See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/369560007

Types of plagiarism in EFL undergraduate theses: Discrepancy between

knowledge and practice

Article  in  International Journal of Language Studies · April 2023

CITATIONS READ

0 1

3 authors, including:

Kismullah Abdul Muthalib Faisal Mustafa

Syiah Kuala University Syiah Kuala University
11 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS    50 PUBLICATIONS   213 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Teachers' Professional Development View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Faisal Mustafa on 28 March 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Language Studies
Volume 17, Number 2, April 2023, pp. 75-98

Types of plagiarism in EFL undergraduate theses: Discrepancy between

knowledge and practice
Kismullah Abdul MUTHALIB, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Indonesia
Faisal MUSTAFA, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Indonesia1
Syamsul Bahri YUSUF, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Indonesia

Plagiarism, a serious academic misconduct, is common in undergraduate

students’ theses. This study aims (a) to determine the types of plagiarism
committed by EFL students in their undergraduate theses and (b) to see
how they differ between students with high and low English proficiency.
Data were collected from 45 theses in a well-established university in
Indonesia. The theses were screened for plagiarism using Turnitin before
each plagiarized sentence was analyzed. English proficiency was
measured using a Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). The
findings show two most frequent types of plagiarism: (a) verbatim copy,
and (b) patchwriting. Missing citations are frequently found in the two
types of plagiarism. Another type of plagiarism, which is rarely
documented, is (c) running-on citations. Meanwhile, the types and
amount of plagiarism slightly differ between students with high and low
English proficiency. This paper concludes that many EFL students did
not use sources and citations correctly in their theses.

Keywords: Patchwriting; Plagiarism; Undergraduate Thesis; Verbatim Copy

1. Introduction
Unlike free writing, academic writing requires advanced thinking skills, one of
the skills necessary for students studying at a university. According to Hollister
(2014), academic writing requires the ability to show clear thinking which
does not only demand knowledge of a particular area but also requires the
ability to engage in reading a particular topic to be able to relate an idea to
other existing ideas in the field. In some countries, such as the United States
and Australia, academic writing is taught from high school.
In Indonesia, students are not explicitly introduced to academic writing until
they reach the university level. Even at university, academic writing skill
training is inadequate, with limited hours or semester credits. Most
universities in Indonesia offer a mere two-to-three credit academic writing
courses. In contrast, at some universities, the course is absent from their

1 Corresponding Author: [email protected]

ISSN: 2157-4898; eISSN: 2157-4901
© 2023 IJLS; Printed in The USA by Lulu Press Inc.
76 K. A. Muthalib, F. Mustafa & S. B. Yusuf

curriculum, and academic writing skills are not being promoted in their
academic works. Despite inadequate practice and lack of knowledge in
academic writing, curricula in most Asian universities, such as those of
Indonesia, require undergraduate students to write a thesis, which is not
commonly found in the world’s leading universities for their undergraduate
programs. Writing a thesis requires the ability to “construct a synthesis of
theories, published studies, methodological understanding, and select and
apply appropriate research methods, analysis and discussion” (Hemmings,
2001, p. 241).
Consequently, the requirement to produce a thesis has resulted in several
problems for undergraduate students. First, many students are not able to
provide an adequate or relevant reason to conduct their particular research
and offer (a) inappropriate research methods (Widiastuti, 2010), (b)
inappropriate language usage (Sinaga & Sihombing, 2014), and (c) an absence
of discussion (Suherdi et al., 2020). Second, plagiarism has been found in many
undergraduate theses (Cahyono, 2007). Among other problems, plagiarism is
the most urgent because it is an academic writing misconduct, and it is the most
frequently committed by undergraduate students in writing their theses. Also,
plagiarism becomes an issue for international students studying in English-
speaking countries (Adhikari, 2018). Therefore, this academic misconduct can
potentially result in dismissals from some universities, and thus it needs to be
anticipated.
Students should be introduced to plagiarism and how to deal with it from the
early years of the undergraduate level. Since limited credits are offered for
courses related to academic writing, students should be made aware of the
issues of plagiarism, especially the types of plagiarism with which they might
have problems. Our previous study found that senior English as a foreign
language (EFL) students who were writing their theses or thesis proposals at
two established universities in Indonesia had a limited understanding of the
concept of plagiarism (Mustafa, 2019). Many considered that changing words
with synonyms or transforming active sentences into their passive
counterparts is a proper way of paraphrasing (89%). They also considered that
combining other people's statements with their own without citations did not
constitute plagiarism (62%). Many students believed that a paraphrased
sentence does not need a citation (67%), and a double quotation is optional for
verbatim-cited statements (65%). Self-plagiarism was also rarely understood
as plagiarism (60%).
Previous studies have shown that understanding plagiarism is significant for
academic writers, and that EFL undergraduate students in many countries do
not properly understand some types of plagiarism (Ahmad et al., 2022; Fatima
et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2022). Therefore, it is urgent to analyze the types of
 International Journal of Language Studies, 17(2), 75-98 77

plagiarism committed in their submitted theses so that they can be used to

devise a better outline for academic writing courses and thesis supervision.
Thus, the current research aims to determine the types of plagiarism
committed by EFL students in writing their undergraduate theses. In addition,
English proficiency is seen as an essential factor which determines plagiarism
practice, and thus this study also aims to determine how the types of plagiarism
differ between students with low and high English proficiency.

2. Background
Plagiarism has been widely studied in terms of ethical implications in practice
(Carter et al., 2019), reasons, recognition, and solutions (Debnath, 2016), its
prevention (Fischer & Zigmond, 2011), and its detection (Mohammed et al.,
2015). However, the literature review of this paper will only look at types,
reasons, and ways to prevent students’ plagiarism because they are most
relevant to the objective of this study. Discussion on undergraduate thesis
includes the general overview and its significance for language learning and
research skills.

