Educating for academic integrity: effectiveness of a digital resource on plagiarism awareness among postgraduate bioscience students

Educating for academic integrity: effectiveness of a digital resource on plagiarism awareness among postgraduate bioscience students | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Educating for academic integrity: effectiveness of a digital resource on plagiarism awareness among postgraduate bioscience students Carolyn Loveridge, Laura Richmond, Rafael Henry-Venson, Louise Miller This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7973068/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 3 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Plagiarism remains an ongoing and complex challenge in higher education, particularly among postgraduate taught (PGT) students who comprise great diversity of academic and cultural backgrounds. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a bespoke Moodle-based academic integrity training resource developed to enhance plagiarism literacy among life sciences PGT students at our UK-based institution. An online survey, combining quantitative and qualitative elements from closed and open-ended questions respectively, was conducted among life sciences PGT students (n = 139). Quantitative data analysis of closed question responses revealed that students with prior degrees from elsewhere (PDE) reported significantly lower confidence in their knowledge of plagiarism, the use and integration of source material and using Turnitin but more favourable perceptions with regards to enhancing their knowledge and understanding of plagiarism compared to those with prior degrees from the UK (PDUK) (p < 0.05). Qualitative, thematic analyses of open-ended responses indicated positive perceptions surrounding the clarity, accessibility, and interactivity of the resource but also demonstrated a need for additional inclusive design features and optional face-to-face support. Students highlighted confusion regarding what constitutes plagiarism, difficulty with referencing and uncertainty surrounding institutional policy and use of digital tools. These results underscore the need for a more inclusive and accessible approach towards academic integrity training for diverse PGT cohorts, with wider implications for institutional strategies to mitigate academic misconduct. Our key recommendation is for academic integrity training resources to be culturally sensitive, equitable and learner-friendly through the incorporation of varied and blended learning resources and opportunities. Plagiarism Academic Integrity Training Higher Education Postgraduate Taught Students International Students Moodle Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Academic integrity is a core principle of higher education institutions to safeguard the value of academic qualifications and ensure a culture of honesty, credibility, and respect (Aaron & Roche, 2013 ; Suprapto et al ., 2024). Plagiarism, which is regarded as the most common breach of academic integrity, is an ongoing, increasing problem in the global higher education sector (Awasthi, 2019 ; Birks 2020) and a particular challenge at post-graduate taught (PGT) level where students come from varied educational backgrounds (Tran et al., 2022 ). Ensuring a consistent and comprehensive understanding of plagiarism among the diversity of PGT students is essential for maintaining standards of academic integrity (Mulenga & Shilongo, 2024 ; Halak & El-Hajjar, 2019 ). While a small number of studies have examined UK postgraduate students’ experiences of plagiarism education (Davis, 2012 ; Magyar, 2012 ), systematic evaluation of structured plagiarism education, particularly in recent years, remains limited (Coneyworth et al., 2020 ). This is especially relevant when considering the context in which academic integrity has evolved in the decade or so preceding this paper; varied delivery models, the rise of digital tools, and a significant increase in the international student population, which has more than doubled in the UK over the last 10 years according to the UK Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA, n.d.). There are recent reports in the literature of higher levels of plagiarism and malpractice among PGT compared to undergraduate (UG), and international compared to domestic students over time (Loveridge et al., 2024 ; Khaleel et al., 2025 ). As a step to mitigate such concerning trends, we developed and introduced an intervention to promote academic integrity literacy among life science PGT students in our college at our UK-based institution: “Good Academic Practice in the Biosciences”, a training resource made available on the Moodle virtual learning environment (VLE) that comprises a broad spectrum of academic integrity and plagiarism training components, including a formative assessment which students are required to pass to complete the course. In this study, we evaluated the intervention with regards to its impact on attitudes and perspectives towards plagiarism behaviour among life science PGT students. We begin this paper by reviewing the literature, starting with definitions of academic integrity and plagiarism followed by an overview of the underlying reasons for plagiarism behaviour and an outline of specific considerations for PGT students. We then provide a brief overview of the current intervention, what informed its introduction, and detail the aims and research questions of the present study. 