J Acad Ethics (2013) 11:297–310

DOI 10.1007/s10805-013-9195-6

Faculty Perceptions of Student Self Plagiarism:

An Exploratory Multi-university Study

Colleen Halupa & Doris U. Bolliger

Published online: 28 July 2013

# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract The purpose of this research study was to evaluate faculty perceptions regarding
student self-plagiarism or recycling of student papers. Although there is a plethora of informa-
tion on plagiarism and faculty who self-plagiarize in publications, there is very little research on
how faculty members perceive students re-using all or part of a previously completed assign-
ment in a second assignment. With the wide use of plagiarism detection software, this issue
becomes even more crucial. A population of 340 faculty members from two private universities
at three different sites was surveyed in Fall 2012 semester regarding their perceptions of student
self-plagiarism. A total of 89 faculty responded for a return rate of 26.2 %. Overall, institutional
policies on self-plagiarism did not exist and faculty did not clearly understand the concept and
believed their students did not either. Although faculty agreed students need to be educated on
self-plagiarism, faculty assumed students had previously been educated on plagiarism as well as
self-plagiarism; only 13 % ensured students understood this concept.

Keywords Faculty perceptions . Self-plagiarism . Recycling . Academic honesty

Introduction

Can you plagiarize something you own that has not been officially published and covered
under copyright? There are a significant number of research studies on plagiarism and

C. Halupa (*)
Curriculum Design and Technology, LeTourneau University, Longview, TX, USA
e-mail: colleenhalupa@letu.edu

Colleen. Halupa
e-mail: chalupa@atsu.edu

C. Halupa
School of Health Management, A.T. Still University, Kirksville, MO, USA

C. Halupa
A.T. Still University, Mesa, AZ, USA

D. U. Bolliger
College of Education, Department of Professional Studies, University of Wyoming, Dept. 3374,
1000 E. University Avenue, Laramie, WY 82071, USA
e-mail: dorisbolliger@gmail.com
298 C. Halupa, D.U. Bolliger

plagiarism detection software, but very little on how to handle self-plagiarism or recycling
assignments. There is no current information on suggested policies for handling recycling of
student assignments and only one study (Bennett et al. 2011) examines if students and
faculty perceive this as an acceptable practice.
Plagiarism can be easily defined. The submitting of two articles that have significantly the
same text to two different research journals in considered an ethical violation for academics and
researchers. However, at this point in time, there is not an industry standard for student
recycling of created but unpublished work. This can result in very different perceptions of the
acceptability of this practice among professors and the students themselves.
In addition, although there is published research on the practice of student plagiarism, there
is almost none on faculty perceptions of this practice. In addition, there is almost nothing written
on the practice of self-plagiarism in students. The American Psychological Association (APA)
(2010) has addressed self-plagiarism in the 6th edition of its publication manual; however, only
self-plagiarism in published works is discussed. iThenticate (2011), a company that sells
plagiarism detection software to publishers, defines self-plagiarism as, “a type of plagiarism
in which the writer republishes a work in its entirety or reuses portions of a previously written
text while authoring a new work” (p. 1). However, the potential bias of this definition must be
noted; the company’s view is not neutral because it has a vested interest in the sale of plagiarism
detection programs.
The literature review discusses issues relevant to the concept of student self-plagiarism.
To ensure a broad basis of literature since there is not a significant body of literature on
student self-plagiarism itself, the themes of plagiarism, faculty self-plagiarism and the use of
plagiarism detection programs are discussed.

Literature Review

Plagiarism and Self-Plagiarism

Plagiarism is defined as “to steal and pass off the words and ideas of another as one’s own or
to use another’s production without crediting the source” according to the online Merriam-
Webster Dictionary (2013, para. 1). Scholars tend to agree what plagiarism is; however, it
can be much more challenging to define its variations. Bennett et al. (2011) stated there are
disparities among instructors in how plagiarism is interpreted. Plagiarism is being discovered
at a significantly higher rate than it was in the past due to plagiarism detection software such
as TurnItIn and SafeAssign. While these tools are not foolproof and can miss plagiarism in
some cases and detect it where none actually exists in others, they have brought the
controversy of self-plagiarism to light.
The News International (2011) reported increased incidences of plagiarism in the United
Kingdom with over 17,000 incidents of plagiarism from 2009 to 2010 including the
prestigious Oxford University. Greenwich University had over 900 reported incidents in
that period which was double what it had been in 2005–2006. Don McCabe, a professor
from Rutgers University, conducted a research study of 200,000 college students, 50,000
high school students, and 20,000 professors; he found 33–40 % of students have committed
plagiarism (Akin 2011; McCabe 2005). Bilić-Zulle et al. (2005) noted incidence of plagia-
rism in their study of 198 medical students. Jocoy and DiBiase (2006) found a 19 %
plagiarism rate in adult online learners.
Students may not be the only ones that are confused by the concepts of plagiarism and
self-plagiarism. In 2011 in a study of arts faculty at Queensborough Community College,
Faculty Perceptions of Student Self Plagiarism 299

