Scrutinizing EFL students' plagiarism practice

Safrul Muluk, Fani Rahma Yanis, Syarifah Dahliana, Amiruddin Amiruddin


The current study was designed to investigate the types of plagiarism that appear in EFL students’ theses at Ar-Raniry State Islamic University, Indonesia. It sought to examine the plagiarism level, and investigate the triggering factors encouraging these EFL students of the 2019 batch to plagiarize. This study used a qualitative method with a case study approach. The participants in this study were ten EFL students of the 2019 batch and their theses. The participants were randomly selected. The data collection was carried out using two research instruments, namely document analysis, and interview. The researcher analyzed the student's thesis using Plagiarism Checker X. The results of the document analysis showed that there were two types of plagiarism detected in the student's thesis, namely word for word and mosaic plagiarism. Second, the researcher found that the plagiarism level of the 2019 batch English students' thesis of UIN Ar-Raniry was at the low-level plagiarism category, which can be observed from the result of the similarity index. The level of plagiarism found in these theses was less than 30%, still at an acceptable level as stipulated by the university regulation. Meanwhile, the result of the interview showed that all participants know what plagiarism is and they think that plagiarism is a negative conduct. Several factors influences EFL English students to plagiarize, such as poor time management, laziness, poor paraphrasing skills, affordable internet access, and running out of ideas.


EFL students, plagiarism practice; plagiarism checker.

Full Text:



Amiri, F., & Razmjoo, S. A. (2015). On Iranian EFL undergraduate students' perceptions of plagiarism. Journal of Academic Ethics, 14, 115-131.

Bahadori, M., Izadi, M., & Hoseinpourfard, M. (2012). Plagiarism: Concepts, factors and solutions. Iranian Journal of Military Medicine, 14(3), 168-177.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. New York, NY: Oxford University.

Cheak, A. P. C., Sze, C. C., Ai, Y. J., Min, C. M., & Ming, S. J. (2013). Internet plagiarism: University students’ perspectives. In International Research Conference (pp. 26-27).

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research (planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research) (4th ed). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. A. (2012). Rational ignorance in education: A field experiment in student plagiarism. Journal of Human Resources, 47(2), 397-434. Doi: 10.1353/jhr.2012.0012

Debnath, C, J. (2016). Plagiarism: A silent epidemic in scientific writing – Reasons, recognition and remedies. Medical Journal Armed Forces India, 72(2), 164-167. Doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.03.010

Ellis, C., Zucker, I. M., & Randall, D. (2018). The infernal business of contract cheating: understanding the business processes and models of academic custom writing sites. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(1), 1-21.

Gomez, M. S. S., Lakshminarayan, N., & BK, S. (2014). Assessment of the attitude towards Plagiarism among dental postgraduate students and faculty members in Bapuji Dental College and Hospital, Davangere – A cross-sectional survey. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences, 13(5), 1-6.

Greenberger, S., Hollbeck, R., & Dyer, T. (2016). Plagiarism due to misunderstanding: Online instructor perceptions. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(6), 72-84.

Griffee, D. T. (2012). An introduction to second language research methods: Design and data. Berkeley, CA: TESL-EJ Publications.

Habiburrahim, H. (2015). The internet and ICT: Opportunities or threats to the education world?. Englisia: Journal of Language, Education, and Humanities, 3(1), 1-8.

Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Marjanovic, M., Tomašević, V., & Živković, D. (2015). Anti-plagiarism software: usage, effectiveness and issues. In International Scientific Conference of IT and Business-Related Research (pp. 119-122). Singidunum University.

Patra, R. (2017). Plagiarism and its effect on pediatric surgery publications. Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons, 22(4), 199-201.

Pecorari, D., & Petric, B. (2014). Plagiarism in second-language writing. Language Teaching, 47(3), 269-302 doi:10.1017/S0261444814000056

Plagiarismcheckerx. (2020). Check Plagiarism X features.

Qu, S., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(3), 238-264.

Randhawa, R. K., Gupta, N., Arora, V., Nishant, & Gupta, P. (2015). Plagiarism: An academic dishonesty!. Journal of Updates in Dentistry, 4(1), 19-23.

Risquez, A., O’Dwyer, M., & Ledwith, A. (2011). Technology enhanced learning and plagiarism in entrepreneurship education. Education and Training, 53(8), 750–761.

Selemani, A., Chawinga, W. D., & Dube, G. (2018). Why do postgraduate students commit plagiarism? An empirical study. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(7), 1-15.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: design and methods (6th ed). Los Angeles, LA: SAGE Publications.

Zhang, Y., & Jia, X. (2012). A survey on the use of CrossCheck for detecting plagiarism in journal articles. Learned Publishing, 25, 292–307.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

This journal has been viewedtimes.
View full page view stats report here.

All works are licensed under CC-BY

Englisia Journal
© Author(s) 2019.
Published by Center for Research and Publication UIN Ar-Raniry and Department of English Language Education UIN Ar-Raniry.

Indexed by: