ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 11, Issue 2, June 2023 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 515 PORTRAYING ACADEMIC WRITING APTITUDE AND THE PLAGIARISM ISSUES AMONG EFL STUDENTS Kartin Lihawa (Corresponding author) English Language Education, Faculty of Letter and Culture Universitas Negeri Gorontalo Email: kartin.lihawa@ung.ac.id Karmila Machmud English Language Education, Faculty of Letter and Culture Universitas Negeri Gorontalo Email: karmila@ung.ac.id Adimawati Helingo English Education Department, Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher Training IAIN Sultan Amai Gorontalo Email: adimawati@iaingorontalo.ac.id APA Citation: Lihawa, K., Machmud, K., & Helingo, A. (2023). Portraying academic writing aptitude and the plagiarism issues among EFL students. English Review: Journal of English Education, 11(2), 515-524. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v11i2.6760 Received: 23-02-2023 Accepted: 28-04-2023 Published: 30-06-2023 INTRODUCTION Students who wish to earn a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree at the college level are typically required to complete some form of scientific work. This may involve conducting original research, writing a research paper, or completing a laboratory course. Writing scientific papers is a common task for students in higher education. Students are often required to write essays, conduct research, and report their findings in the form of academic papers. These papers may include skripsi, thesis, or dissertation, which are all types of scientific work. The research papers that students write have multiple chapters, one of which is a chapter that includes the opinions of experts in the field, known upon its several terms such as Theoretical Basis/Framework of Review of Literature chapter, and background chapter. Students are required to record the experts’ viewpoints relevant to their research in these chapters. These experts’ opinions are intended to reinforce existing theories and organize knowledge to serve as a roadmap for future research. However, it is usually an issue for students to arrange the experts’ ideas as Page (Lihawa, 2022) argued that students are struggling to write history essays, they are often knowledgeable about the subject matter well but unable to write in a coherent way. This can be because they do not know how to connect facts and information they have jumbled in their thoughts to form a narrative. As a result, their essays can be dry and boring, and they may not communicate their ideas effectively. Wilang et al. (2018) revealed that students were worried about the process of research paper writing including writing theoretical chapters and their purposes, and most were not sure how to start writing them. It is also found (Lihawa, 2022) from the information of previous research evaluation conducted on the 1st March 2022 that 19 students’ writings of class E in the second semester were Abstract: This article is the research result of teaching-learning Academic Writing to English Students Department, UNG in the fourth semester of 2020. This research objective is to enrich applying theories accessed from online books and international Journals by avoiding plagiarism in students’ writing essays as theoretical bases of their research. Besides, they would be able to communicate in the target language of writing skill as a maximum standard. A qualitative rubric was used to assess 25 students' essays. The rubric had three categories: (a) the ability to choose relevant ideas in introductory sentences before quoting, (b) the accuracy of diction selection, and (c) the ability to link ideas in well-written sentences after choosing quotations or paraphrases. The results showed that 15 students (60%) received A, followed by 5 students (20%) received A-, 3 students (12%) received B+, and 2 students (8%) received C. Keywords: academic writing; plagiarism; teaching. mailto:kartin.lihawa@ung.ac.id mailto:karmila@ung.ac.id Kartin Lihawa, Karmila Machmud, & Adimawati Helingo Portraying academic writing apptitude and the plagiarism issues among EFL students 516 dominated by 12 students writing 2 to 5 sentences in an hour. Besides, they were confused about what ideas were written. In line with the problem, most EFL students of the English Language Department of UNG prefer the easiest way to take ideas from most other students’ theses on the internet. Some of them only changed the research object and slightly reformulated the title, copying and pasting most of the paragraphs in their theoretical basis. When a thesis is submitted for examination, the examiner may use a plagiarism detection tool like Turnitin to check for unoriginal content. If the examiner finds that the thesis contains plagiarized material, the student's work will not be accepted. This can cause the student to have difficulty repairing the thesis, as they will need to compile new ideas and rewrite large sections of the paper. This can take a significant amount of time and may delay the student's study completion. It was stated by King ( 2023) that as more