50 % of the faculty did not understand the institution’s definition of plagiarism and did not
properly apply the guidelines (Marcus and Beck 2011). Bennett et al. (2011) found instruc-
tors varied widely on their perceptions of student recycling of work as plagiarism.
In 1994, Graham et al. (1994) reported when faculty detected an academic honesty
offense such as plagiarism, only 9 % actually reported it; in addition, most did not have
policies in place. Walker (1998) noted 25 % of the faculty members in his study in New
Zealand were not aware of institutional plagiarism policies and almost 50 % reported feeling
powerless to prevent it. Penalties varied from a zero on a plagiarized assignment to the
chance to resubmit the paper. Walker supported Graham et al.’s 1994 finding; most faculty in
his study did not report plagiarism to a higher authority. Baty (2006) and Badge and Scott
(2008) report great differences within and between the ways plagiarism is penalized at
higher education institutions. de Jager and Brown (2010) found academics are likely not to
follow institutional policies on plagiarism if they view them as unrealistic.
Harris (2012) lists several strategies to combat plagiarism. The first of these is awareness
of why students cheat and awareness of the different sources students can plagiarize from.
He also notes it is very important to educate students about the types of plagiarism that
occur. Institutional, as well as, instructor policies must be communicated in the syllabus as
well as the penalties if plagiarism occurs. Harris also suggests changing out assignments or
offering several different topics from which a student can choose. Faculty should require up-
to-date references, use prevention tools and Internet searches and be cognizant if a student
paper does not match the way a student particularly writes.
One prevention strategy that would at first glance appear to be effective would be to
publish specific policies on what constitutes plagiarism in syllabi or other communications.
However, Gullifer and Tyson (2013) in a study of 3,405 students who responded out of a
population of just over 30,000 to a survey in an Australian University found only about half
of these students actually read posted policies on plagiarism. Youmans (2011) who compared
plagiarism incidence in two groups of students, one who were told their papers would be run
through detection software and one group who was not, found no significant differences in
the incidence of plagiarism in these two groups. So, even the posting of plagiarism policies
may not actually be effective.
Roig (2011) and Zirkel (2010) note the APA’s position that self-plagiarism is redundant
publication of materials by scholars who write professional books and journal articles. This
redundancy in academia is not usually applied to those who first present data at a profes-
sional conference and then later on publish the data in a scholarly journal. Instead, it is
usually to those who publish the same data or research in multiple publications (which can
include published conference proceedings). The APA (2010) notes, “authors should not
submit manuscripts that have been published elsewhere in substantially similar form or with
similar content ( . . . . ) just as researchers do not present the work of others as their own, they
do not present their own previously published work as new scholarship” (p. 16 ).
Several authors have conducted research on dual publication to include Bailey (2002),
Schein and Paladugu (2001), and Collberg and Kobourov (2005). Bretag and Carapiet (2007)
noted a 23–52 % incidence of new publications which were constructed from previous
publications by the authors in Australian academic journals. The APA (2010) suggests when
an author duplicates her own words, she must cite her previous work as the source; however,
there is no concrete guidance on exactly how to do this in a reference list or in the text of the
document. Bouville (2008) writes plagiarism can vary from poor proofreading and citation to
outright fraud and should be treated based on its severity. He notes in fact, many cases of
plagiarism are “poor academic practice” by faculty members (p. 312). The Lancet, a well-
known medical journal, in January 2011, indicated authors’ text recycling or self-plagiarism,
300 C. Halupa, D.U. Bolliger

was a “gray area” as far as plagiarism was concerned but considers it ‘inappropriate’ (Kleinert
2011, p. 282). Many journal editors are now using CrossCheck, iThenticate’s plagiarism
detection software program for professional journals and publishers. This program compares
journal articles from over 297 journals and 67,000 titles (iThenticate 2013).
Very little information, however, exists concerning the recycling of all or part of a
previous student paper for a new assignment. Student self-plagiarism is a controversial topic
where faculty opinions differ greatly. Student recycling does not meet Merriam-Webster’s
definition of plagiarism; it also does not meet the APA’s definition because student work is
not published. According to Bird (2002), self-plagiarism is truly not possible since plagia-
rism is claiming the work of another, not your own work, but copyright violation can occur if
material is published. However, it does meet iThenticate’s (2011) definition which notes that
reusing of old work to create new work is self-plagiarism.
Some faculty members require students to submit papers and then resubmit them over and
over again to improve them. Other faculty members have students build portfolio assignments
where previous work is included and edited into a new product. If plagiarism detection software
were to be used on these second and subsequent submissions, a 100 % match for plagiarism
would likely occur. Some students, as well as instructors, feel it is a prudent use of student time to
reuse all or parts of a previous assignment if it fits the new assignment. Some posit since the
previous assignment has already been graded and validated, a student truly cannot plagiarize
his/own work (Bennett et al. 2011; Lang 2010). Others disagree and feel a student’s recycling of
work is academic laziness (Editorial Board 2009). Syed-Brown (2010) notes when a student
submits essentially the same paper for two different classes this is self-plagiarism, but does not
comment on if it exists if only a small block of text is reused. TurnItIn (2013) on its Web site notes
student self-plagiarism is “a matter of institutional policy” (para. 1). Owunwanne et al. (2010) in a
study of 201 freshmen at Howard University discovered no significant differences between
faculty and students when answering disagree/strongly disagree to the question “Cheating
includes submitting something previously completed as an assignment in a prior class”. Only
approximately 38 % of students agreed or strongly agreed recycling assignments was cheating.
At this point Bennett et al.’s 2011 study is the most definitive research on faculty perceptions
of student self-plagiarism, and their results were truly inconclusive in offering guidance for
university policy. They found 54 % of faculty felt student recycling of work was self-plagiarism
while 46 % were neutral or felt it was not self-plagiarism. Tenured instructors were more likely
to view recycling of student work as an academic honesty offense. The number of times
instructors encountered plagiarism (including self-plagiarism) in the classroom had an effect
on their perception of self-plagiarism; it made them more likely to view student recycling as
appropriate and not an academic offense. Those who had a tendency to do nothing about overall
plagiarism were more likely to view student recycling of assignments as appropriate; those who
were more likely to report overall plagiarism cases to a higher authority were more inclined on
viewing student self-plagiarism (or recycling of work) as inappropriate. In this study, “strong
responses to instances of plagiarism are important determinant of views of recycling (student
work)” (p. 33). More research is needed on this topic to assist universities in creating academic
honesty policies that reflect the perceptions of faculty in this area.

