In a new study, around half of the high school and university students from seven European countries are concerned about the use of plagiarism detection software in education. Their concerns lead to counterproductive behavior and misdirected learning, according to the researchers behind the study.
The research, led by the University of Copenhagen’s Department of Food and Resource Economics sought to develop a better empirical understanding of text-matching software (TMS) worries among students in Switzerland, Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Portugal and Slovenia.
The study is published in the International Journal for Educational Integrity.
Asked about how they felt about their institutions’ use of plagiarism software, 47% of high school students and 55% of undergraduate participants in the study expressed concerns about being monitored. Their concerns extend beyond the fear of getting caught cheating.
According to postdoctoral researcher Mads Goddiksen, lead author of the study, these concerns stem largely from uncertainty about how the software is used and what counts as cheating.
“It’s paradoxical that a technology intended to ensure academic integrity is causing unnecessary worries among students. Our research clearly shows that uncertainty about how the software operates, how it’s used, and what constitutes plagiarism leads to worries and counterproductive writing practices,” says the researcher.
Writing to outsmart the software, not to learn
In interviews, students described how they avoid reusing sources from previous assignments or unnecessarily rewrite texts to “outsmart” the software—a development against which Mads Goddiksen warns.
“The biggest issue isn’t the worry itself, but that students lose focus on writing well and ethically. Instead, it becomes about avoiding the software flagging something as problematic. This affects the quality of both their assignments and overall education,” he explains.
Goddiksen emphasizes that plagiarism detection software cannot independently determine whether plagiarism has occurred—it merely highlights text overlaps. Understanding this distinction is crucial.
“There’s nothing inherently wrong with paraphrasing or reproducing content from other sources in an assignment—this is largely what academic writing involves, as long as it’s done transparently. However, today, such practices may pop up in plagiarism checks because the software identifies similarities in phrases and formulations. This makes students nervous and renders the software ineffective if used on its own,” Goddiksen explains.
However, many students in the study mistakenly believe that the software alone determines what counts as plagiarism, even though this is not the case. This misunderstanding makes the students change their writing behavior to adapt to the perceived control. For example, one Danish undergraduate stated, “I am really afraid to gamble with these things. So I make a lot of footnotes, roughly 80–90 in a 12-page assignment. I have not had any critique yet, but I don’t think it is what you are actually supposed to do.”
Discover the latest in science, tech, and space with over 100,000 subscribers who rely on Phys.org for daily insights.
Sign up for our free newsletter and get updates on breakthroughs,
innovations, and research that matter—daily or weekly.
Clearer guidelines and consistent practice
The researchers stress that the solution isn’t to abolish plagiarism detection software, but to use it correctly.
“The technology can be a helpful tool for identifying potential issues, but it requires institutions to communicate clearly about it and ensure that instructors and students understand the software’s limitations,” explains Goddiksen.
The study recommends more instruction on academic writing and proper citation practices for students. Educational institutions and instructors also have a responsibility to clarify what they consider plagiarism.
“We propose a combination of instruction and clearer procedures for how to use the software. Educators need to step in and explain where the boundaries for plagiarism are for specific assignments and how they use the software. This won’t just alleviate concerns but serve to ensure that the technology supports learning rather than hindering it,” says Associate Professor Mikkel Willum Johansen from the Department of Science Education, a co-author of the study.
Today, numerous companies offer tools that can not only identify textual overlaps, but also determine whether texts may have been generated by artificial intelligence (e.g., ChatGPT). This new form of monitoring presents challenges for educational institutions as well.
“The problem is that these systems can only suggest whether something appears to be generated by AI but they cannot say so with certainty. Unlike plagiarism detection software, they lack an original text for comparison. For this reason, AI-detection systems are highly unreliable. This underscores the importance of institutions having clear procedures and a consensus on how to use the technology, so that we avoid penalizing students unfairly,” concludes Mikkel Willum Johansen.
The study is based on 3,424 survey responses and 36 interviews conducted in Switzerland, Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Portugal and Slovenia.
More information:
Mads Paludan Goddiksen et al, The dark side of text-matching software: worries and counterproductive behaviour among European upper secondary school and bachelor students, International Journal for Educational Integrity (2024). DOI: 10.1007/s40979-024-00162-7
Provided by
University of Copenhagen
Citation:
Plagiarism detection software sparks widespread student concern (2024, December 16)