students use the internet for research and information, plagiarism is becoming a bigger problem in higher education. The quantity of readily available information online has made it simpler for students to copy and paste information from other sources without properly attributing it. Due to this, there has been an increase in instances of plagiarism, which can have detrimental effects on students such as failing grades, expulsion, and harm to their reputation in the workplace. In order to combat plagiarism and maintain academic integrity, higher education institutions are enacting stricter standards and stronger sanctions. Mutalib, et al. (2023) conclude that a significant number of EFL students misapplied sources and citations in their theses, therefore education and awareness are essential to addressing the plagiarism issue (Roig, 2018). Thus, it is imperative for lecturers to expose students to theories in arranging sources of ideas in academic writing class. Scientific works have certain characteristics in terms of several aspects, including a variety of language, objective, systematic, logical, and based on facts, and following this recommendation students’ works can meet the demands of good academic writing (Braslauskas, 2021). In general, from a technical point of view, many students have writing problems. First, one of the challenges students face is the drawn-out process of developing a topic for a written scientific report. Page (in Lihawa, 2022) argued some writers spend so much on their introductions that they lose readers’ interest before they get to the main point of the essays. As Hoang et al. (2023) in their research result on the analysis of errors and survey data revealed that the most common organization errors were incoherence whch made up the highest percentage, and then poor topic sentence, disunity, poor conclusion, and no conclusion at all. Additional reseasons were due to lack of writing practice and local language influences. These writing problems and complex ideas of avoiding the long process of starting this skill are determined by knowledge and skills of writing and students’ experience and responses in language communication. The more language communication students have, the more experience and easier they get to start writing scientific works. The second problem for students is avoiding plagiarism in writing. Most of the time, students unknowingly engage in plagiarism; for instance, they occasionally use the phrases and concepts of experts when coming up with introduction lines. For even more serious offenses, students take large sections of text from someone else and pass it off without acknowledging the main source. Ashikuzzaman et al. (2018) explained that plagiarism can range from a minor offense, such as failing to cite a source, to a more serious offense, such as duplicating large sections of a text. Moreover, one of the key causes is the development of technical tools that make it simpler to copy and paste information from the internet, which results in the development of screen-based thinking (Chaika, 2023). The emphasis on the same idea from Doostyar and Sujatha (2023) that plagiarism in written form is also known as textual plagiarism. Students and researchers both frequently engage in this type of plagiarism when writing coursework and research articles. The effects of freely using technology, the almost same problems occur to some English Language Department students of UNG, either undergraduate or postgraduate students who do not have adequate ability to compose introductory sentences using their own words prior quotations to bridge their ideas and the experts’. It is because ESL students often face a number of challenges with things like minor vocabulary mastery, poor grammar and spelling, preparedness, and exposure to books and reading materials (Moses & Mohamad, 2019). These English students find it difficult to connect the quotes they select and the key point's explanation of the notion because ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 11, Issue 2, June 2023 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 517 they have a limited amount of accurate vocabulary with which to express their ideas. The third issue is insufficient reading materials as sources, either form of books or journals, to support the theoretical basis chapter which might cause a scientific work less logical and reputable (Djehatu et al., 2022). This problem can be overcome by the students with the help of cutting- edge technologies, specifically, internet resources where they can access online journals and books. However, the reliability of online references can be a problem since some online sources may not be credible, and it can be difficult to verify the accuracy of the information they contain. Similarly, Vieyra and Weaver (2023) put forward that the main cause of plagiarism is sometimes attributed to students with an unclear understanding of how to properly incorporate and cite sources in their writing when they first enter college. It is imperative that researchers, writers, and authors of books and