Plagiarism and Self-Plagiarism in Campus- vs. Online Environments

Although it is often perceived that academic dishonesty including plagiarism is more

prevalent in online classes because students do not see instructors face-to-face and are
geographically separate, some researchers (Grijalva et al. 2006; Stuber-McEwen et al.
2009) have found this is not the case. Stuber-McEwen et al. (2009) reported students cheated
Faculty Perceptions of Student Self Plagiarism 301

less in online classes even though they may be perceived as more technologically adept, and
Kidwell and Kent (2008) reported less academic misconduct amongst online students.
McAllister and Watkins (2012) noted if students in online classes are taught to self-
regulate, incidence of plagiarism can be decreased. Other researchers have found differing
results. Underwood and Szabo (2003) and Harris (2012) found students who use the
computer more in assignment preparation reported an increased willingness to plagiarize.

Individual Differences in Faculty

Pincus and Schmelkin (2003) surveyed 150 randomly selected full-time and 150 half-
time/adjunct faculty at a university in the northeast U.S. that employed approximately
1,000 faculty members to determine faculty perceptions of academic dishonesty. They
detected no significant differences based on faculty member age, sex, rank, tenure status,
full-time or adjunct status or primary teaching emphasis. Hard et al. (2006) found faculty
status was a predictor of the reporting of student academic dishonesty including plagiarism;
full-time faculty were more likely to report these behaviors than adjunct or part-time faculty
but overall students were rarely challenged. Faculty and students overestimated the actual
percentage of academic dishonesty that occurred. No studies specifically on faculty charac-
teristics in relation to perceptions of plagiarism or self-plagiarism were found.
Since student self-plagiarism is not clearly understood by faculty, it is important to
examine faculty perceptions and practices regarding student self-plagiarism. The purpose
of this research was to evaluate faculty perceptions and practices pertaining to student self-
plagiarism or recycling of student papers. The following research questions were examined:
1. Do instructors believe self-plagiarism is well defined and well understood?
2. What are instructors’ perceptions of self-plagiarism?
3. What were faculty members’ practices as students?
4. What are their practices now as scholars?
5. Which benefits and drawbacks to students recycling their work do instructors perceive?
6. What are faculty prevention and detection strategies?
7. What are their expectations of students and experience with self-plagiarism?
8. Are their differences in responses based on individual differences?

Methodology

Setting and Sample

The sample was drawn from two universities at three sites in the United States. The total
sample included 340 faculty members with a total student population of over 5,400 students.
The first institution included 85 full-time and adjunct faculty members teaching in fall
2012 at a small private Christian university in Texas. This university has a population of
about 1,300 residential undergraduate students and 1,200 nontraditional students who attend
undergraduate and graduate programs primarily online. The traditional campus has programs
in aviation, engineering, liberal arts, education, and business. The nontraditional offerings
include business, education, psychology, and counseling.
Site 1 of the second institution has 90 faculty members at a small private midwestern medical
and health management/health science university that has online graduate programs. Its enroll-
ment included 720 medical and 441 health management/health science students in 2011. Site 2
302 C. Halupa, D.U. Bolliger

of the second institution included 165 faculty members. The campus is located in a large city in
the southwest with enrollment of 2,126 students in 2011. It has a medical school, dental school,
a large population of health science students, and offers online graduate programs.

Instrumentation

After a literature review was conducted, a survey instrument was created that included 25
Likert-type items (ranging from 1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree), three polar items,
seven demographic questions, and five open-ended questions. The survey was developed to
assess faculty members’ overall attitudes, perceptions, past personal incidence, and potential
student benefits and drawbacks of self-plagiarism. It was reviewed and critiqued by five
experts before it was administered. This instrument was not pilot tested to prevent respon-
dent bias since faculty populations at the three institutions were limited and researchers
wished to maximize sample size. The internal reliability coefficient was .60 which is
considered relatively low; however, the survey includes several different factors regarding
self-plagiarism that do not measure the same construct and was exploratory in nature.