2.1. The significance of undergraduate thesis

An undergraduate thesis is significant for EFL students, but it is also
challenging. An undergraduate English language teaching program is intended
to produce school teachers (Hapsari & Ena, 2019). In some countries, teachers
are required to conduct research studies, especially classroom action research,
as a requirement for promotion (Burns & Rochsantiningsih, 2006; Hei & David,
2017). Research skills are required to obtain accurate data and make an
accurate conclusion, which can result in improved quality of instruction,
including materials selection, teaching method, and classroom management.
Many graduates of English language teaching departments are interested in
continuing their studies in postgraduate programs where academic writing is
central (Disya & Ningrum, 2019). Postgraduate programs also require a
significant amount of research and research reports in the form of a
postgraduate thesis which usually consists of a substantial length of academic
writing (Rauf, 2016). Many postgraduate programs demand academic
publication as a requirement for graduation. In addition, occupations in an
academic field might also require publication (Cott, 2005). Therefore,
undergraduate students can use the experience in writing their undergraduate
thesis as a practice to develop their research and academic writing skills.

2.2. Undergraduate students’ problems with writing a thesis

Many publications list the requirements of a piece of globally-accepted
academic writing. They also agree on the essential requirement of successful
78 K. A. Muthalib, F. Mustafa & S. B. Yusuf

academic writing—i.e., experience (Belcher, 2009). However, many

undergraduate students in many countries and international students in
western universities are not experienced writers (Bailey, 2015; Pecorari,
2010). In academic writing courses they take during their undergraduate
degree, they are introduced to structuring ideas, using sources, and being brief
and precise.
Despite the compulsory academic writing courses, undergraduate students in
Indonesia and Malaysia were found not to have sufficient knowledge of
research or thesis writing, including writing an introduction section (Stapa et
al., 2014), organization, methodology, and source use (Irwandi & Arisanti,
2017). Therefore, that knowledge could not be put into practice without
adequate experience and practice (Behrens & Rosen, 2018). In addition, the
writing process takes an extended period of time (Thabran & Fajaryani, 2017).
Another problem is that there is a gap between what undergraduate students
think as necessary—i.e., level of language proficiency—and what their
professor considers as important in their writing, which is a clear presentation
of ideas, such as the case among international students in a US university
(Cennetkuşu, 2017).
Regarding a lack of knowledge about undergraduate thesis writing, using
sources is the primary weakness (Ansas & Sukyadi, 2019). First, they
considered sources as not that important in a thesis. Thus, they suspected that
the level of plagiarism in undergraduate theses was high because of improper
citations of statements from the internet. Another study has also found that
students’ understanding of the concept of plagiarism was distorted among
undergraduate students who were writing either their undergraduate theses
or undergraduate thesis proposals (Mustafa, 2019). Of seven types of serious
plagiarism misconduct, they were only able to identify two of them as
plagiarism, i.e., (a) copying from a source as it is without citation and (b)
translating from other languages without citation. Almost all students
considered patchwriting as not plagiarism, so their undergraduate theses are
expected to include many cited sources which were not adequately
paraphrased—such as replacing words with synonyms and changing active
sentences into their passive counterparts.

2.3. Plagiarism
Plagiarism is a classic concept that is always relevant in academic writing.
Although the emergence of the internet for the public at the end of the 20th
century has boosted the frequency of plagiarism, the term itself dates back to
the Roman empire in the context of poetry and to the eighteen century for
scholarly publication (Howard, 2007). Later after the printing press was
introduced in the middle of the 15th century, plagiarism became notorious
 International Journal of Language Studies, 17(2), 75-98 79

among scholars and writers (Shelley, 2005). Most scholars define plagiarism as
taking someone else’s idea or word and using it as our own without proper
recognition of its original author (Bailey, 2015; Gallant, 2008; Pecorari, 2010).
Many scholars post damning points of view on plagiarism, e.g., “a crime against
academy” (Bouville, 2008, p. 311), dishonorable practice (Ali et al., 2012),
extremely serious academic malpractice (Roig, 2009), and disease (Howard,
2000). In an academic context, plagiarism can be categorized into two major
types: (1) with citation, and (2) without citation (Ali et al., 2012; Bouville,
2008).

2.3.1. Plagiarism without citations

This type of plagiarism is the worst stealing in academic practice. It is simply
copying other people’s ideas and words without giving credit to the author.
This practice does not respect the original author to whom the idea belongs;
therefore, plagiarism without citation is committed with the intention to
deceive. This type of plagiarism comes in two forms: (1) unattributed direct
copying, and (2) paraphrasing (Curtis & Vardanega, 2016). Students directly
copy when they find materials from any source and use those materials or
parts of them as their own work or as parts of their own work. Research has
found that university students commonly understand that this practice is
plagiarism (Mustafa, 2019). Students reported that they continue to commit
this type of plagiarism, based on a 10-year-long study conducted between 2004
and 2014, but the number of occurrences has decreased (Curtis & Vardanega,
2016). In addition, based on an analysis of plagiarism in dissertations, Gelfand
(2018) found some instances of a verbatim copying. Pecorari (2010, p. 4)
points out that this type of plagiarism is mainly committed with the “intention
to deceive.” In contrast to students committing “copy and paste,” who do not
worry about getting caught, some students change a few words or even
paraphrase plagiarized statements and use them to avoid plagiarism detection.
Some students do not realize that even such a paraphrased version is still
considered plagiarism (Marshall & Garry, 2006).

2.3.2. Plagiarism with citations

Even with a citation, a statement can still be considered a plagiarized
statement. A cited verbatim copying of others' words is another form of
plagiarism without double quotations (Hacker & Sommers, 2014). Both ideas
and words need to be credited properly. The idea is credited by citation and
the words by double quotation, which suggests that even with citation, using
sources is still likely to be categorized as plagiarism practice. Research on what
students know constitutes plagiarism revealed that students’ understanding of
how to properly acknowledge the author is lacking.
80 K. A. Muthalib, F. Mustafa & S. B. Yusuf

Furthermore, some students try to incorporate their own words but fail to
achieve what is called paraphrasing. Such paraphrasing is well known as
"patchwriting," and it is a form of plagiarism, be it adequately cited or used as
the author's own ideas (Childers & Bruton, 2016, p. 2), which many students
do not realize (Festas et al., 2022). Research has also shown that many students
are aware that this practice falls under the category of plagiarism practice
(Childers & Bruton, 2016), but this plagiarism is expected among students
whose language proficiency development is still in progress (Pecorari & Shaw,
2012). Therefore, students completing their class assignments might exhibit
patchwriting (Pecorari, 2010). However, plagiarism with citations is not
allowed in a dissertation or academic paper because students should have
passed the language development at this stage (Childers & Bruton, 2016).