journals must go through a process of revision and editing before their work is published to ensure that the work is accurate, well-written, and easy to understand, and also incorporate technologies. Davies et al., (2022) in their research revealed that students’ writing skills improve when teaching and learning instruction is assisted with technology. Based on the learning issues faced by the students in general and they are in English Department of FSB UNG particularly, it is paramount that researchers must reduce the issues currently associated with writing scientific papers and make use of current technologies in order to increase students’ ability to write background and theoretical basis, which are significant chapters on scientific works. In line with that, Kumar et.al. (2022) put forward that teachers and students can benefit from using hardware and software technology in English language instruction and learning in a variety of ways, including the capacity to access resources at any time. Besides, Momchilova (2021) stated that Artificial intelligence (AI) and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) have significantly altered teaching strategies and learning environments, as well as how they are perceived and set up. Moreover, the finding of research by Rahman et al., (Rahman et al., 2020) indicated that the students’ enthusiasm for studying English writing, self-esteem, and written communication skills are all developed through blended learning which combines face-to-face instruction with online learning. Students can easily access experts’ opinions on a particular theory by accessing citations on the website of Scimago or Google Scholar, for example. However, when it comes to writing supporting sentences that refer to the citation, students still run into problems, or they even fail to include any previous sentences as an introduction to the quotation. In addition, they occasionally fail to establish a connection between their chosen quotation and the rest of their own writing. To avoid this, students must form conclusions as a writer in order to establish this connection and support the experts' viewpoint. It is supported by the argument of Twumasi & Afful (2022) that writing should be concise and precise, free of slang and other informal expressions. It should constantly strive to be objective and considerate of other people's perspectives, also academic writing is not the place for sentimentality or strongly held personal opinions. METHOD This research used a descriptive qualitative of development model by Sugiyono (2012), the actions are as follows: Step 1: Analyzing the Potential Data i) How well students are able to cite the theories of experts in their papers; ii) how well they are able to put together introductory lines before pouring in the theories and demonstrate how to offer arguments. 2) overcoming the problem i) putting into practice teaching in-class for four months in accordance with the course syllabus and utilizing Scimago to facilitate citation theory, ii) providing students with opportunities to practice their writing skills and to learn about citation theory, iii) evaluating the students' learning outcomes by assessing their ability to paraphrase publisher's work, one source is a rubric by Mahmoudi & Bugra (2020)that assesses students' ability to formulate ideas in three categories: a) selecting ideas in introductory sentences prior to taking quotations of paraphrases; b) accuracy of diction selection; and c) linking ideas in well-formulated sentences following the quotation. These supported and used criterion-referenced decisions in their evaluation. The next four processes of designing module, validation, the experts’ revision of product then testing a limited and large group are not described here. Conducting this research is in English Department, Letter and Culture Faculty, Gorontalo State University, focussed on the ‘Writing for Academic Purpose’ subject. The Kartin Lihawa, Karmila Machmud, & Adimawati Helingo Portraying academic writing apptitude and the plagiarism issues among EFL students 518 techniques used to collect the data were observing how well students can write theoretical bases, discussing with students about planning future actions, recording information as the instructor provided lessons based on the Writing for Academic Purposes course syllabus in the fourth semester, evaluating students’ writing outcomes based on their capacity to incorporate theory into their writing in a scientific manner, and examining students’ writing outcomes using the theories of experts from the journal as referenced on the Scimago website. The procedure of data collection was during the teaching of ‘Writing for Academic Purpose’ course at 4th semester totaling 25 students in English Department of FSB-UNG in the academic year of 2021/2022 based on the syllabus of 14 meetings. Those covered the four kinds of essay organization and its generic structures, including developing critical thinking, paraphrasing, footnoting, and writing 2 to 3 pages of background and theoretical basis chapters of research. Besides, one