Data Collection and Analysis

At the beginning of the Fall 2012 semester, instructors were invited via e-mail to complete a
Web-based survey housed at a secure site. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. A
reminder e-mail was sent in October 2012 to increase the return rate.
A total of 91 individuals completed the survey (response rate 26.2 %). Two cases were
deleted because more than one-third of the data were missing. Descriptive statistics and
frequencies were generated before 11 negative items were reversed. An independent t test
and Chi-square tests were performed to evaluate the impact of individual differences.
Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed by categorizing and identifying similar
themes in participant responses (Flick 2006).

Results

Demographics

Of the faculty respondents, 44 % were male and 56 % were female. Their age ranged from
27 to 81 years (M=51.68). Over 44 % of faculty members were adjuncts with the remaining
56 % holding part-time or full-time instructor or professor status. Of the full- and part-time
faculty, 16.5 % were full professors, 16.5 % were associate professors, 20.3 % were assistant
professors, and the remaining 2 % were lecturers. The respondents taught between 1 year to
40 years in higher education (M=13.58). The majority (58.4 %) taught only graduate
students, 21.3 % taught only undergraduate students, and 9.0 % instructed both undergrad-
uate and graduate students.
Twenty-seven disciplines were represented including arts, business, education, science,
and mathematics. The highest percentage of individuals reported they taught in the areas of
physical therapy (11.3 %) and health sciences (11.3 %). Most instructors taught either
exclusively online courses (43.8 %) or campus-based courses (24.7 %). Others taught a
combination of campus-based and online courses (10.1 %) or a combination of campus-based,
hybrid, and online courses (7.9 %). Few instructors taught only hybrid (3.4 %) or hybrid and
online (1.1 %) courses.
Faculty Perceptions of Student Self Plagiarism 303

Definition and Understanding of the Concept

Respondents were asked two questions about faculty and student understanding of self-
plagiarism. Only 38.2 % of faculty agreed or strongly disagreed self-plagiarism is a clearly
defined concept, whereas 47.2 % of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed. Only
35.9 % thought self-plagiarism is clearly understood by instructors while 41.6 % disagreed
or strongly disagreed. Respondents felt strongly about the lack of students’ understanding of
self-plagiarism; 78.7 % believed self-plagiarism was not understood; only 4.5 % indicated it
was well understood by students. All items scored low mean scores (Table 1).

Perceptions of Self-Plagiarism

Respondents were queried about their general perceptions toward students’ recycling of work.
The majority of instructors (84.3 %) agreed faculty was responsible for educating students
about this concept, and 69.7 % disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement they should
assume students had previously been educated about acceptable practices regarding self-
plagiarism. Over 80 % disagreed (42.7 %) or strongly disagreed (40.4 %) with the statement
“instructors should assume that students in their courses do not commit acts of self-plagiarism”.
Respondents also felt strongly about not encouraging students to use previously completed
assignments for new assignments in other courses. Over 40 % strongly disagreed and 25.8 %
disagreed that instructors should encourage students to recycle their work.
Most instructors (86.5 %) felt they should adhere to and respect school policies centered
on self-plagiarism because they consider themselves role models. Over 50 % strongly agreed
with this statement; this item yielded the highest mean score (Table 2). When asked if
instructors should report every self-plagiarism case to higher authorities, more than half
(59.6 %) of instructors agreed or strongly agreed they should; interestingly, 25 % reported a
neutral response.
The sample was queried about what they perceive as cases of self-plagiarism. Most
individuals (65.9 %) considered it self-plagiarism when students reused a portion of a
previous assignment for a new assignment if they did not cite the previous paper. Most
instructors (58.8 %) disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, “Students do not
need to cite themselves if they use an excerpt they wrote for a previous paper in order to
prevent self-plagiarism”. Even more (80.0 %) respondents thought students were guilty of
self-plagiarism when students submitted a previously completed paper in its entirety as a
new assignment in a different course. Another 70.6 % of participants believed students who
do not get instructor permission when recycling work in their courses were also guilty of
self-plagiarism.
Because students often encounter group assignments in courses, instructors were asked
whether students who reuse assignments completed as a group assignment for their individ-
ual assignments are self-plagiarizing. Over 81 % of respondents considered this as self-
plagiarism. Some instructors have students share their papers with peers in the course.

Table 1 Mean scores and stan-

dard deviations of concept items Item M SD

Self-plagiarism is …
1. … a clearly defined concept. 2.89 1.15
2. … clearly understood by instructors. 2.91 1.03
3. … clearly understood by students. 1.89 .85
304 C. Halupa, D.U. Bolliger

Table 2 Mean scores and standard deviations of perception of self-plagiarism items