2.1 Literature Review 2.1.1 Definitions – what are academic integrity and plagiarism? When considering matters of academic integrity and plagiarism, it is first important to define what these are. Academic integrity is described by Suprapto et al . (2024, p2) as “the ethical foundation upon which scholarly pursuits are built, encompassing honesty, trust, and responsibility in academic endeavours” which necessitates “upholding principles of fairness, originality, and proper attribution in research, writing, and other academic activities”. Academic misconduct relates to unethical behaviours which result in a breach of this code of conduct (Mahmud & Ali, 2023 ). We align with the definition of plagiarism by Ronai ( 2020 , p31) as a sub-set of academic misconduct that can involve the following six elements, “(i) an object, (ii) which has been taken (borrowed or stolen), (iii) from a particular source, (iv) by an agent, (v) without (adequate) acknowledgement, and (vi) with or without intention to deceive”. To add to this, the ‘object’ could be text, style or ideas (Halak & El-Hajjar, 2019 ). Turnitin, a globally-employed academic integrity tool, documents twelve forms of plagiarism on the ‘Plagiarism Spectrum 2.0’ (Turnitin, n.d.) which fall under three categories: (i) foundational misconduct (AI misuse; poor paraphrasing; inadvertent plagiarism; verbatim copying without acknowledgement of sources; collusion), (ii) complex plagiarism (self-plagiarism, mosaic plagiarism where phrases are generated using text from different sources; source-based plagiarism where references do not exist), and (iii) advanced misconduct (manual text modification to avoid detection by plagiarism software; contract cheating; fabricating or using data without permission; automated text modification either by another person or a large learning model such as a translation tool). Plagiarism is a highly complex phenomenon not only because there are the multiple forms which it can take, but there is also the matter of intent on behalf of the individual who engages in the behaviour (Fishman, 2009 ). Although some acts are deliberate, it is recognised that plagiarism can be accidental or unintentional (Gullifer & Tyson, 2014 ). The complexity of plagiarism is further compounded by various factors which have been identified as contributing to this behaviour (Mbutho & Hutchings, 2021 ; Hussain, 2017; Yang et al ., 2019; Jereb et al, 2018 ), including: (i) institutional frameworks and policies on matters of academic integrity (e.g. University policy does not discriminate between intentional and unintentional plagiarism when cases are reviewed and sanctioned), (ii) the level of students’ academic skills (e.g. ability to reference the work of others, express their own ideas and synthesise the work of others into their own words), (iii) cultural differences (e.g. language barrier), (iv) external pressures (e.g. part-time employment, caring responsibilities, family pressure to succeed), (v) personal traits (e.g. being lazy), (vi) the rise of information technology and (v) socio-political factors (e.g. wars, pandemics). 2.1.2 Plagiarism and PGT Level It is important to recognise that factors contributing to plagiarism may have a variable impact upon students at different levels of study. Increasing numbers of students are undertaking master’s level study to gain specialist knowledge and skills to enhance their employment prospects in a competitive job market (Evans et al., 2018 ; Jung & Li, 2021 ). In the UK, data from HESA indicates that the total number of students undertaking PGT study has significantly increased from ~ 470,000 in 2017-18 to ~ 728,000 in 2023-24 (HESA, n.d.). Within this cohort, the percentage of international students has increased from ~ 27% to ~ 53% of total PGT students, highlighting the growing diversity that exists among PGT students. For this reason, PGT students cannot be treated as a homogeneous group given that they come from a variety of cultural and previous educational backgrounds. Such diversity will inevitably include differences in their perceptions, knowledge, understanding, experience and ability surrounding academic practice and plagiarism (Tran et al., 2022 ). PGT study is recognised as having complexity and unique challenges. Firstly, there is an underlying presumption that PGT students are ‘experts’ by virtue of having completed an undergraduate education (Heussi, 2012 ). However, it is noted by McPherson et al. ( 2017 , p42) that the transition to PGT study is associated with a period of “anxiety, self-doubt and disorientation". International students face obvious challenges from negotiating changes in both culture/environment and level of study. It is noted by Evans et al. ( 2018 ) that approximately 6 months is required for students to adjust to PGT level study. Furthermore, Coneyworth et al. ( 2020 ) highlight that it takes approximately 10 months for students to adapt to their new country and cultural and learning environment. These time frames are highly significant given the short and intensive nature of a taught master’s degree in the UK, which is typically 12 months in duration (QAA, 2020 ; Wang, 2025). Second, even domestic students who have completed an UG degree at the same institution are noted to find the transition to PGT study as anxiety-inducing (Coneyworth et al., 2020 ), suggesting the change in level of study is a particular challenge. Aligning with UK sector standards (QAA, 2024), there are several key differences between PGT and UG or doctoral level study. First, reflecting the more advanced level of study, there is an expectation at postgraduate level for students to engage in more independent study compared to UG level, which may be associated with less contact hours with academic staff (QAA, 2011 ). Second, students are required to demonstrate criticality