2.4. Motivation to plagiarize

Plagiarism is well-known among students as an academic crime; therefore,
when students plagiarize, they know it is not allowed. Studies have found that
many reasons motivate students to plagiarize (Awasthi, 2019). First, Patak et
al. (2021) point out that students plagiarize simply because they know how to
do it. Every student, even in remote areas, has easy access to the internet. Using
search engines is the only skill a student needs to commit plagiarism. Another
factor that encourages students to plagiarize, as Waltzer and Dahl (2023) note,
is pressure. Sometimes an assignment given to students is so difficult for those
with a certain level of language proficiency that they cannot complete it within
the required timeframe. This situation, coupled with the fear of failing a
module, contributes to the temptation to plagiarize, even without the intention
to do so (Al-Zubaidi, 2012). Third, plagiarism is the result of a lack of
understanding of what constitutes plagiarism. In a study conducted in Malaysia
by Ali et al. (2012), it was shown that undergraduate students from various
ethnicities failed to identify 48 percent of the types of plagiarism. This lack of
awareness and understanding may also escalate the problem for students from
certain cultures—such as Confucian culture, which considers plagiarism a sign
of respect for the original authors (Lund, 2004). Finally, plagiarism is
committed because academic integrity policies are not well-defined or
enforced on students. Akbar and Picard (2019) found that policy regarding
plagiarism focuses mainly on faculty members through prevention and
punishment, leaving students with mild punishment in some institutions.
Therefore, understanding of these plagiarism motivations is needed to help
students avoid the practice.

2.5. Avoiding plagiarism

To avoid plagiarism, the most important aspect that students need to learn is
(1) what constitutes plagiarism and (2) to familiarize themselves with how to
 International Journal of Language Studies, 17(2), 75-98 81

use resources to write with integrity. Once students have built the skills to
write with integrity, avoiding plagiarism is not that challenging (Bouville,
2008), although some students think it is (Pecorari, 2010). There are three
skills students need to practice to write with integrity: (1) paraphrasing, (2)
summarizing (Bailey, 2015), and (3) synthesizing (Doolan & Fitzsimmons-
Doolan, 2016; Kettel & DeFauw, 2018).

2.5.1. Paraphrasing
One way to avoid plagiarism is by using quotations for every cited idea;
however, excessive direct quotations make the writing lose its coherence.
Therefore, these cited sentences can be paraphrased—that is, to state only the
idea in the source text by using the language but maintaining academic
integrity by providing proper citations and referencing (Hirvela & Du, 2013). A
paraphrased version should use new language with a different style and tone
from the original statement. Changing a few words with synonyms or altering
voice does not constitute paraphrasing (Hacker & Sommers, 2014). Grabe and
Zhang (2016) show that this skill falls under reading-writing relations, an
essential skill which has to receive particular attention in research.
Proper paraphrasing can be obtained by understanding the idea in the
statement and rewriting the information without considering the words used
by the original writer. It is a complex task for some "weak" EFL learners who
are still learning the target language. For such learners, the original sentence
can be translated into their native language and back-translated into English,
either by the learners themselves or others. In addition, according to Kettel and
DeFauw (2018), a writer can be taught RRLC skills—i.e., Read, Re-read, List,
and Compose—to produce a paraphrased text which is completely different
from the source text.

2.5.2. Summarizing
Summarizing is another technique to avoid plagiarism, and at times it is
compulsory rather than optional. Sometimes, an expert implies a point which
makes students interested. The expert might not express the point in one
sentence which can be paraphrased, but instead in a long paragraph or even a
section. In this case, a writer should summarize the given point into a brief
sentence without omitting the key facts expressed by the expert. In addition,
one similar idea, such as the definition of a specific key term, might be
proposed by several authors in different works. The point and idea can instead
be summarized into one brief sentence. To avoid the temptation to use words
of the original author, Hacker and Sommers (2014) advised the writer not to
read while summarizing in order to be able to "set the source aside” (p. 670).
82 K. A. Muthalib, F. Mustafa & S. B. Yusuf

Summarizing skill, however, requires advanced language proficiency. A study

by Mallahi (2022) reported that non-native students had difficulty in
summarizing. In addition, Keck (2006) found that L2 students were less
proficient in summarizing than their L1 counterparts, suggesting that English
proficiency is significant; this was also noted by Elmoisheer and Elsawy (2022).
In addition, low-proficiency learners borrow more words from the source
when summarizing than the high-proficiency counterparts (Li, 2021). Since
summarizing requires a good comprehension of source texts, students need to
work on understanding the source by applying such techniques as network
tree advance organizers (Nevisi et al., 2019).

2.5.3. Synthesizing
In addition to paraphrasing and summarizing, synthesizing skill is significant
to avoid plagiarism. It is defined as the skill of combining paraphrased and
summarized texts from more than one source into their writing (Hirvela,
2016). In synthesizing, a writer must read the texts and write the paraphrased
version back and forth until they produce a coherent piece of writing (Mateos
& Solé, 2009). Reading skills are essential for this advanced writing skill, and
synthesizing skills are learnable by L2 writers although teaching it is a complex
task; a study by Zhang (2013) found that instruction on synthesis writing
positively affected student synthesizing skills. In addition, teaching students
how to interpret source text improves their ability to synthesize paraphrased
texts from sources into their writing (Doolan & Fitzsimmons-Doolan, 2016).

3. Method
3.1. Study design and sampling procedure
This research was a qualitative research study where the data were analyzed
and presented in descriptions. Similar research designs have also been used to
study plagiarism in Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka (McCulloch &
Indrarathne, 2022), Brazil (Vasconcelos et al., 2022), Mozambique (Coughlin,
2015), and Indonesia (Mustafa, 2019).
The study was conducted in an English education department at an established
university in Indonesia. This department was selected because theses written
by students in this department are in English, and it was expected that they
were good English users because they had learned the language intensively for
at least four years. Therefore, they had access to unlimited sources because
most published academic works are in English. In line with the purpose of this
research, the data were collected from 45 undergraduate theses which contain
plagiarism in their literature review sections. This section was selected
because it is where sources are used, and thus it becomes the best section to
 International Journal of Language Studies, 17(2), 75-98 83

study plagiarism. The theses were randomly selected from students graduating
between 2017 and 2021.