Item M SD

As a faculty member I should …

4. … teach students about appropriate behaviors regarding self-plagiarism. 4.15 .78
5. … assume students have been educated about acceptable practices. [R] 3.60 1.08
6. … adhere to our policies regarding self-plagiarism because I am a role model. 4.36 .81
7. … report all student self-plagiarism cases. 3.62 1.09
8. … assume students do not engage in self-plagiarism. [R] 4.12 1.01
9. … encourage students to reuse parts of their previously submitted papers for 3.95 1.06
new assignments. [R]
Students who …
20. … reuse part of a previous paper for a new assignment (if appropriate to the 3.75 1.06
new assignment) without citing the previous paper are self-plagiarizing.
21. … reuse assignments that were completed by a group of students in a course are 4.07 .91
self-plagiarizing.
22. … reuse a completed paper for a new assignment are self-plagiarizing. 4.15 .86
23. … share their papers with peers invite others to plagiarize. 3.78 1.07
24. … do NOT get my permission when they recycle their work in my courses are 3.93 .97
self-plagiarizing.
25. Students do NOT need to cite themselves if they use an excerpt they wrote for a 3.56 1.11
previous paper to prevent self-plagiarism. [R]

R recoded item

Therefore, participants were asked to respond to the statement that students who share their
papers with classmates invite others to commit plagiarism, and 67.0 % agreed or strongly
agreed with this statement.

Practices as Students

Participants were asked to report on some of their practices during the time they were
students. The majority of instructors (74.2 %) were not encouraged by their former instruc-
tors to include portions of previously completed course assignments into new assignments.
This item yielded the lowest mean score in this subscale (Table 3).
As students, most individuals (67.4 %) did not obtain permission to recycle any previously
submitted assignments; however, 22.4 % responded they sought the permission of their
instructors. These answers are reflective of responses to the question of whether all of their
course assignments were original student’ works. Over 61 % indicated all of their assignments
had been original, whereas 27.0 % disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement.

Table 3 Mean scores and stan-

dard deviations for student prac-
tices items
Item M SD
When I was a student …
10. … I was encouraged by instructors to include 2.11 .98
parts of a previous assignment in a new assignment.
11. … I recycled some of my works after getting 2.38 1.09
my instructor’s permission.
12. … work I did for every assignment was original. 3.46 1.18
Faculty Perceptions of Student Self Plagiarism 305

Practices as Scholars

Some of the survey questions pertained to current faculty practices as a scholar. Over 65 %
instructors did not use their own unpublished works in their courses without citing them.
Responses to the question whether faculty members turn conference presentations into journal
articles were quite divided. Over 42 % reported they did, whereas 33.7 % did not. Another
statement that yielded similar results was the question of whether instructors use their published
materials at their discretion. Here, 35.9 % agreed or strongly agreed, whereas 33.8 % disagreed
or strongly disagreed, and 30.3 % were neutral. However, instructors felt strongly about not
publishing similar (yet not identical) research in more than one journal. Only 4.4 % agreed or
strongly agreed with the statement that they turn similar research into two or more publications.
This reversed item yielded the highest mean score (Table 4).

Perceived Benefits and Drawbacks of Students Recycling Assignments

Respondents were asked to report on perceived benefits and drawbacks students who recycle
their work may experience. More than 74 % of individuals agreed or strongly agreed
students can increase their learning by building on previous assignments; this statement
yielded the highest mean score (Table 5). More than half (52.9 %) thought students who
incorporated work from previous assignments into new assignments in appropriate ways
used their time wisely. However, when queried more specifically about different parameters
of self-plagiarism, 55.3 % agreed or strongly agreed students who reuse part of a previous
assignment can expect potential problems.

Prevention and Detection Strategies

Because many universities have a student code of conduct, participants were asked whether
their institutions had such a code. Almost all (97.6 %) indicated their university had a
student code of conduct.
The majority of respondents (68.2 %) reported they use plagiarism detection software
regularly. Respondents were asked to respond to three open-ended questions regarding their
prevention and detection strategies for self-plagiarism. Approximately 25 % of respondents
did not answer these questions. The purpose of these questions was to determine which
policies and methods, if any, faculty use to prevent and detect self-plagiarism. Instructors
indicated they used strategies for preventing or detecting plagiarism, but not specifically
self-plagiarism.

Table 4 Mean scores and stan-

dard deviations for scholar prac- Item M SD
tices items
As a scholar I …
13. … convert conference presentations into 3.00 1.19
journal articles.
14. … incorporate previously written (unpublished) 3.74 1.13
materials into my courses without citing the
material. [R]
15. … use my published materials as I see fit. [R] 3.09 1.21
16. … publish the same research in two or more 4.12 1.01
publications as long as they are not identical. [R]
R recoded item
306 C. Halupa, D.U. Bolliger

Table 5 Mean scores and stan-

dard deviations for benefits or Item M SD
drawback items
Students who …
17. … build on previous assignments can increase 3.86 .71
their depth of learning.
18. … incorporate previous assignments in new 3.33 1.04
assignments in appropriate ways use their time
wisely.
19. … reuse part of previously written papers for 3.41 .92
new assignments can expect potential problems.

