A STUDY OF INDONESIAN LECTURERS’ PERCEPTION ON STUDENT PLAGIARISM

Cases of plagiarism exist universally. Although it is unacceptable, students are doing it purposively. Prior studies about students’ perception on this academic misconduct have been done extensively, while studies about lectur-ers’ perception with the same concern are limited. This research was done to fill this gap. The purpose of this study is to find out: (1) lecturer’s percep - tion on students’ plagiarism and (2) solution to prevent students’ plagiarism. Two instruments were used in order to collect the data, they are plagiarism questionnaire and an interview guide. Both instruments are divided into two dimensions, namely knowledge dimension and attitude dimension. The questionnaire has 12 statements with 4 possible responses in each dimension. Meanwhile, there are 3 questions in the interview guide consisting of 1 question about knowledge dimension and 2 questions about attitude dimension. Thirty seven English as a Foreign Language (EFL) lecturer participants from institutions in Indonesia joined the survey and 5 of which were selected for the interview session. Both results of survey and interview are positive. The results implied an indication of students doing academic dishonesty.


INTRODUCTION
Due to easy access of information by using the internet, plagiarism, one of academic misconduct, might happen. Plagiarism is major "threat and challenge" generally for educational integrity and quality (Park, 2003). Plagiarism is an action or instance of plagiarizing which means taking somebody else's ideas or words and use them as if they were one's owns. Saunders (1993), stated that plagiarism came from Latin word plagiarus which means thief or stealer. Plagiarism happens when one's work or idea is taken by someone else without giving credit to the owner or even put a reference of it (Kramer et al., 1995). It can be summarized that plagiarism is an action of retrieving someone's work and admitting it as one's work.

Research design
This study employed mixed-method research design. Mixed-method research design is the combination of elements in both qualitative and quantitative forms (Creswell, 2008). Specifically, this study employed explanatory sequential mixed-method. Explanatory Sequential (Creswell, 2012) is a sub-part of mixed-method design that begins with quantitative data collection, and then followed by qualitative data collection; it is known also as two-phased model (Creswell et al., 2011). In this design, qualitative data collection is needed to collect more detail, explain, or extend the descriptive statistical data in the first phase of data collection.

Participants
This study involved 37 participants consisted of EFL lecturers from some universities in Indonesia. Participants were selected by using purposive sampling, specifically homogenous sampling. In the second phase of data collection (the interview), the number of participants was narrowed down into 5 participants. Those 5 participants were lecturers in Ganesha University of Education. The selection of these 5 participants was based on accessibility, time limitation, schedule, and supporting facility.

Data collection
Two instruments were used in order to collect the data, they are plagiarism questionnaire and an interview guide. Both instruments were divided into two dimensions, namely knowledge dimension and attitude dimension. The questionnaire was adapted from some prior studies Shirazi et al., 2010;Sutton et al., 2012). The questionnaire was distributed online to the participants by sending the link to participants' e-mail. The participants were not given specific time and deadline to fill in questionnaire. The interview guide was developed right after the researchers analyzed the quantitative data.

Data analysis
The responses from the questionnaire were analyzed by using categorization mean score. Striking findings resulted from the questionnaire responses were further analyzed and participants were selected and asked to be interviewed. Five lecturers who contributed to the striking findings in the questionnaire responses were interviewed. Interactive model of analysis was used to analyze interview results and support the quantitative data.

Indonesian lecturers' perception on student's plagiarism
The results of the questionnaire were analyzed on this first phase. The score reached 40.86 out of 54 possible scores. The categorization of the score is shown in Table 1 below. The mean score for lecturer's perception on student's plagiarism is 40.86. The score is placed in the interval of 54 ≥ X > 36. Therefore, it can be categorized as a positive qualification. It means lecturers agreed that their students were indicated of doing plagiarism.
From 24 statements showed in Figure 1, most lecturers gave positive response. Among those statements, there were 3 statements that most lecturers responded negatively. Those statements are statement number 9 (40.54%), 14 (48.65%), and 15 (48.65%). The positive response on those 3 questions did not reached 50%, which means more than half of the respondent did not agree with the given statement. Statement number 9 belongs to knowledge dimension while statement number 14 and 15 belong to attitude dimension. The mean score for lecturer's perception on student's plagiarism on knowledge dimension is 21.19. It is placed in the interval of X ≥ 21. Therefore, it can be categorized as a very positive qualification. It means that the lecturers highly agreed that their students were indicated of having less knowledge on plagiarism.
There was one question in this dimension related to statement number 9 in the questionnaire. The question in this dimension is, "Do you feel that you have student who think that non-printed media (sound clip, movie clip, pictures, etc.) is not necessary to be put in a reference list?" There are five answers given from five interviewees for this question.
"Yes. Sound clip should be transcripted, then put it in student's assignment and referencing it." "Yes … A lot of students think that way, actually." "I do." "Yes. Maybe an amount of students think that way, right? Because they only know reference for printed media only, so they thought it was nothing much." "It is not just 'I feel'. It exists hahahaha." Plagiarism knowledge, the first dimension in this study, is one's mindset related to educational policy considering one's knowledge on college's integrity (Jordan, 2001). It can be said as a way of a person think of educational policy based on his/her knowledge on honesty in university level. Based on the result of the questionnaire in this dimension, lecturers highly agreed that their students had less knowledge on plagiarism. It means that lecturers believe that their students did not have any ideas of what plagiarism is. This result is in line with previous research conducted by  indicating that university level students had less knowledge of academic dishonesty regardless of their ethnicity. An interview session about lecturers' perception on student's plagiarism was done with the 5 selected participants. They were asked to give their opinion about students who think that non-printed media (sound clip, movie clip, pictures, etc.) does not have to be included in a reference list. This question was adopted from a study conducted by Lukashenko et al. (2008).
Their study found out that plagiarism may also exist in another media like image, video, or translated text. The EFL lecturers stated that students tend to think it is not necessary to put the source of the non-printed media in the reference list. One of the lecturers said: "Because usually, in reference list, students put in researches like book or journal…. So when the students take, for example, learning media from You-Tube, they usually did not put it in the reference list but they will just put the screenshot of it." He highlighted the point that students did not usually put proper reference for non-printed media. From this result, it can be concluded that students were practically doing plagiarism as they did not acknowledge the source of the non-printed media that they took. The mean score for lecturers' perception on student's plagiarism on attitude dimension is 19.67. It is placed in the interval of 21 ≥ X > 18. Therefore, it can be categorized as a positive qualification. It means that the lecturers agreed that their students were indicated of performing academic misconduct, such as borrowing other's work and reusing one's work for the upcoming homework. There were two questions in this dimension related to statement number 14 and 15 in the questionnaire. There were five slightly similar answers given from all five interviewees for each questions. The question related to statement number 14 is, "What would you say if your students think that, 'borrowing task/homework is not a plagiarism'?" "We categorized it as a plagiarism act. The point of it is plagiarizing because academic honesty should let the writer mention who originally has the idea. So if he borrows an assignment, it means that he borrows someone else's idea." "I think that is cheating. That is a part of plagiarism. .... Paraphrasing is fine I Gede Nyoman Arya Risaldi Dwi Nugraha, Made Hery Santosa, Anak Agung Gede Yudha Paramartha as long as he quote his friend's name because it is not the problem of the assignment, but the idea in it." "Actually, there are many students do that. … If there is any student who borrow other student's assignment, I have prepared the consequences." "We actually expect and respect originality and creativity in university level of students, … If any of them borrowed an assignment, it means that the idea does not come from himself." "If they borrow it to see, 'Oh this is how it is done,' that is fine. …if he just borrow it in order to find out, 'How to make this assignment?' 'Okay so this is how.' That is no big deal." The second question, related to statement number 15 in the questionnaire, is, "What is your opinion to the students who use their old task/homework to finish their upcoming task/homework?" Various answers were obtained.
"That is autoplagiarising." "That is a plagiarism act, in my opinion." "In my opinion, those assignments will match their instructions. … It does not matter for me. I think that is just fine, but there will be consequence." "Well, that is actually not allowed because that is considered as autoplagiarism, especially in academic field." "… Here is the thing. It depends, alright? It will depend on the subject because each has different learning purposes. … I will allow them to do so, but not 100% the same." The second dimension in this study is plagiarism attitude. Plagiarism attitude is one's manner and quality control of doing assessment (Gururajan & Roberts, 2003). In other word, it means that plagiarism attitude is one's way of behaving toward his/her given assessment. Based on the result of the questionnaire in this dimension, most of the EFL lecturers agreed that their students were indicated of having low manner in doing their assignment, which resulted in plagiarism. It means that, in general, lecturers believed that their students were indicated of doing plagiarism. A study conducted by Gómez et al. (2013) showed that students were behaving negatively. They found out that students were aware of plagiarism, thus students reduced the amount of text that they copied necessarily. In other words, students knew about plagiarism but they were doing it purposively. Students also tended to think that academic dishonesty was not against their ethical value (Gururajan & Roberts, 2003), but loyalty to their friends was more important that the ethical value (Ashworth et al., 1997).
Positive result was showed in the survey results, specifically in plagiarism attitude dimension. This survey results were supported by the interview results about borrowing other's work. One of the EFL lecturers said: "We categorized it as a plagiarism act. The point of it is plagiarizing because academic honesty should let the writer mention who originally has the idea. So if he borrows an assignment, it means that he borrows someone else's idea.." The results from one of the questions during the interview session supported the survey results about students' plagiarism. The interview results showed that students tended to reuse his/her previous work or assignments. Shidarta (2011) defined this act as "auto plagiarism", which means an act of reproducing one's prior work that has been published without properly referencing it. One of the EFL lecturer participants gave his thought of this matter. He said: "Well, that is actually not allowed because that is considered as autoplagiarism, especially in academic field. When we have produced a work, and we want to take a part of it, we should refer it to ourself at that time. It is common for researcher to cite his own past work because, ethically speaking, it should be cited whatsoever."