3.2. Research instrument

To collect the data, the researchers used a list consisting of the types of
plagiarism based on an earlier framework by Mustafa (2019), who followed
the types of plagiarism proposed by Ali et al. (2012), Swales and Feak (2012),
and Bailey (2015), prescribing seven types of plagiarism. However, because
Turnitin was used to screen the plagiarized sentences, some citation types
could not be detected. The following is the list of the six types of plagiarism
found in the corpus and used as the grouping framework for this research.

(1) Copying verbatim from sources without a citation

(2) Copying verbatim from sources with a citation
(3) Copying verbatim from sources including a citation
(4) Patchwriting without a citation
(5) Patchwriting with a citation
(6) Patchwriting including a citation

To determine whether the students who wrote the theses were high-achieving
or low-achieving students, the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL)
was used as the instrument. The test consists of (a) listening comprehension,
(b) structure and written expression, and (c) reading comprehension.

3.3. Data collection procedure

To collect the data, all of the selected undergraduate theses were scanned and
converted to text versions using Optical Character Recognition (OCR)
technology. Only the literature review chapters were used for this research
purpose. For the first prerequisite analysis, the chapters were checked using
Turnitin to determine if the thesis could be used for further analyses. Those
with a similarity index larger than 5% were checked to determine whether the
suspected plagiarized texts were indeed plagiarism. After collecting all
documents, plagiarized sentences were categorized into the types of
plagiarism based on the given framework. In addition, another category (such
as running on citation) was created for statements following a cited statement
when it was not linked to the cited statement with an appropriate transition.
With the participants' consent, their English proficiency levels were collected
from the language center of the university based on their TOEFL scores. The
test was conducted by the language center before the students graduated. In
particular, the listening comprehension section was completed in 30 minutes,
structure and written expression in 25 minutes, and reading comprehension in
84 K. A. Muthalib, F. Mustafa & S. B. Yusuf

55 minutes. The number of correct answers was converted to the TOEFL score,
following the conversion table provided by Phillips (2003).

3.4. Data analysis

The data were nonparametric data—i.e., types of plagiarism along with the
frequency of each type of discovered plagiarism. The qualitative analysis
procedure was used, including data reduction, data display, conclusion, and
verification (Lune & Berg, 2017). In the first step, the plagiarized sentences
were extracted from the Turnitin report using a simple coding technique
consisting of five steps as suggested by Creswell (2012)—i.e., (1) reading text,
(2) segmenting text, (3) labeling text, (4) reducing replicated sentences, and
(5) categorizing the sentences into their corresponding plagiarism types. The
categorization is a part of the second analysis step of qualitative research—
data display. In this step, the types of plagiarism committed by the students
were categorized into pre-determined themes before tabulating them into
tables to facilitate the drawing of a conclusion. Finally, the researchers drew
conclusions, i.e., establishing the frequency of each type of plagiarism. The data
were reported using (a) descriptive statistics and (b) narrative descriptions.
The descriptive statistics included in the analyses and report are in the form of
percentages.

4. Results
The objective of this study was to find out the types of plagiarism found in
theses. From 45 undergraduate theses, 3,056 sentences were detected as
plagiarism, consisting of approximately 76,304 words. These plagiarized
sentences were categorized into eight types of plagiarism (Table 1).

Table 1
Types of Plagiarism in Undergraduate Theses
No Types of Plagiarism No. of Words %
1 Verbatim copy from sources without citation 21,211 28%
2 Verbatim copy from sources with citation 5,191 7%
3 Verbatim copy from sources including citation 3,328 4%
4 Patchwriting without citation 26,513 35%
5 Patchwriting with citation 9,721 13%
6 Patchwriting including citation 2,954 4%
7 Running-on citations 7,164 9%
8 Uncited secondary data 222 0%

There are four main categories of plagiarism based on Table 1: (1) verbatim
copy, (2) patchwriting, (3) running-on citation, and (4) uncited secondary data.
The verbatim copy had a total percentage of 39%, and 48% of the plagiarized
 International Journal of Language Studies, 17(2), 75-98 85

words were in patchwritten sentences. Plagiarism resulting from mistakenly

relying on the previous citation was 9%, and secondary data were also
plagiarized, but it was infrequent—only about 0.3%.
To show how types of plagiarism differ among students with low and high
English proficiency based on their TOEFL scores, the data were split using the
mean of their TOEFL scores which was M = 461. Thus, the data of students
whose TOEFL score is 460 or lower are analyzed separately from those with a
TOEFL score of 463 or higher. The results of the analysis are provided in Table
2.

Table 2
Differences in Types of Plagiarism between High and Low Achieving Students
No Types of Plagiarism High Achieving Low Achieving
1 Verbatim copy without citation 21% 33%
2 Verbatim copy with citation 7% 7%
3 Verbatim copy including citation 4% 5%
4 Patchwriting without citation 38% 32%
5 Patchwriting with citation 15% 11%
6 Patchwriting including citation 5% 3%
8 Running-on citation 9% 9%
7 Uncited secondary data 1% 0%

Table 2 shows a slight difference in the type of plagiarism in the two groups,
where the verbatim copy was more frequent in the low-achieving group (45%)
compared to the high-achieving group (32%). On the contrary, high-achieving
students tend to commit patchwriting plagiarism more than low-achieving
counterparts—58% and 46%, respectively. Finally, running-on citations (i.e.,
plagiarism due to reliance on previous citations) without proper transition,
were similar in both groups. Table 3 shows how this type of plagiarism links to
verbatim copy and patchwriting.

Table 3
Running-on Citations in Verbatim Copy and Patchwriting
No Types of Plagiarism High Achieving Low Achieving
No. of Words % No. of Words %
1 Verbatim copy 922 29% 1,476 37%
2 Patchwriting 2272 71% 2,494 63%
Total 3194 3,970

The table shows that running-on citations were used both in verbatim copy and
patchwriting (in different frequencies) among high-achieving learnings.
86 K. A. Muthalib, F. Mustafa & S. B. Yusuf

However, both learner groups usually used running-on citations more than
patchwriting. This shows that there is no discrepancy in the use of this type of
plagiarism between students at low and high English proficiency levels.

