiarism. This suggests that while individuals may have intentions to avoid plagiarism, their actions ultimately reveal the reality of their adherence to this ideal. Hartono & Prima: Plagiarism in Indonesian Higher … 44 Sulaiman and Sulastri’s (2018) study with 44 English-major students discovered that verbatim plagiarism was the most common form found. However, our study revealed a different outcome, with more instances of mosaic plagiarism identified than verbatim plagiarism. The discrepancy in results may be due to the fact that the students in our study participated in a session specifically discussing plagiarism in depth, which may have made them more aware of the seriousness of verbatim plagiarism, leading to a greater effort to avoid it. However, we still identified sixteen instances of verbatim plagiarism, which varied in both length and severity. This discovery was particularly concerning, given that the students had previously participated in a dedicated 3-hour session on the topic of plagiarism and had been explicitly warned of the potential consequences. Further examination revealed that in these sixteen cases, no attempt had been made to paraphrase the original sources. This suggests that the students likely engaged in intentional plagiarism. Another significant finding of our study is that plagiarism detection software should be utilized with prudence. Our examination revealed that the percentages reported by the software should not be considered as conclusive, as they may include instances of false positives. This aligns with prior research (Manley, 2021; Stapleton, 2012; Warn, 2006), which also emphasizes the need for caution when interpreting the results of plagiarism detection software. Manley (2021) stresses that although the quantitative data obtained from the software can be informative, a qualitative evaluation is also necessary, where academic staff evaluate whether the plagiarism found was intentional or not. Finally, our analysis has led to the identification of a pattern in terms of similarity index and plagiarized content. In general, essays with a similarity index of 0-10% were found to be free of plagiarized materials or contained a limited and negligible degree of plagiarism. Conversely, essays with a similarity index of 11-20% were found to contain plagiarized materials to varying degrees of severity. Additionally, essays with a similarity index beyond 20% were found to likely contain a large proportion of plagiarized content. These findings call into question the current standards used by some colleges and universities in Indonesia, which often set a maximum similarity index of 20-25%. Based on our analysis, we suggest that a similarity index of 10-15% would be a more appropriate standard. However, it is important to note that manual evaluation by faculty members is still necessary to fully determine whether plagiarism is intentional or not. D. CONCLUSION In conclusion, this study sheds light on the issues of plagiarism among university students in Indonesia. While the overall prevalence of plagiarism in student essays was low, severe plagiarism was still identified, particularly in the form of mosaic plagiarism, indicating a need for continuous training and workshops. One of the key findings was the need for stricter standards for plagiarism detection and manual evaluations by faculty members. However, this study has several limitations, such as the small sample size and reliance on essay analysis and iThenticate reports. To gain a more complete understanding of students' attitudes and behaviors, future studies should consider incorporating additional methods such as interviews and surveys. Addressing plagiarism among university students in Indonesia requires a concerted effort from universities and colleges to provide training and stricter ELTIN Journal: Journal of English Language Teaching in Indonesia, Volume 11/No 1, April 2023 45 standards for detection. Further research is needed to identify the causes and effective strategies to reduce plagiarism. REFERENCES Akbar, A., & Picard, M. (2019). Understanding plagiarism in Indonesia from the lens of plagiarism policy: Lessons for universities. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 15(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-019-0044-2 Bloch, J. (2012). Plagiarism across Cultures: Is There a Difference? In C. Eisner & M. Vicinus (Eds.), Originality, Imitation, and Plagiarism (pp. 219–230). University of Michigan Press. Doss, D. A., Henley, R., Gokaraju, B., Mcelreath, D., Lackey, H., Hong, Q., & Miller, L. (2016). Assessing Domestic vs. International Student Perceptions and Attitudes of Plagiarism. Journal of International Students, 6(2), 542–565. http://jistudents.org/ Ehrich, J., Howard, S. J., Mu, C., & Bokosmaty, S. (2016). A comparison of Chinese and Australian university students’ attitudes towards plagiarism. Studies in Higher Education, 41(2), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.927850 Gottardello, D., del Mar Pamies, M., & Valverde, M. (2017). Professors’ perceptions of university students’ plagiarism : A literature review. BiD: Textos Universitaris de Biblioteconomia i Documentacio, 39. https://doi.org/10.1344/BiD2017.39.12 Gullifer, J. M., & Tyson, G. A. (2014). Who has read the policy on plagiarism? Unpacking students’ understanding of plagiarism. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7), 1202–1218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.777412 Harvard College. (2023). What Constitutes Plagiarism? Harvard College Writing Program. https://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/what-constitutes-plagiarism Jereb, E., Perc, M., Lämmlein, B., Jerebic, J., Urh, M., Podbregar, I., & Šprajc, P. (2018). Factors influencing plagiarism in higher education: A comparison of German and Slovene students. PLOS ONE, 13(8), e0202252. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202252 Jereb, E., Urh, M., Jerebic, J., & Šprajc, P. (2018). Gender differences and the awareness of plagiarism in higher education. Social Psychology of Education, 21(2), 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9421-y Kayaoğlu, M. N., Erbay, Ş., Flitner, C., & Saltaş, D. (2016). Examining students’ perceptions of plagiarism: A cross-cultural study at tertiary level. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(5), 682–705. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2015.1014320 Manley, S. (2021). The use of text-matching software’s similarity scores. Accountability in Research, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1986018 Mustafa, F. (2019). “I think it is not plagiarism”: How little do Indonesian undergraduate EFL students understand plagiarism? Asian EFL Journal, 21(2), 74–91. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331547836 Patak, A. A., Wirawan, H., Abduh, A., Hidayat, R., Iskandar, I., & Dirawan, G. D. (2021). Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Indonesia: University Lecturers’ Views on Plagiarism. Journal of Academic Ethics, 19(4), 571–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09385-y Stapleton, P. (2012). Gauging the effectiveness of anti-plagiarism software: An empirical study of second language graduate writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.10.003 Sulaiman, R., & Sulastri. (2018). TYPES AND FACTORS CAUSING PLAGIARISM IN PAPERS OF ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDENTS. Inspiring: English Education Journal, 1(1), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-019-0044-2 Hartono & Prima: Plagiarism in Indonesian Higher … 46 Warn, J. (2006). Plagiarism software: no magic bullet! Higher Education Research & Development, 25(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360600610438