Policies When asked which self-plagiarism policies they had independent of the institution
they worked for, 34 % of the faculty surveyed had no policies for self-plagiarism in place in
their courses. Eleven percent of respondents wrote this question was not applicable because
their students did not complete papers or written assignments in their courses.
Only 13 % of instructors had a specific self-plagiarism policy for the courses they teach.
Some noted these policies were stringent. One respondent wrote, “I tell my students that I
run all my student papers through self-plagiarism software and any that show self-plagiarism
will get a zero grade”, while another wrote, “They are warned, can receive a zero for the
assignment and can be eliminated from the program if it occurs again”.
Six percent of faculty surveyed relied on the university plagiarism policies which did not
address self-plagiarism specifically. Nine percent of the faculty required students to ask prior
permission or to cite their previous assignment or unpublished work in the text and reference list
of the new assignment. One faculty member specifically wrote, “I encourage my students to
recycle their assignments but be sure they conform to the requisites of the new assignment.”
Although this was not specified, some courses lend themselves to multiple rewrites as was
noted by another respondent.

Prevention The majority of the faculty surveyed (31 %) relied on plagiarism detection
software to prevent plagiarism or self-plagiarism. Only 10 % of respondents indicated they
educate their students in the classroom through discussion or announcements. Additionally,
8 % educate students about plagiarism, but not specifically self-plagiarism. One faculty
member noted, “Students who are aware of issues tend to avoid self-plagiarism and
plagiarism”, while another stated, “I expect students to know what plagiarism is in advance
of their work”.
Some instructors (8 %) used unique course content to prevent self-plagiarism. Another
8 % mentioned self-plagiarism was difficult to prevent and therefore they made limited
attempts. Others (8 %) admitted they did nothing at all. In the words of one faculty member,
“This is not easy to prevent and is often discovered after the fact”. Twenty-one percent of
respondents did not have written assignments where self-plagiarism was a concern.

Detection Overall 72 % of the respondents used plagiarism detection software, and 75 %

used computerized methods to include plagiarism detection software and other methods at
least some of the time. Twenty percent did not use detection strategies. When instructors
were asked which detection strategies they used to prevent student self-plagiarism, 35 % of
respondents indicated they used the program TurnItIn, a program integrated into the
Blackboard Learning Management System (LMS) at both medical universities. Twenty five
percent of faculty used multiple methods of self-plagiarism detection. Twelve percent used
Faculty Perceptions of Student Self Plagiarism 307

the program SafeAssign which is available in the Blackboard LMS at one of the sites. Others
(5 %) used other methods such as checking references of cutting and pasting suspect
passages into the Google search engine. Very few (2 %) wrote this question was not
applicable because they did not utilize written assignments. All participants in this study
had the capability of automatically checking student assignments through the LMS.

Faculty Expectations of Students and Experience with Self-Plagiarism

Instructors were asked to respond to two open-ended questions regarding their expectations
of students and experiences with student self-plagiarism.

Expectations When asked if instructors have different expectations of students depending on

their status (undergraduate vs. graduate students), 44 % of faculty replied their expectations
do not differ. Others (30 %) noted they have higher expectations for graduate student and are
more lenient with undergraduate students. One faculty member said, “I would be more
understanding of an undergraduate student in the first year rather than the last year”. Another
instructor wrote, “I expect graduate students to be more familiar with self-plagiarism”.
A total of 17 % of respondents only taught either graduate or undergraduate courses, but not
both, and did not specifically comment on the issue for this reason. Others (9 %) indicated this
was not applicable because they did not use written assignments in their courses.

Experiences More than half of instructors (68.2 %) who responded to the survey reported they
had experienced a student self-plagiarizing in their course. When questioned about the number
of occurrences, 33 % indicated there were none they were aware of and some (7 %) did not
know. Nineteen percent had experienced up to two incidences of self-plagiarism, and 25 %
reported 3–6 incidences had occurred. Twelve percent of instructors who responded indicated
they had more than six incidents; only one person reported more than 20 incidents. Most
respondents quantified these incidents as per year. One respondent wrote that the average is
“one per month” in a program of 300 enrolled students.

Differences Based on Individual Differences

In order to evaluate whether individual differences impacted responses to items on the

survey, independent t tests and Chi-square tests were conducted.

Gender An independent t test was run to evaluate whether males and females had statisti-
cally significant responses to the survey questions. Only one item yielded different re-
sponses, item 23 (t (77)=−1.29, p=.003). Males agreed more that sharing papers with
peers invites others to plagiarize (M=3.80; SD=.833) than women (M=3.75; SD=1.241).

Faculty Rank Chi-square tests of association were conducted in order to determine if rank
had an impact on persons’ responses. Responses to four statements were statistically
significant: 13 [χ2 (12, N=77)=39.73, p=.000, η2=.57], 14 [χ2 (12, N=77)=21.91, p=.039,
η2=.13], 16 [χ2 (12, N=77)=22.66, p=.031, η2=.25], and 21 [χ2 (12, N=77)=23.92, p=.021,
η2=.42]. Table 6 includes the mean scores and standard deviations for the significant items.