and formulate and synthesise their own ideas based upon their assessment of the available literature (Evans et al., 2018 ). Third, PGT students may be studying a different subject to which they took at UG level. Fourth, there may be a long gap between a student’s prior education and PGT study, meaning that they are more likely to be older (Heussi, 2012 ). For this reason, external factors (e.g. caring responsibilities; necessity to undertake part-time employment for financial support; pressure to pass due to scholarship award) may be more significant for PGT students (Coneyworth, 2020; Mbutho & Hutchings, 2021 ). Finally, unlike doctoral research students, there is little opportunity for PGT students to integrate into the institution’s research community as they only complete a short research project at the end of their master’s programme of study (McPherson et al., 2017 ). Given the diversity of the PGT student population, it is important to highlight ongoing debate in the literature about the influence of culture on plagiarism behaviour. Eastern cultures e.g. China, Japan, Korea, are viewed as being ‘collectivist’ in nature, which place an emphasis on the combined actions and knowledge of individuals within larger social groupings, whereas Western cultures e.g. USA, UK, Australia, are ‘individualist’ whereby people are accountable for their own actions, behaviour and knowledge (Nash, 2018 ). At Western institutions, generalisations often made about Asian cultures include that (i) plagiarism is acceptable in Eastern society (Gow and Sun, 2023 ), (ii) that “plagiarism of a teacher or person of authority is a virtue, a sign of respect: the student is simply reproducing what the student knows to be true” (Simon ,2019, p77) and (iii) the act of memorization and rote learning practices are connected to plagiarism behaviour with respect to failure to cite sources of information (Nash, 2018 ). However, such stereotypical views have been challenged. Gow and Sun ( 2023 ) highlight that plagiarism is consistently condemned in China. Furthermore, Hu and Lei ( 2015 , p236) stress that plagiarism among Asian and other students with English as a second language is “.... consequential on a complex of factors such as different conceptions of plagiarism, limited knowledge of illegitimate intertextuality, insufficient command of the target language, pedagogical practices, and various other situational variables”. Collectively, the unique and complex challenges faced by international PGT students in particular may have the potential to impact plagiarism behaviour. 2.2 Overview of the Current Intervention A previous study at a UK institution that analysed data from their institution’s academic senate on the number of cases of plagiarism among life sciences students over a period of time demonstrated statistically significantly more plagiarism in (i) PGT than UG students; (ii) international students compared to UK students (p values < 0.05 for comparisons within session 2016-17 and session 2021-22 respectively) (Loveridge et al., 2024 ). Levels of plagiarism were also significantly higher within level of study and nationality demographic sub-groupings when comparing levels in 2016-17 to those in 2021–2022 (p values < 0.05). Furthermore, additional findings from that study identified key recommendations for educators to adopt to help mitigate plagiarism, including the necessity for enhancement of current educational approaches to support students’ knowledge and understanding of plagiarism and how to avoid it (Babaii & Nejadghanbar, 2017 ; Kashian et al., 2015 ; Liu et al., 2018 ; Perkins et al., 2019 ). To address such concerning trends of rising levels of plagiarism among PGT students and recommendations to enhance educational provision on academic integrity, we initially carried out an audit of plagiarism guidance provision in our college. We identified various sources of guidance and resources that were being signposted and used, which included: (i) central University documents on plagiarism policy; (ii) central resources from Student Learning and Development (SLD) service on plagiarism, academic writing skills, and using Turnitin; (iii) personal resources developed by academic staff which they used during their own programme and/or course inductions. Furthermore, we found that some of these documents and resources were difficult to navigate to, which could lead to confusion and disengagement of students with the materials. In light of the findings from the audit, we developed a new training resource made available via the Moodle VLE, “Good Academic Practice in the Biosciences” which was rolled out to all life sciences PGT students within our college in September 2022 as a non-mandatory component of PGT courses. This resource provides information and links to academic integrity and plagiarism training resources in one place, aiding student accessibility to these resources in addition to the key goal of enhancing students’ knowledge and understanding of plagiarism and how to avoid it. Students can work through the resource at their own pace, but it is a requirement that they complete and pass an assessment quiz at the end to demonstrate their understanding prior to completion of the first assessment on their programme of study. By having the materials and assessment quiz on Moodle, we as staff can also monitor student’ engagement with the resource. 