important thing was focussing on learning materials on how to use Scimago journal website which they applied and suited to the idea in each of their theoretical bases or background. A student had to go to www.scimagojr.com and chose 'journal ranking' and 'country rankings'. They found data based on the rankings through the following picture. This website provides journals that have been indexed nationally and internationally. In addition, this website also provides ranking data for each journal based on total cites, self-cites, citation per document, international collaboration, citable document, non-citable document, cited document, and uncited document. Figure 1. Scimagojr Then, they used the search field to choose the kind of journal they wanted to look up by clicking on it, i.e. Table 1. The search field N o Content Name of Journal ISS N Publish er Year 1 Languag e and Linguisti c Applie d Linguis tic 147 752 0X, 014 260 01 Oxford Univers ity Press 2019 The criteria used to evaluate the formation of ideas fall into three categories: a) selecting ideas for introduction sentences before selecting paraphrased quotations, b) choosing accurate diction, and c) linking ideas in well-crafted sentences after selecting the quotation, i.e. Table 2. Rubric for assessing ability to compile introductory sentences, selection of diction, and the arrangement of linkages of ideas with quotation No Items of Formulating Ideas and Diction Selection Not Clear 25% or D Less Clear 50% or C Clearer 75% or B Clearest 100% or A 1. Having an Introductor y Sentences with Clear Ideas 2. Accuracy of Diction Selection 3. Linkage of Ideas in the Formulation of Sentences with Quotation/ Paraphrase The essay was ultimately graded using criteria used in UNG guideline for students’ attainment level and the letter grade range as follow: Table 3. Letter grade range Level of Achievement Score Qualification 85-100 % A Excellent 75-84 % B Good 60-74 % C Average 45-59 % D Less 0-44 % E Failed RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The outcome of students' use of Scimago to write experts' opinions has a good impact on their essay-writing abilities. The outcome of their writing provides evidence of this. Of the 25 ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 11, Issue 2, June 2023 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 519 students' writing results, 15 received A (60%), 5 received A- (20%), 3 received B+ (12%), and 2 received C (8%). The analysis used the following rubric in evaluating each participant to assess the ability in compiling introductions, diction used, and the way concepts are linked together using quotations. Table 1. The assessment result of students’ writing essays based on the level of clearest 100% or A, clearer 75% or B, less clear 50% or C not clear 25% or D fail or zero <25% or E Parti cipa nt Having an Introductory Sentence with Clear Ideas (HIS_CI) Accuracy of Diction Selection (ACD) Linkage of Ideas in The Formulation of Sentences with Quotation/Paraphrase (LIitFS_Q/F) Total Value A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E 1 √ 90 85 85% 2 100 100 100 100% 3 80 85 90 85% 4 100 100 100 100% 5 82 82 85 83% 6 78 50 77 68% 7 100 100 100 100% 8 100 100 100 100% 9 60 80 80 73% 10 84 95 91 90% 11 85 85 85 85% 12 84 97 74 85% 13 90 90 90 90% 14 85 82 82 83% 15 100 92 84 92% 16 65 82 85 77% 17 100 100 100 100% 18 100 100 100 100% 19 100 100 100 100% 20 100 100 100 100% 21 90 100 90 93% 22 85 85 85 85% 23 84 95 95 91% 24 87 100 100 96% 25 90 100 100 97% The assessment result of 25 Students’ writing essays show that the students in the level of A category or 100% are 8 students, 97% is 1 student, 96% is 1 student, 93% is 1 student, 92 is 1 student, 91% is 1 student, 90% are 2 students, 85% are 5 students, 83% are 2 students, 77% is1 student, 73% is 1 student, and 68% is 1 student. In brief, their level of category is presented below: Table 2. Students’ writing essay category Level of Achievement Amount Students Score Percentage % Category 85-100 % 20 A 80% Excellent 75-84 % 3 B 12.% Good 60-74 % 2 C 8% Average 45-59 % 0 D 0% Less 0-44 % 0 E 0% Failed Total 25 100% The description of the assessment of the students' producing background and theoretical basis chapters in their essay writing skills is based on the determination of the number of citations and paraphrases made in the essay. The focus of the assessment is to count the number of sentences with grammatically correct structures in English and a good choice of diction prepared by students before and after the quotes and paraphrases. To find out the results of the writings in question, the assessment of three categories is carried out. Those are i) Having an Introductory Sentence with Clear Ideas (HIS_CS), ii) Accuracy of Diction Selection (ADS), and iii) Linkage of Ideas in The Formulation of Sentences with Quotation or Paraphrase (LIitFS_Q/F) (Janssen et al., 2015) Kartin Lihawa, Karmila Machmud, & Adimawati Helingo Portraying academic writing apptitude and the plagiarism issues among EFL students 520 The ways in which the sentences were formulated