Experience with Student Plagiarism An independent t test was performed to evaluate whether
instructor who had experienced self-plagiarism in their courses had different perceptions
compared to instructors who had not. Only one item yielded mean scores that were significant,
308 C. Halupa, D.U. Bolliger

Table 6 Mean scores and stan-

dard deviations by rank Item Adjunct Assistant Associate Full

M SD M SD M SD M SD

13 2.40 1.04 3.56 .96 4.08 .49 3.31 1.18

14 3.89 1.08 3.56 1.32 3.69 1.18 3.61 .96
16 3.94 .84 4.56 1.03 4.08 1.26 4.31 .95
21 4.31 .58 4.13 .81 3.23 1.24 3.85 .90

item 20 (t (83)=3.61, p=.032). Individuals who had experienced a student self-plagiarizing

agreed more (M=4.02; SD=.908) with the statement, Students who reuse part of a previous
paper for a new assignment (if appropriate to the new assignment) without citing the previous
paper are self-plagiarizing, than those who had not (M=3.19; SD=1.145).

Discussion

As evidenced in this research project, although institutions have plagiarism policies, they do not
have specific policies for self-plagiarism. However, only 13 % of faculty had their own specific
course policies in this study. As reported by Marcus and Beck (2011), Badge and Scott (2008),
and Baty (2006) faculty handled self-plagiarism cases differently because of subjectivity in
plagiarism policies that did not include information about self-plagiarism. Most agreed with
Syed-Brown’s assertion that using the same paper in its entirety for two different classes is self-
plagiarism. Some faculty in this study utilized APA’s (2010) guidance for those who are
publishing in academic journals and required their students to cite their previous unpublished
work; however, this guidance is not specific to student self-plagiarism.
Harris (2012) and Bennett et al. (2011) noted how critical it is for faculty to educate student
about plagiarism and inform them of existing policies and penalties, yet the majority of the
respondents assumed students had previously been educated. In accordance with Harris’s
(2012) recommendations, about three fourths of the respondents used plagiarism detection
software at least some of the time. However 20 % of this population did not use any detection
devices for self-plagiarism. Plagiarism detection devices were used as a prevention strategy
even though in most cases it was used as a strategy that detects after the fact.
The severe penalties instituted when self-plagiarism was detected in some cases caused
students to receive a failing grade whether or not it was intentional or unintentional and caused
by lack of education. The feeling of being powerless to prevent plagiarism and self-plagiarism
as reported by Walker (1998) was reported in a small number of study respondents. In
conclusion, a much higher percentage of faculty in this study perceived student recycling of
work as self-plagiarism than noted by the only published research by Bennett et al. (2011) (54 %
versus 65 to 80 % depending on degree of recycling).

Conclusion

The purpose of this research study was to survey faculty perceptions of student recycling of
work. Overwhelmingly, the participants in this study did not feel self-plagiarism was well
defined and understood by faculty and particularly by students. The institutions in this
population had policies for plagiarism but did not include policies for self-plagiarism. Almost
Faculty Perceptions of Student Self Plagiarism 309

all participants felt they should comply with institutional policies. Since the institutions did not
have specific policies, instructors were left to decide how to handle student self-plagiarism on
their own which leads to inconsistencies. Faculty noted they are responsible to educate students
about plagiarism and self-plagiarism, but assumed students had already been educated before
they entered their class. Only a small number of faculty ensured students were educated.
There were varying opinions on what was self-plagiarism although most faculty felt
recycling a paper in its entirety was not acceptable. However, a majority of the faculty felt
students could increase learning by building on previous assignments. Most of the faculty
routinely used plagiarism detection programs and more than half had discovered a student self-
plagiarizing in the past. It is evident based on the findings in this research study that institutions
need to develop at least basic policies on student self-plagiarism and recycling of previous
unpublished works to guide faculty in dealing with this issue. In addition, students and faculty
need to be educated on what student self-plagiarism is in order to ensure consistency in handling
this issue.

References

Akin, S. (2011, October 11). Professors diligent in trying to stop students’ plagiarism. Retrieved from http://
www.northjersey.com/news/education/college/131843348_Professors_diligent_in_trying__to_stop_students__
plagiarism.html?c=y&page=1.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association
(6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Badge, J., & Scott, J. (2008, July). Plagiarism policies: Looking for intra-institutional consistency. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Higher Education Academy, Harrogate, UK. Retrieved from http://
www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/events/annualconference/2008/Jo_Badge.doc.
Bailey, B. J. (2002). Duplicate publication in the field of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. Otolaryngology –
Head and Neck Surgery, 126(3), 211–216. doi:10.1067/mhn.2002.122698.
Baty, P. (2006, June 23). Inconsistent penalties raise risk of legal action, Deech says. The Times Higher
Education Supplement. Retrieved from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=
203884.
Bennett, K. K., Behrendt, L. S., & Boothby, J. L. (2011). Instructor perceptions of plagiarism: are we finding
common ground? Teaching of Psychology, 38(1), 29–35. doi:10.1177/0098628310390851.
Bilić-Zulle, L., Frković, V., Turk, T., Ažman, J., & Petrovečki, M. (2005). Prevalence of plagiarism among
medical students. Croatian Medical Journal, 46(1), 126–131.
Bird, S. (2002). Self-plagiarism and dual and redundant publications: what is the problem? Science and
Engineering Ethics, 8(4), 543–544. doi:10.1007/s11948-002-0007-4.
Bouville, M. (2008). Plagiarism: words and ideas. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 311–322.
doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9057-6.
Bretag, T., & Carapiet, S. (2007). A preliminary study to identify the extent of self-plagiarism in Australian
academic research. Plagiary: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification, 2,
92–130. Retrieved from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/5240451.0002.010?rgn=main;view=fulltext.
Collberg, C., & Kobourov, S. (2005). Self-plagiarism in computer science. Communications of the ACM,
48(4), 88–94.
de Jager, K., & Brown, C. (2010). The tangles web: investigating academics’ views of plagiarism at the University
of Cape Town. Studies in Higher Education, 35(5), 513–528. doi:10.1080/03075070903222641.
Editorial Board. (2009, November 22). Is self-plagiarism academically dishonest? Retrieved from http://
www.roosevelttorch.com/2.14124/is-self-plagiarism-academically-1.1955346.
Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Graham, M. A., Monday, J., O’Brien, K., & Steffen, S. (1994). Cheating at small colleges: an examination of
student and faculty behaviours. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 255–260.
Grijalva, T. C., Nowell, C., & Kerkvliet, J. (2006). Academic honesty and online courses. College Student
Journal, 40(1), 180–185.
Gullifer, J. M., & Tyson, G. A. (2013). Who has read the policy on plagiarism? Unpacking students’
understanding of plagiarism. Studies in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/03075079.2013.777412.
310 C. Halupa, D.U. Bolliger