2.3 Aim and research questions The overall aim of this project was to evaluate the views of life science PGT students regarding the content of the “Good Academic Practice in the Biosciences” training resource and its impact on their attitudes and perspectives towards plagiarism behaviour. We were particularly interested in students’ perceptions regarding (i) the amount and level of content of the training resource and (ii) whether their knowledge and understanding of plagiarism and how to avoid it had improved after completing the course. This study sought to extend existing research on plagiarism education in the postgraduate context but offering a large-scale evaluation of an academic integrity training intervention for PGT students. Unlike much of the previous literature, which often focuses on small cohorts, single programmes of study, or qualitative accounts only, our study draws from a large and diverse PGT population enrolled on a multitude of MSc programmes across the life sciences. By including both domestic and international students, and situating the analysis within the current state of an ever-evolving UK HE landscape, this study offers timely empirical evidence that compliments earlier works. Methods 3.1 Theoretical and Methodological Stance Plagiarism is a highly complex phenomenon with multiple forms and underlying contributing factors. For this reason, our research methodology is rooted pragmatism (Shannon-Baker, 2016 ) and intersubjectivism (Maarouf, 2019 ) as we believe that tackling plagiarism requires multiple perspectives, interpretations and viewpoints to be considered in order to address it. 3.2 Study design To address the research questions of this study, both quantitative and qualitative elements of data were required. We were particularly interested to make comparisons between responses for different demographic sub-groups according to nationality and so quantitative data and analyses were necessary (Cohen et al ., 2018). We also wanted to gain more detailed insight concerning the students’ perceptions of the resource. For this, qualitative data was important (George and Cowan, 1999 ). Taking this into consideration, we opted to conduct an online survey with both closed (Likert-style) and open-ended questions to generate both quantitative and qualitative data respectively as this is a well-established and recognised method for this purpose (Cohen et al ., 2018). The combination of the two types of data allows for triangulation and complementarity, providing us with a greater understanding than either type of data on its own (e.g. Bryman, 2006 ; Watkins & Gioia, 2015 ). 3.3 Ethical Considerations This study was approved by our College’s Ethics Committee (project number: 200220393) according to our institution’s policies. Participants provided informed consent via the online survey platform, Qualtrics, prior to answering the survey, in line with British Educational Research Association (BERA) guidelines. 3.4 Participant Recruitment A convenience sampling approach was adopted due to the relative ease of access to students’ enrolment information. All PGT students enrolled in courses within our college during 2023–2024 academic year (n = 1224) were invited to partake in the study via institutional email. This strategy assumes that only a subset of the overall student population will opt to participate, which is a limitation to acknowledge, as the resulting sample may not be generalisable to the broader population. 3.5 Data collection The online survey was developed using Qualtrics ( https://www.qualtrics.com ) to assess students’ self-reported perceptions and behaviour regarding plagiarism with respect to the following: (i) knowledge and understanding of plagiarism and how to avoid it; (ii) academic skills and referencing; (iii) using Turnitin and (iv) the content and design of the Moodle training resource. The full survey is available in Additional File 1. The survey included Likert-scale and open-text items, as well as some demographic questions (e.g. nationality, location of where previous degree was completed). The survey was made available to the students after completion of the course and was active from 04.03.2024 to 22.03.2024. 3.6 Data analysis Participants who provided consent but only partially completed the survey were still included in subsequent analyses. Quantitative data analyses were performed using SPSS [Version 29.0.1.0 (171). Descriptive statistics, where responses were grouped according to demographics e.g. location where previous degree was completed, were evaluated using ‘cross-tabs’ function. The Kruskal–Wallis test was employed to compare differences in responses between demographic sub-groups, as the data were ordinal (e.g., Likert-scale ratings) and did not meet the assumptions of normality required for parametric tests. Graphs were generated using either SPSS or R version 2025.09.2 with the following packages: readxl (Wickham and Bryan, 2025 ), dplyr (Wickham et al., 2025 ), tidyr (Wickham et al., 2026 ), ggplot2 (Wickham, 2016 ), purr (Wickham and Henry, 2026 ), stringr (Wickham, 2025 ), and magick (Ooms, 2026 ). Open responses were analysed qualitatively using thematic analyses method by Braun and Clarke ( 2006 ). Data were coded deductively under preset themes of “knowledge and understanding” “content” and “design”. The process was done independently by two researchers followed by discussion to refine the identified themes which emerged. Answers that were not related to the resource itself were excluded (for instance, a general comment about Moodle or comments on other Moodle courses). In addition to thematic analysis, all open-text responses were analysed and categorised into five groups in terms of sentiment: Positive, Neutral, Negative, Negative but not towards the Moodle course, and Mixed. Below, there is a list of examples of statements that would allow for comments to be categorised into specific groups: Positive: “Easy access”. Neutral: “It would be helpful if you could provide more information on the various categories of text...”