before and after the quotations and paraphrases by the 25 participants varied greatly and really depend on the students’ own imagination and the process. As Cheong et al., (2022) mentioned that reproductive imagination, which is the ability to recreate or reproduce ideas that have been encountered previously, is one factor that contributes to writing performance. The link to this issue happened to Participant 6’s essay. It is a short and clear essay as well but there are only 2 DQs (Direct Quotations) with its 2 PSF (Previous Sentence Formulation) and one LIitFS_Q/F on the first quotation. The second DQ only contains one PSF and one sentence as LIitFS_Q/F or the linkage at the conclusion of the second quote. His writing proficiency is average at only 68% or C category. Yet, in the process of conducting research on teaching Academic Writing, it applied different methods and techniques to help students to find the aim of learning as a qualified writer at maximum standard, one of which is incorporating technology to enhance language learning and foster effective learning (Zhang & Zou, 2022) where students can use real language and complete their task in the target language which promotes their self-regulated and motivation in learning (Han et al., 2021). However, It is not only limited to these references sourced from technology used in asking students to compose essays, but also the role of teachers and pedagogical competence is paramount (Strobl et al., 2019) in allowing students the ability to practice writing an effective outline, structuring information using a variety of rhetorical devices, avoiding logical fallacies while presenting a position with support, and understanding how to cite and paraphrase sources. Based on the notion above on how to quote certain knowledge to support the ideas of the writer for academic writing, there are strategies commonly used to paraphrase or summarize data from published sources, they are: (1) Using synonyms (Alvi et al., 2021; Çeşme, 2022) where students could replace some terms from the original section with similar meaning of the words. This strategy is mostly used in paraphrasing. (2) Altering active sentences to passive or vice versa (Sulistyaningrum, 2021). And, (3) converting direct quotes to indirect ones. In implementing these strategies in organizing the background and theoretical basis parts, students are required to organize good sentences as the representation of his/her ideas and integrate them into his/her works by summarizing, quoting, and even paraphrasing the ideas to seamlessly unite them into the source materials. This way, plagiarism can be avoided. In the end, students who are the writers must allude to these quotations in connection with the overall thesis of the articles. Thus, well-structured and related ideas from introduction sentences to the paraphrased ideas to the illustration are stated as part of the theoretical bases they are derived from. To be able to do this, there are three points that should at least be addressed, 1) the author requires to have the ability to compose an introductory idea prior to making the quotations, 2) the selection of accurate vocabulary, and 3) The author must be able to create compelling concluding thoughts from their writing of the opening notion before the citation, connecting to the quotations presented, and coming to their own decision. The application and support of experts’ opinions in this study resulted in accurate research data, including assessing the three categories in the essay as in the previous table. The results of the evaluation contained several things as exemplified in the short essay by Participant 6. However, of the 25 participants, only one student experienced the case of writing a short essay. Furthermore, the great variations in the students’ writing results are described in general perspective in three levels of high, good, and average of formulation direct quotations and paraphrases. The high level is projected in students who formulated 5 to 8 DQc (Direct Quotation) or Ph (paraphrase), the good level is the students who formulated 3 to 4 DQs and Phs, and the average level is the student who formulated 1 to 2 DQ and Ph. Each level presented three participants’ writing results is as follows. The first of high category In writing the essay, there are found high formulation DQ (Direct Quotation) toward 3 participants; they are participant 17 with 8 DQs and one paraphrase, participant 12 with 6 DQs, and Participant 9 with 5 DQs and 3 paraphrases. The description is as follows: Participant 17.This participant had 8 DQs and one phrase. Each of all direct quotations and paraphrases had 3 sentence formulations as LIitFS_Q/F (sentences of linkage of ideas in The Formulation of Sentences with Quotation/Paraphrase). Even though there were ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 11, Issue 2, June 2023 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 521 no previous sentences as HIS-CI (Having an Introductory Sentence with Clear Ideas), the participant used precise language in each of her sentence descriptions. This