5. Discussion
This study has found that verbatim copying was the second most frequent type
of plagiarism committed by undergraduate students in their theses. Most
students who plagiarized verbatim did not cite the sources, and only a quarter
did. This finding is unexpected because previous studies by Mustafa (2019)
found that over 90 percent of students in the same institution understood that
verbatim copying constitutes plagiarism. This finding has demonstrated that
previous belief that plagiarism is caused mostly by a lack of understanding
about the concept of plagiarism (Howard & Davies, 2009; Introna et al., 2003;
Kostka, 2012; Ma et al., 2007; Power, 2009; Yeo, 2007) does not apply to all
contexts. Therefore, the result of the current study shows that plagiarism was
mostly intentional and can be caused by several factors: (1) deadlines
(Mohammed et al., 2015), (2) concern with writing quality (Hirvela & Du,
2013), and (3) lack of consequences (Juyal et al., 2015).
In the context of this study, the three suggested causes were identified, as also
found by Lestari (2020). First, many students had a regular schedule to meet
their professors, or supervisors, to present their work. Some professors gave
their students a deadline, which could not be met by students because they
started working on their draft at the last minute or because the work required
unreasonable extra effort. As a consequence, they copied from other sources to
make the job easier and faster. Second, based on data from Elfiondri et al.
(2020), many students had a low English proficiency level which could cause
complaints from their supervisors. Therefore, students considered that
copying verbatim from other sources is safer and more convenient. Finally,
many supervisors do not have access to plagiarism detection software, and
many others are not even familiar with it. Therefore, the chance that students
would receive consequences for plagiarism is rare. In addition, when they did
get caught, their supervisor would only advise them to paraphrase, and no
other consequences would be given, as found by Patak et al. (2021). The high
percentage of plagiarism found in the undergraduate theses shows that the
department did not check for plagiarism after the students submitted their
theses.
In addition to verbatim copying, almost half of the plagiarized sentences found
in the theses were patchwriting. The majority of these patchwritten sentences
were not cited. This result is however expected because a previous study by
Mustafa (2019) shows that almost 70% of the students considered that
paraphrasing without citation did not constitute plagiarism, and 90% of the
 International Journal of Language Studies, 17(2), 75-98 87

students did not understand that patchwriting with citation was considered
plagiarism. The fact that more students considered that patchwriting was
acceptable as long as it is cited based on the previous study suggests that
undergraduate students did not have specific knowledge of what proper
paraphrasing is. Students considered that patchwriting—i.e., changing words
in source texts with synonyms or transforming active sentences into passive
counterparts—means paraphrasing. Our study confirms that some students
had a distorted understanding of the definition of proper paraphrasing. We
also found ‘unintentional plagiarism’, where students mistakenly relied on the
citation in a previous sentence, but they did not use any proper transition
which signals that the uncited sentences are the extension of the previously
cited sentence. An example of this type of plagiarism is given below.

Figure 1.
Example of Running-on Citation

In Figure 1, the student does not provide any signaling transition to show that
the second and third sentences belong to the citation in the first sentence.
Although this type of plagiarism is relatively rare compared to the others in
this study, it is a unique finding. This type of plagiarism rarely appeared in
previous studies, including in a famous study on plagiarism by Pecorari and
Petrić (2014) or the most highly cited article by Park (2003).
A more detailed analysis regarding ‘running-on’ citations results in an
interesting finding which shows that the frequencies of verbatim copying and
patchwriting are slightly different among students with different English
proficiency levels. Students with a high level of English proficiency did not use
a verbatim copy as running-on citations as much as students with a lower
English proficiency level. This result suggests that this type of plagiarism is
motivated to some extent by a lack of understanding of (a) what constitutes
plagiarism and (b) how to paraphrase properly. Therefore, it can be concluded
that this type of plagiarism is unintentional and can be easily prevented by
explaining this to the students in the early stage of their undergraduate thesis
writing process. They can be familiarized with such transition signals as they
added that, according to them, this previous study also shows, the author further
claims that, and other related transitions. In addition, students with high
88 K. A. Muthalib, F. Mustafa & S. B. Yusuf

English proficiency can be taught how to summarize ideas from several

sentences into one sentence.
Furthermore, we also compared the frequencies of plagiarism by verbatim
copying between high-achieving learners, who had TOEFL scores higher than
average, and low-achieving learners, whose TOEFL scores were below average.
Based on the results of this comparison, high-achieving learners committed
intentional plagiarism less frequently than low-achieving counterparts. This
result suggests that English proficiency level is a factor which determines the
percentage of plagiarism in undergraduate theses. This result is expected
because several previous studies had found a positive relationship between
language proficiency and incidences of plagiarism (Pecorari, 2016; Pecorari &
Petrić, 2014; Perkins et al., 2018). Although English proficiency does not
influence self-efficacy in writing (Bektaş-Çetinkaya, 2020), there is a common
belief that students with language-related problems tend to plagiarize
(Pecorari & Petrić, 2014). Therefore, Perkins et al. (2018) suggested that
training programs to improve language proficiency can be an alternative to
prevent the incidence of plagiarism. In addition to verbatim copying, the
comparison was also made for patchwriting. Howard et al. (2010) propose that
students with low language proficiency tend to patchwrite more than those at
higher proficiency levels. However, the findings of the current study do not
support this claim. There were no noticeable differences in the frequency of
patchwriting between high-achieving and low-achieving learners.
Finally, this research has shown the types of plagiarism that students commit
in writing their undergraduate theses. However, the results of this research are
subject to some limitations. The most important limitation lies in the fact that
plagiarism was detected using a plagiarism detection service, Turnitin, as the
first step in data extraction. Turnitin could not detect all types of plagiarism,
such as paraphrasing without citations, plagiarism from other languages, and
mixing ideas from various sources without citation. In addition, understanding
and practice of self-plagiarism cannot be accessed because it is unlikely that
undergraduate students have published any work prior to writing their thesis.
Despite the limitations, this work offers valuable insights into student's
understanding and practice of plagiarism, and the prevention of the types of
plagiarism addressed in this study will also prevent other types of plagiarism.