Hard, S. F., Conway, J. M., & Moran, A. C. (2006). Faculty and college student beliefs about the frequency of
student academic misconduct. Journal of Higher Education, 77(6), 1058–1080. doi:10.1353/jhe.2006.0048.
Harris, R. (2012, February 28). Anti-plagiarism strategies for research papers. Retrieved from http://
www.virtualsalt.com/antiplag.htm.
iThenticate. (2011). The ethics of self-plagiarism. Retrieved from http://www.ithenticate.com/self-plagiarism-
free-white-paper.
iThenticate. (2013). CrossCheckTM powered by iThenticate. Retrieved from http://www.ithenticate.com/products/
crosscheck/.
Jocoy, C. L., & DiBiase, D. (2006). Plagiarism by adult learners online: a case study in detection and
remediation. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1), 1–15.
Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/242.
Kidwell, L. A., & Kent, J. (2008). Integrity at a distance: a study of academic misconduct among university
students on and off campus. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 17(Supplement 1), S3–
S16. doi:10.1080/09639280802044568.
Kleinert, S. (2011). Checking for plagiarism, duplicate publication, and text recycling. The Lancet, 377(9762),
281–282. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60075-5.
Lang, J. M. (2010, October 4). Plagiarizing yourself. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/Plagiarizing-Yourself/124781/.
Marcus, S., & Beck, S. (2011). Faculty perception of plagiarism at Queensborough Community College.
Community & Junior College Libraries, 17(2), 63–73. doi:10.1080/02763915.2011.591709.
McCabe, D. L. (2005). Cheating among college and university students: a North American perspective.
International Journal for Educational Integrity, 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/
index.php/IJEI/article/viewFile/14/9.
McAllister, C., & Watkins, P. (2012). Increasing academic integrity in online classes by fostering the
development of self-regulated learning skills. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational
Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 85(3), 96–101. doi:10.1080/00098655.2011.642420.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2013). Plagiarize. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
plagiarize.
Owunwanne, D., Rustagi, N., & Dada, R. (2010). Students’ perception of cheating in higher education
institutions. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 7(11), 59–68.
Pincus, H. S., & Schmelkin, L. P. (2003). Faculty perceptions of academic dishonesty: a multidimensional
scaling analysis. Journal of Higher Education, 74(2), 196–209. doi:10.1353/jhe.2003.0017.
Roig, M. (2011, September 28). Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing
practices: A guide to ethical writing. Retrieved from http://ori.dhhs.gov/sites/default/files/plagiarism.pdf.
Schein, M., & Paladugu, R. (2001). Redundant surgical publications: tip of the iceberg? Surgery, 129(6), 655–
661. doi:10.1067/msy.2001.114549.
Stuber-McEwen, D., Wisely, P., Hoggatt, S. (2009). Point, click, and cheat: frequency and type of academic
dishonesty in the virtual classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7(3). Retrieved
from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall123/stuber123.html.
Syed-Brown, C. (2010). Did I say that? Thoughts on self-plagiarism. Library and Archival Security, 23(2),
137–139. doi:10.1080/01960075.2010.522899.
The News International. (2011, March 8). Cheating on the rise at UK universities. Retrieved from http://
www.thenews.com.pk/article-12255-Cheating-on-the-rise-at-UK-universities.
TurnItIn. (2013). Support. Retrieved from http://turnitin.com/en_us/support/help-center/self-plagiarism.
Underwood, J., & Szabo, A. (2003). Academic offences and e-learning: individual propensities in cheating.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 467–477. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00343.
Walker, J. (1998). Student plagiarism in universities: what are we doing about it? Higher Education Research
and Development, 17(1), 89–106.
Youmans, R. J. (2011). Does the adoption of plagiarism detection software in higher education reduce
plagiarism? Studies in Higher Education, 36(7), 749–761. doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.523457.
Zirkel, P. A. (2010, December 3). A study in self-plagiarism. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/
views/2010/12/03/zirkel.