participant performed at 100% or an exceptional level. Participant 12. The participants' essays had 6 DQs, but only one reference was listed in her bibliography. All of the sentences in her essay were excellent in terms of expressing and creating concepts clearly, as well as establishing solid paragraphs. The essay was then evaluated and assigned an ability level of 85%, or the A- grade. Participant 9. Her essay contained 3 paraphrases and 5 DQs. Only three of them, nevertheless, were precisely organized because they included references with the original quotations, but the expert was not credited. The three of 2 paraphrases and one DQ were the first paraphrase that had one PSF (Previous Sentence Formulation) and 3 LIitFS_Q/F sentence formulations as its linking ideas. The second paraphrase did not have PSF (previous sentence formulation), but it had 3 LIitFS_Q/F, and the last one was the DQ with one PSF and zero LIitFS_Q/F. The participant's overall score was 73%, or a C category because of making quotations without acknowledging the expert. This plagiarism issue was made by Participant 9 in which she did not state the name of the expert. The sophistication of technology in the present era, such as the internet and websites that can be accessed by anybody regardless of their trustworthiness, is one of the reasons why plagiarism in writing is on the rise. Smith (in Cheers et al., 2021) states that plagiarism is a complex concept, and it can be deceptive, thus in an ideal world, students should be aware that there is a high chance of being caught for plagiarism and that the consequences are severe (Abraham & Torunarigha, 2020; Lata & Mondal, 2021). This is in line with the basic concept that plagiarism is the act of using someone else’s thought or language without acknowledging the author, regardless of whether you do it on purpose or unintentionally due to a variety of reasons (Mehta & Mukherjee, 2022), it is seen as a form of theft and is considered an academic crime. Even though there is still happening in most schools and universities, plagiarism has recently become a highly visible issue in academic journals (Bautista & Pentang, 2022); and many papers, books, and seminars have been written about how to prevent plagiarism in academic publications. In teaching Academic Writing and its syllabus, students were directed to the best ways by being obliged to avoid plagiarism in writing. This control was carried out individually by lecturers to students during essay writing exercises in class. The result can be seen in the second category of students’ abilities below. The second of good category In writing essay, there are found good formulation DQ (Direct Quotation) toward 13 participants; they are the participants 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 20, 21, and 24. The three participants of 2, 3, 4 are the representative illustration as below. The participant 2. This second participant had 4 direct quotations (DQs) and 2 paraphrases (Phs). The first DQ has PSF (previous sentence formulation) as HIS-CI and 2 LIitFS_Q/F. The second DQ has 6 PSF without LIitFS_Q/F, but the third one had 2 PSF and 3 LIitFS_Q/F in that formulation. It was also the fourth DQ that had 3 PSF with HIS-CI and 2 LIitFS_Q/F. This essay also contained 2 paraphrases, the first had 1 PSF and 3 LIitFS_Q/F. The second one had 3 PSF and 2 LIitFS_Q/F. The participant's writing abilities can be classified as A level or 100% qualification due to this essay's accurate choice of DQs and Phs and its high-quality concepts for sentence construction. Participant 3. This participant’s essay had 3 DQs and 1 Ph. The first DQ had 1 PSF and 3 LIitFS_Q/F following the quotation and the 2 clear paragraphs illustration. However, Without PSF or linking, this essay contained one direct quotation. After the citation in the third DQ, there was one PSF and three LIitFS_Q/F. One paraphrased sentence had 1 PSF and 2 LIitFS_Q/F after it. Taking into account that this essay is worth A-, or 85%. Participant 4. This essay demonstrated a clear understanding of quoting and paraphrasing, excellent diction, and precision. It had 3 DQ and 1 Ph. The first DQ had 2 LIitFS_Q/F and 2 clean PSF. Following this quotation were 1 sentence and 9 LIitFS_Q/F in the second DQ. The third one contained 6 LIitFS_Q/F and 2 PSF phrases. It lso included 1 paraphrase, which had three LIitFS_Q/F and 4 PSF. She received an A grade, or 100%, for her essay. The third of average category In writing essay, there are found good formulation DQ (Direct Quotation) toward 9 participants; they are the participants 1, 6, 14, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, and 25. The three participants of 1, 14, and 16 are the representative illustration as below. Kartin Lihawa, Karmila Machmud, & Adimawati Helingo Portraying academic writing apptitude and the plagiarism issues among EFL students 522 This participant 1. The participant used 2 direct quotations (DQs) and 2 paraphrases (Phs) in the essay she wrote. The HIS-CI and LIitFS_Q/F at the end of the quotation were zero, yet there was 1 LIitFS_Q/F in the second