6. Conclusion
This study has shown that there are two major types of plagiarism most
frequently found in undergraduate theses: (a) verbatim copying, and (b)
patchwriting. Missing citations are more frequently found both in verbatim
copying and patchwriting. Another type of plagiarism—i.e., running-on
citations—was a result of relying on previous citations without giving any
 International Journal of Language Studies, 17(2), 75-98 89

proper transition. In addition, some uncited secondary data were also found,
but the frequency was limited. The study has also shown that the type of
plagiarism is different in frequency among students at different English
proficiency levels. The results of the current study have important
implications—or ‘washback’, à la Salmani Nodoushan (2021)—for pedagogical
practice in undergraduate programs depending on the factors causing the
incidences of plagiarism. The first factor is the intention to plagiarize, which is
shown by the high frequency of verbatim copying without citation. Therefore,
it is suggested that undergraduate thesis supervisors check for plagiarism
when their students submit their first drafts using a plagiarism prevention tool
such as Turnitin or Grammarly. This will discourage them to plagiarize when
preparing the next draft. However, many supervisors might not have access to
these commercial services. Plagiarism can also be detected by reading each
sentence and suspecting plagiarism when students write sentences containing
research results, or a definition of a concept. To check whether patchwriting is
involved, students can be invited to show the original version of the text from
the source. The other factor which results in plagiarism is a lack of
understanding of the concept of plagiarism and a limited knowledge of
paraphrasing, which causes unintentional plagiarism. Therefore, training on
the concept of plagiarism in an academic writing course needs to involve
comprehensive instruction on proper paraphrasing—and it perhaps can be
based on some action research studies (cf., Salmani Nodoushan, 2023). In
addition, the supervisors of undergraduate theses should find out how much
their students understand the concept of plagiarism by providing a test on the
concept of plagiarism before the students start preparing their drafts.
Therefore, the supervisors can teach the students what constitutes plagiarism,
including teaching them how to paraphrase and summarize.

Authors’ Statement
The authors conceptualized and conducted the research together. In particular,
Kismullah Abdul Muthalib was the project leader; he collected half of the data
and played the main role in conceptualizing the research. Faisal Mustafa
collected the other half of the data, analyzed them, and prepared the draft of
the article. Syamsul Bahri Yusuf revised the article.

Acknowledgments
We acknowledge with great appreciation the kind gesture of Universitas Syiah
Kuala for providing us the H-Index Research Grant (Coded: 169/UN11/SPK/
PNBP/2021). Equally, we would like to express our gratitude to all students
who have voluntarily emailed us their theses and gave consent to the Language
Center of Universitas Syiah Kuala to release their TOEFL scores for our
research purpose.
90 K. A. Muthalib, F. Mustafa & S. B. Yusuf

The Authors
Kismullah Abdul Muthalib (Email: [email protected]) is Assistant Professor
of Linguistics in English Language Education Department, Universitas Syiah
Kuala.
Faisal Mustafa (Email: [email protected]) is Assistant Professor of
Linguistics in English Language Education Department, Universitas Syiah
Kuala.
Syamsul Bahri Yusuf (Email: [email protected]) is Associate Professor of
teaching English to young learners in English Language Education Department,
Universitas Syiah Kuala.

References

Adhikari, S. (2018). Beyond culture: Helping international students avoid

plagiarism. Journal of International Student, 8(1), 375–388. https://doi.
org/10.5281/zenodo.1134315

Ahmad, T. S. A. S., Abedin, N. F. Z., Ahmad, I., Paramasivam, S., & Mustapha, W.
Z. W. (2022). Awareness and Attitudes of Undergraduate Students
towards Plagiarism: Are There any Differences between Genders? Asian
Journal of University Education, 18(3), 597–605. https://doi.org/10.
24191/AJUE.V18I3.18947

Akbar, A., & Picard, M. (2019). Understanding plagiarism in Indonesia from the
lens of plagiarism policy: Lessons for universities. International Journal
for Educational Integrity, 15, Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-
019-0044-2

Ali, W. Z. W., Ismail, H., & Cheat, T. T. (2012). Plagiarism: To what extent it is
understood? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 604-611.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.320

Al-Zubaidi, K. O. (2012). The academic writing of Arab postgraduate students:

Discussing the main language issues. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 66, 46-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.246

Ansas, V. N., & Sukyadi, D. (2019). Source-based writing among undergraduate

students: Perspective and challenges. International Journal of Education,
11(2), 152. https://doi.org/10.17509/ije.v11i2.14757
 International Journal of Language Studies, 17(2), 75-98 91

Awasthi, S. (2019). Plagiarism and academic misconduct: A systematic review.

DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 39(2), 94-100.
https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.39.2.13622

Bailey, S. (2015). Academic writing: A handbook for international students.

Routledge.

Behrens, L., & Rosen, l. J. (2018). A sequence for academic writing (7th ed.).
Pearson Education, Inc.

Bektaş-Çetinkaya, Y. (2020). Writing self-efficacy in english as a foreign

language: Turkish context. International Journal of Language Studies,
14(2), 89-102. http://www.ijls.net/pages/volume/vol14no2.html

Belcher, W. L. (2009). Writing your journal article in twelve weeks: A guide to

academic publishing success (2nd ed.). The University of Chicago Press.

Bouville, M. (2008). Plagiarism: Words and ideas. Science and Engineering

Ethics, 14, 311-322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9057-6

Burns, A., & Rochsantiningsih, D. (2006). Conducting action research in

Indonesia: Illustrations and implications. Indonesian Journal of English
Language Teaching, 2(1), 21-35. https://doi.org/10.25170/ijelt.v2i1.
111

Cahyono, B. Y. (2007). Australian and Indonesian university students'

understanding of plagiarism. Indonesian Journal of English Language
Teaching, 3(2), 152-172. https://doi.org/10.25170/ijelt.v3i2.1584

Carter, H., Hussey, J., & Forehand, J. W. (2019). Plagiarism in nursing education
and the ethical implications in practice. Heliyon, 5, e01350. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01350

Cennetkuşu, N. G. (2017). International students' challenges in academic

writing: A case study from a prominent U.S. university. Journal of
Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(2), 309-323. https://www.jlls.
org/index.php/jlls/article/view/676

Childers, D., & Bruton, S. (2016). “Should it be considered plagiarism?” Student

perceptions of complex citation issues. Journal of Academic Ethics, 14(1),
1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-015-9250-6
92 K. A. Muthalib, F. Mustafa & S. B. Yusuf

Cott, D. L. V. (2005). A graduate student's guide to publishing scholarly journal

articles. PS - Political Science and Politics, 38(4), 741-743. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S1049096505050237

Coughlin, P. E. (2015). Plagiarism in five universities in Mozambique:

Magnitude, detection techniques, and control measures. International
Journal for Educational Integrity, 11, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40979-015-0003-5

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and

evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson
Education, Inc.