Indonesian lecturer's solution on student's plagiarism
The practice of students' plagiarism has been going on for years. This encouraged the researchers to find the solution on how to minimize students' plagiarism. The researchers found out 2 main solutions based on the interview session with the 5 EFL lecturers (during the second phase of data collection). The first solution given is stated as follow.
"…. Some students asked me, even actually I am not their thesis supervisor, for supervision like, 'Sir, I want to ask. Is this one correct?' I take it as an obligation as a lecturer, as a teacher. I do know how to quote, so why don't I share it?" "When lecturers teach, they should give an understanding or knowledge about plagiarism to their students." This result is in line with a prior study conducted by George et al. (2013). The results of their study suggested that university should initiate an intensive course for students who had done academic dishonesty and an introduction to plagiarism for new students in order to prevent them from doing plagiarism. It is necessary to give an enormous possible amount of activities, such as seminars, campaign, and lecturing, to ensure the students understand the academic misconduct and its consequences (Ali et al., 2012). The second solution from the EFL lecturers is making contract. A contract should be made at the beginning of the semester for each subject. This contract should consist of consequences or penalty resulted from plagiarism. One of the lecturers said: "….What I will do is making a contract beforehand, give them instruction that they should make their assignment without any copy-paste from other's work. If there is, if they quote something, they should put it in their reference list. If there is any student who borrow other student's assignment, I have prepared the consequences. In case I found two or more assignments are similar one to another, I will only score the first one. The rest of them will be 0 whatsoever and I assume that those assignments copied the first one I read." "That is one strategy to change their mindset that it is not allowed to do that. I teach them not to borrow other student's work." I Gede Nyoman Arya Risaldi Dwi Nugraha, Made Hery Santosa, Anak Agung Gede Yudha Paramartha The result of research conducted by Santosa et al. (2019) suggested that lecturers should make a contract that contains consequences properly in order to prevent students from doing plagiarism.

CONCLUSION
This research involved 37 participants of EFL lecturers in Indonesia. Survey and interview were done in order to collect the data. The result was positive, which implied that lecturers perceived there was an indication of students' academic dishonesty. The findings of the research discussed two parts, namely lecturers' perception on students' plagiarism and lecturers' solutions on students' plagiarism.
To investigate lecturers' perception on students' plagiarism, an online survey was done and followed up by an interview. In general, positive result was gained. This result could be seen as how lecturers agreed that there was an indication of their students doing academic misconduct. The result of the interview supports the data gained from the survey. All participants agreed that their students were indicated of doing plagiarism. An interview session was done in order to investigate lecturers' opinion of the solution on students' plagiarism. There are two solutions to minimize students' plagiarism resulted from the interview, namely 1) giving guidance and 2) making contract. The first one, giving guidance or supervision, this means lecturers should meet and talk to their student when they found out the students doing plagiarism. Lecturers should address their student about his/her misconduct and give advice and guidance. This is done in order to prevent the students from doing plagiarism.
The second solution is more likely applied in the beginning of the semester, on the first meeting of the class. The second solution requires students to the consequences when they do plagiarism. By doing so, students are expected not to do academic dishonesty as they are already told about the penalty and consequences of doing such misconduct.

APPENDICES
I Gede Nyoman Arya Risaldi Dwi Nugraha, Made Hery Santosa, Anak Agung Gede Yudha Paramartha 8. It seems that my students think of well-known facts (i.e. Jakarta is capital of Indonesia) as something that needs no reference. 9.
My students think that printed media is the only material that requires reference. 10.
As no copyright mentioned, my students feel free to use media from certain websites. 11.
There is an indication that students are taking and modifying media from certain websites (pictures, clips, videos, etc.) without referencing as no copyright mentioned. 12.
Some of my students think that buying paperwork considered as plagiarism act.

13.
My students seem to feel aroused to plagiarize because other students are doing so. 14.
My students think there is nothing wrong with using one's paper with his/her permission. 15.
"It is okay to use something I have written in the past to fulfill a new assignment," is often thought by my students.

16.
When my student borrowed his friend's work and I caught him red-handed, he thinks his friend should be punished as well.

17.
There is an indication that students justified short deadlines and heavy workload as a right to plagiarize.

18.
There are many ways to tell things, so my students tend to think they cannot avoid using other's words.

19.
My students opine that using previous descriptions of a theory or concept is acceptable because they remain the same. 20. My student likely thinks that self-plagiarism is not exists because it is not a "stealing act" if one does it to one's self.

21.
Some of my students think it is fine to use their previous work to complete current task without referencing.

22.
My students think that self-plagiarism should not have the same punishment as the other plagiarism acts. 23.
I believe there are students who use some parts of published works to represent certain topic for their task when they are not familiar with the topic. 24.
My students tend to think that as the paper owner gives permission, the idea of borrowing paperwork is acceptable.