quotation. There was 1 HIS-CI in the first and fourth sentences in each of the paraphrases. There was no LIitFS_Q/F at the end of the second paraphrase, despite the fact that those formulation principles were apparent. The student's writing grade was 85, or A-. Participant 14. There were 5 PSF before this 14th participant's Ph, and she had two paraphrases. She discussed the risk of smoking in general terms as a supporting idea for her essay topic. However, because the participant's general statements of ideas refer to information from WHO, it is difficult to determine whether they were her own words, and that led to a grade of B+, or 83% level of skill for her essay. After using paraphrases in her article, she made a strong argument. Participant 16. The sixteenth participant finished writing his essay with 2 DQs. His DQ had HIS-CI but lacked clarity of thought and diction precision. The participant followed the quotations with LIitFS_Q/F, yet the linkage or LIitFS_Q/F was also not entirely obvious. As a result, the participant's essay received a grade of 77% or a level of B+. Since the internet has become a major source of information, it is crucial to get students accustomed to integrating technology into their learning (Vallez et al., 2022), however, they need to make use of it in a responsible way, particularly in academic circumstances. Therefore, it is the lecturers to teach plagiarism, citation, and referencing skill, especially in academic writing which lead to academic integrity (Bautista & Pentang, 2022) CONCLUSION Providing the availability of internet websites that supply online journals and books is one technique to address the difficulty students have in selecting experts' theories to support their own idea and concept in composing articles and research proposals. Citing sources such as from books or journals can help students who are unaware that they are engaging in plagiarism. In other words, teaching students about plagiarism ethics in academic writing can help them hinder the conventional practice of copying and pasting expert words and ideas. Instead, students can learn how to formulate their own opening sentences, link ideas with quotations, and paraphrase effectively. REFERENCES Abraham, O., & Torunarigha, Y. D. (2020). Academic dishonesty: examining the causes and consequences of plagiarism in higher educational institutions of learning. International Journal of Innovative Social Sciences & Humanities Research, 8(4), 88–97. Alvi, F., Stevenson, M., & Clough, P. (2021). Paraphrase type identification for plagiarism detection using contexts and word embeddings. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00277-8 Ashikuzzaman, A., Hasan, N., Hossain, U., Ali, E., & Begum, D. (2018). Avoid plagiarism: Promote higher education’: does the situation demand for the social marketing approach at Rajshahi University? EDULEARN18 Proceedings, 1, 5773-5773. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2018.1392 Bautista, R. M., & Pentang, J. T. (2022). Ctrl C + Ctrl V: Plagiarism and knowledge on referencing and citation among pre-service teachers. International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 3(2), 245-257. https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.03.02.10 Braslauskas, J. (2021). Developing intercultural competences and creativity: The foundation for successful intercultural communication. Creativity Studies, 14(1), 197-217. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2021.14583 Çeşme, H. (2022). Exploring paraphrase performances and strategies of graduate student writing. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 11(1), 10-23. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v11i1.5247 Cheers, H., Lin, Y., & Smith, S. P. (2021). Academic source code plagiarism detection by measuring program behavioral similarity. IEEE Access, 9, 50391-50412. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3069367 Cheong, C. M., Zhang, J., Yao, Y., & Zhu, X. (2022). The role of gender differences in the effect of ideal L2 writing self and imagination on continuation writing task performance. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 46, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101129 Davies, P. M., Passonneau, R. J., Muresan, S., & Gao, Y. (2022). analytical techniques for developing argumentative writing in STEM: A pilot study. IEEE Transactions on Education, 65(3), 373- 383. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2021.3116202 Djehatu, M. G., Tans, F., & Semiun, A. (2022). An analysis of texts written by third semester of undergraduate students of English education study program. Edukatif : Jurnal Ilmu ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 11, Issue 2, June 2023 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 523 Pendidikan, 4(2), 2538-2548. https://doi.org/10.31004/edukatif.v4i2.2420 Doostyar, N. M., & Sujatha, B. (2023). Plagiarism detection for Afghan national languages (Pashto and Dari). In Internet of Behaviors (IoB), 171- 186. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003305170-11 Han, Y., Zhao, S., & Ng, L. L. (2021). How technology tools impact writing performance, lexical complexity, and perceived self-regulated learning strategies in EFL academic writing: A comparative study. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.752793 Hoang Thi Lien Giang, T. C. D. T. P. B. H. (2023). Investigation into organization errors in EFL learners’ paragraph writing: A case in a foreign language center in Can Tho City, Vietnam. European Journal of Applied Linguistics Study, 6(1), 99-125. Janssen, G., Meier, V., & Trace, J. (2015). Building a better rubric: Mixed methods rubric revision. Assessing Writing, 26(18), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2015.07.002 King, M. R. (2023). A conversation on artificial intelligence, chatbots, and plagiarism in higher education. In Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering (Vol. 16, Issue 1), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12195-022-00754-8 Lata, S., & Mondal, A. (2021). Why plagiarism is considered to be a serious offense in academics ? Research Ethics, 1(1), 1-4. Lihawa, K. , Pilongo. Y. H. D., & Laya, R. (2022). Analyzing writing of producing ideas and using mechanics through showing short videos to students of English department in academic year of 2021/2022. Universitas Negeri Gorontalo. Mahmoudi, F., & Bugra, C. (2020). The effect of using rubrics and face to face feedback in teaching writing skill in higher education. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 7(1), 150-158. Mehta, P., & Mukherjee, S. (2022). Plagiarism and its repercussions: A primer on responsible scientific writing. Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics, 3(1), 52-62. https://doi.org/10.47316/cajmhe.2022.3.1.05 Michelle L. Vieyra, & Kari D. Weaver. (2023). Exploring factors contributing to plagiarism as students enter stem higher education classrooms. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 102, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.29173/istl2724 Momchilova, M. (2021). Effective application of blended learning in ESP courses. Proceedings of the Technical University of Sofia, 71(2), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.47978/tus.2021.71.02.001 Moses, R. N., & Mohamad, M. (2019). Challenges faced by students and teachers on writing skills in ESL contexts: A literature review. Creative Education, 10(13), 3385–3391. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2019.1013260 Muthalib, K. Abdul. , M. Faisal. , Y. S. B. (2023). Types of plagiarism in EFL undergraduate theses: Discrepancy between knowledge and practice. International Journal of Language Studies, 17(2), 75-98. Rahman, A. M. A., Azmi, M. N. L., & Hassan, I. (2020). Improvement of English writing skills through blended learning among university students in Malaysia. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(12A), 7694–7701. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.082556 Roig, M. (2018). Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. In Getting to Good: Research Integrity in the Biomedical Sciences (pp. 289– 360). Springer International Publishing. Strobl, C., Ailhaud, E., Benetos, K., Devitt, A., Kruse, O., Proske, A., & Rapp, C. (2019). Digital support for academic writing: A review of technologies and pedagogies. Computers and Education, 131(131), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.12.005 Sugiyono. (2012). Metode penelitian kuantitatif kualitatif dan R&D. Alfabeta. Sulistyaningrum, S. D. (2021). Utilizing online paraphrasing tools to overcome students’ paraphrasing difficulties in literature reviews. Journal of English Language Studies, 6(2), 229. https://doi.org/10.30870/jels.v6i2.11582 Kumar, T., Shet, j.P., & Parwez, M.A. (2022). Technology-integration experiences in ELT classrooms as an effective tool: a theoretical study. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, 13(1), 51-60. https://doi.org/10.47750/jett.2022.13.01.006 Twumasi, R. A., & Afful, J. B. A. (2022). Functions of citation in the literature review section of MPhil theses. Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 11-26. https://doi.org/10.32996/jeltal.2022.4.2.2 Vallez, M., Lopezosa, C., & Pedraza-Jiménez, R. (2022). A study of the web visibility of the SDGs and the 2030 agenda on university websites. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 23(8), 41-59. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-09-2021-0361 Wilang, J. D., Jantori, P., & Chutataweesawas, S. (2018). Worries of novice researchers in writing research papers. Online Submission. http://proxy.libraries.smu.edu/login?url=http://se arch.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db= eric&AN=ED583670&site=ehost- live&scope=site. Zhang, R., & Zou, D. (2022). Types, purposes, and effectiveness of state-of-the-art technologies for second and foreign language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(4), 696-742. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1744666 Kartin Lihawa, Karmila Machmud, & Adimawati Helingo Portraying academic writing apptitude and the plagiarism issues among EFL students 524