Curtis, G. J., & Vardanega, L. (2016). Is plagiarism changing over time? A 10-
year time-lag study with three points of measurement. Higher Education
Research and Development, 35(6), 1167-1179. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07294360.2016.1161602

Debnath, J. (2016). Plagiarism: A silent epidemic in scientific writing – Reasons,

recognition and remedies. Medical Journal Armed Forces India, 72, 164-
167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.03.010

Disya, S., & Ningrum, L. (2019). The influence of study motivation abroad to
students' happiness. The 2019 China - ASEAN Tourism Education Alliance
(CATEA) International Conference, Jakarta. https://jurnalpariwisata.
stptrisakti.ac.id/index.php/Proceeding/article/view/1262

Doolan, S. M., & Fitzsimmons-Doolan, S. (2016). Facilitating L2 writers’

interpretation of source texts. TESOL Journal, 7(3), 716-745. https://doi.
org/10.1002/tesj.239

Elfiondri, Kasim, U., Mustafa, F., & Putra, T. M. (2020). Reading comprehension
in the TOEFL PBT: Which sub-skill deserves more intensive training?
TESOL International Journal, 15(1), 53-64. https://www.tesol-
international-journal.com/volume-15-issue-1-2020

Elmoisheer, S. S., & Elsawy, H. E. A. (2022). Improving EFL writing skills via
reading of authentic materials: An online course. Eurasian Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 66-76. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.911542

Fatima, A., Ming, W., & Abbas, A. (2018). Chinese Students’ Perception on
Plagiarism: a Case of Anhui, China. New educational review, 53(3), 95-
102. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2018.53.3.08
 International Journal of Language Studies, 17(2), 75-98 93

Festas, I., Seixas, A., & Matos, A. (2022). Plagiarism as an academic literacy
issue: The comprehension, writing and consulting strategies of
Portuguese university students. International Journal for Educational
Integrity, 18(1), Article 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-022-001
19-8

Fischer, B. A., & Zigmond, M. J. (2011). Educational approaches for discouraging

plagiarism. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations,
29(1), 100-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.11.014

Gallant, T. B. (2008). Academic integrity in the twenty-first century: A teaching

and learning imperative. ASHE Higher Education Report, 33(5), 1-143.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.3305

Gelfand, M. S. (2018). Plagiarism in dissertations. The Education and Science

Journal, 20(3), 160-181. https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2018-3-
160-181

Grabe, W., & Zhang, C. (2016). Reading-writing relationships in first and second
language academic literacy development. Language Teaching, 49(3),
339-355. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000082

Hacker, D., & Sommers, N. (2014). The Bedford handbook (9th ed.). Bedford/St.
Martin’s.

Hapsari, B. S., & Ena, O. T. (2019). English pre-service teachers' identity during
teaching practice: Narrative research. International Journal of Indonesian
Education and Teaching, 3(1), 128-136. https://doi.org/10.24071/ijiet.
2019.030102

Hei, K. C., & David, M. K. (2017). Empowering language teachers through action
research: Two case studies from Malaysia. English Review: Journal of
English Education, 5(2), 163-174. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v5i2.
532

Hemmings, S. (2001). The place of the dissertation in learning to research. In

R. Humphrey & C. Middleton (Eds.), Learning to research: Resources for
learning and teaching in sociology and social policy (pp. 241-251).
Teaching and Learning Network for Sociology and Social Policy.

Hirvela, A. (2016). Connecting reading & writing in second language writing

instruction. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.8122864
94 K. A. Muthalib, F. Mustafa & S. B. Yusuf

Hirvela, A., & Du, Q. (2013). “Why am I paraphrasing?”: Undergraduate ESL

writers' engagement with source-based academic writing and reading.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 87-98. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.005

Hollister, C. V. (2014). A handbook of academic writing for librarians.

Association of College and Research Libraries.

Howard, R. M. (2000). Sexuality, textuality: The cultural work of plagiarism.

College English, 62(4), 473-491. https://doi.org/10.2307/378866

Howard, R. M. (2007). Understanding “Internet plagiarism”. Computers and

Composition, 24(1), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2006.12.
005

Howard, R. M., & Davies, L. J. (2009). Plagiarism in the internet age. Educational
Leadership2, 66(6), 64-67. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/plagiarism
-in-the-internet-age

Howard, R. M., Serviss, T., & Rodrigue, T. K. (2010). Writing from sources,
writing from sentences. Writing & Pedagogy, 2(2), 177–192.
https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v2i2.177

Introna, L., Hayes, N., Blair, L., & Wood, E. (2003). Cultural attutudes towards
plagiarism. Lancaster University.

Irwandi, I. & Arisanti, M. (2017). The students' problems in writing an

undergraduate thesis: A case study at English Language Teaching
Program of Universitas Muhammadiyah University of Mataram.
Linguistics and ELT Journal, 5(2), 37-42. https://doi.org/10.31764/leltj.
v10i2.793

Juyal, D., Thawani, V., & Thaledi, S. (2015). Plagiarism: An egregious form of
misconduct. North American Journal of Medical Sciences, 7(2), 77-80.
https://doi.org/10.4103/1947-2714.152084

Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of

L1 and L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(4), 261-278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.006

Kettel, R. P., & DeFauw, D. L. (2018). Paraphrase without plagiarism: Use RRLC
(Read, Reread, List, Compose). Reading Teacher, 72(2), 245-255. https://
doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1697
 International Journal of Language Studies, 17(2), 75-98 95

Kostka, I. (2012). A case study of L2 writers' evolving understandings of

plagiarism [Doctoral dissertation]. New York University. https://www.
proquest.com/docview/1530412097/

Lestari, D. M. (2020). An analysis of the students' difficulties in writing

undergraduate thesis at English Education Study Program of
Muhammadiyah University of Bengkulu. Premise: Journal of English
Education, 9(1), 17-29. https://doi.org/10.24127/pj.v9i1.2588

Li, J. (2021). Examining EFL learners’ source text use in summary writing.
Language Teaching Research, 0(0), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/
13621688211055887

Lund, J. R. (2004). Plagiarism: A cultural perspective. Journal of Religious &

Theological Information, 6(3-4), 93-101. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J112v06n03_08

Lune, H., & Berg, B. L. (2017). Qualitative research methods for the social
sciences (9th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.

Ma, H., Lu, E. Y., Turner, S., & Wan, G. (2007). An empirical investigation of
digital cheating and plagiarism among middle school students. American
Secondary Education, 35(2), 69-82. https://resolver.scholarsportal.info/
resolve/00031003/v35i0002/69_aeiodcapamss.xml

Mallahi, O. (2022). Investigating the strategies and problems of Iranian EFL

learners while writing summaries in academic contexts. Language
Teaching Research Quarterly, 28, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.
2022.28.01

Marshall, S., & Garry, M. (2006). NESB and ESB students’ attitudes and
perceptions of plagiarism. International Journal for Educational Integrity,
2(1), 26-37. https://doi.org/10.21913/IJEI.v2i1.25

Mateos, M., & Solé, I. (2009). Synthesising information from various texts: A
study of procedures and products at different educational levels.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24, 435-451. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF03178760

McCulloch, S., & Indrarathne, B. (2022). Plagiarism in EMI higher education:

Conceptual understanding of staff and students in four South Asian
countries. Higher Education Research & Development. https://doi.org/
10.1080/07294360.2022.2102589
96 K. A. Muthalib, F. Mustafa & S. B. Yusuf

Mohammed, R. A. A., Shaaban, O. M., Mahran, D. G., Attellawy, H. N., Makhlof, A.,
& Albasri, A. (2015). Plagiarism in medical scientific research. Journal of
Taibah University Medical Sciences, 10(1), 6-11. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jtumed.2015.01.007

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.elejournals.com/asian-efl-journal/volume-
21-issue-2-1-march-2019/

Nevisi, R. B., Hosseinpur, R. M., & Kolahkaj, R. (2019). The impact of marginal
glosses and network tree advance organizers on efl learners’ summary
writing ability. Journal of Asia TEFL, 16(4), 1168-1181. https://doi.org/
10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.4.7.1168

Park, C. (2003). In other (people's) words: Plagiarism by university students—

literature and lessons. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,
28(5), 471-488. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930301677

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, 571-587.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09385-y

Pecorari, D. (2010). Academic writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis.

Continuum.

Pecorari, D. (2016). Plagiarism, international students and the second-

language writer. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp.
537-550). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_69-2

Pecorari, D., & Petrić, B. (2014). Plagiarism in second-language writing.

Language Teaching, 47(3), 269-302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144
4814000056

Pecorari, D., & Shaw, P. (2012). Types of student intertextuality and faculty
attitudes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 149-164. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.006

Perkins, M., Gezgin, U. B., & Roe, J. (2018). Understanding the relationship
between language ability and plagiarism in non-native English speaking
business students. Journal of Academic Ethics, 16, 317-328. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10805-018-9311-8
 International Journal of Language Studies, 17(2), 75-98 97

Phillips, D. (2003). Longman preparation course for the TOEFL. Pearson

Education.

Power, L. G. (2009). University students' perceptions of plagiarism. The Journal

of Higher Education, 80(6), 643-662. https://doi.org/10.1080/002
21546.2009.11779038

Rauf, F. H. A. (2016). Challenges of thesis work: Towards minimizing the non-

completion rate in the postgraduate degree program. European Journal
of Business and Management, 8(7), 113-124. https://iiste.org/Journals/
index.php/EJBM/article/view/29456

Roig, M. (2009). Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable

writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. United States Department of
Health & Human Services. Office of Research Integrity.
Salmani Nodoushan, M. A. (2021). Washback or backwash? Revisiting the
status quo of washback and test impact in EFL contexts. Studies in English
Language and Education, 8(3), 869-884.
Salmani Nodoushan, M. A. (2023). EFL classroom, petri dish, panopticon, and
free world: How do they merge through action research? International
Journal of Language Studies, 17(1), 97-116.

Shelley, C. (2005). "Stolen words": A brief history and analysis of preaching and
plagiarism. Encounter, 66(4), 301-316. https://www.proquest.com/
docview/216766704/

Sinaga, H. M. R., & Sihombing, L. (2014). Graduate students' syntactical errors

in writing thesis. Linguistica: Journal of Linguistics of FSB Unimed, 3(2),
201-213. https://www.neliti.com/publications/148088

Stapa, S. H., Maasum, T. N. R. T. M., & Aziz, M. S. A. (2014). Identifying problems

in writing thesis introductions in Research Methodology class. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 497-502. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.sbspro.2014.01.1194

Suherdi, D., Kurniawan, E., & Lubis, A. H. (2020). A genre analysis of research
article ‘findings and discussion’ sections written by Indonesian
undergraduate EFL students. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics,
10(1), 59-72. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v10i1.24989

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students:
Essential tasks and skills. Michigan ELT.
 98 K. A. Muthalib, F. Mustafa & S. B. Yusuf

Thabran, Y., & Fajaryani, N. (2017). Why it took so long to complete

undergraduate thesis at English repartment: Students' and lecturers'
voices. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Applied
Linguistics (CONAPLIN 9), Paris, France. https://doi.org/10.2991/
conaplin-16.2017.39

Vasconcelos, S. M. R., Masuda, H., Sorenson, M., Prosdocimi, F., Palácios, M.,
Watanabe, E., Carlos Pinto, J., Lapa e Silva, J. R., Vieyra, A., Pinto, A., Mena-
Chalco, J., Sant’Ana, M., & Roig, M. (2022). Perceptions of plagiarism
among PhDs across the sciences, engineering, humanities, and arts:
Results from a national survey in Brazil. Accountability in Research.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.2018306

Waltzer, T., & Dahl, A. (2023). Why do students cheat? Perceptions, evaluations,
and motivations. Ethics and Behavior, 33(2), 130-150. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10508422.2022.2026775

Widiastuti, S. (2010). The student's ability and problems in writing a research

proposal [Master’s thesis]. Indonesia University of Education. http://
repository.upi.edu/id/eprint/10207

Yeo, S. (2007). First-year university science and engineering students’

understanding of plagiarism. Higher Education Research and
Development, 26(2), 199-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/072943607013
10813

Zhang, C. (2013). Effect of instruction on ESL students' synthesis writing.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(1), 51-67. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jslw.2012.12.001

Zhang, Y., Chu, S. K. W., Qiu, X., Zainuddin, Z., & Li, X. (2022). Facilitating
undergraduates’ plagiarism-free academic writing practices in a blended
learning scenario. Innovations in Education and Teaching International.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2022.2102529

View publication stats