. Negative: “...lacks clarity”. Negative but not towards the Moodle course: “Whilst writing with AI is of course forbidden, guidelines about using it within other areas of studies should be made clearer to students”. Mixed: “Although the online self-paced classes were convenient, I would've preferred there to be in-person classes…”. Additionally, the following “umbrella” mentions were looked for in each open-ended answer: For the question “What would you like to know more about with respect to plagiarism? Is there anything else you would like to add?”, any mentions to the quiz or on the design of the resource were counted. For the question “What enhancements could be made to the content of the Moodle for the benefit of students and why?”, mentions to clarity and length of the Moodle course were recorded. Each response could have assigned to it one or more “mentions”, and the frequency of mentions for each response was recorded. For the sentiment categorisation, all answers were taken into account for the calculation. For the umbrella mentions, only answers that related to the questions were taken into consideration (for instance, for “What did you find was beneficial with respect to the design of the Moodle and why?” the answer “Content and they are very informative” does not answer the question and therefore was not included in the analysis of umbrella terms; however, this is still an answer with a positive sentiment, and was considered in this part of the analysis). This semi-quantitative perspective approach complemented the qualitative findings, highlighting the relative prominence of key issues raised by students. Results 4.1 Quantitative Analyses We have a high percentage demographic of international students in our college at our institution – this was 63.9% in 2023-24 academic year when the survey was conducted. Given this observation and in light of the considerations for plagiarism linked to student nationality which we highlighted in the introduction, quantitative analyses of ‘closed’ Likert-style survey questions were performed to investigate if there were any statistically significant differences in online survey responses between participants who had a previous degree (PD) from the UK (PDUK) compared to those who had a previously completed a degree elsewhere (PDE) prior to commencing their PGT studies. There was a total of 139 participants for the online survey, representing a response rate of 11.4%. Of the 139 participants, 33 (23.7%) identified as being from the UK; 105 (75.5%) indicated they were international students and 1 preferred not to state their nationality. With regards to location where participants completed their previous degree, 48 (34.5%) had done so in the UK with the remaining 91 participants (65.5%) having completed this elsewhere. 4.1.1 Knowledge and Understanding of Plagiarism To assess students’ knowledge and understanding of plagiarism, participants were first asked a series of questions relating to their understanding of plagiarism and how they should avoid it (Additional File 2; Figure S1). The majority of PDUK and PDE students agreed or strongly agreed that they understood (i) what plagiarism is; (ii) what the University’s rules and regulations are and how to find these, (iii) expectations of students with respect to academic conduct (iv) the impact and potential consequences of plagiarism; (v) where to find help and (vi) the steps which they should take to avoid it (Table 1; Median = 4-5). There were no statistically significant differences between PDUK and PDE students for these questions. However, PDE students scored significantly lower than PDUK students with respect to having enough knowledge and skills to help them avoid plagiarism (Table 1; Median = 4 vs 5; p=0.036). Next, students were provided with a list of six scenarios and asked to what degree of certainty they considered these to be plagiarism (Additional File 2; Figure S2). For four of these scenarios (3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6), both PDUK and PDE students were able to correctly identify with a high degree of certainty that these statements outlined what would be regarded as plagiarism (Table 2; Median = 5). For one scenario (3.2, Listing sources in the reference list but not acknowledging them in the assignment), both PDUK and PDE students correctly identified this as plagiarism but with less confidence (Median = 4). For the remaining statement (3.3), PDE students were significantly less certain than PDUK students that ‘changing the order of words in a sentence taken directly from a source’ constitutes plagiarism (Table 2; Median = 4 vs 5; p=0.046). 4.1.2 Academic Skills and Referencing Participants were next asked about their academic skills and ability to reference sources (Additional File 2; Figure S3). The results in Table 3 demonstrate that with regards to writing concepts in their own words, both PDUK and PDE students agreed that they found this easy and that doing so would help them to get higher marks (Median = 4). The majority of PDUK and PDE students agreed that they have academic skills/abilities to (i) acknowledge; (ii) quote from, (iii) paraphrase material from, (iv) critically appraise, (v) synthesise and integrate material from multiple sources (Median = 4). However, when asked about referencing, PDE students scored significantly lower than PDUK students for knowing: how to integrate sources into their own writing, what the key referencing styles are for the discipline and how to prepare a reference list of cited work (Median = 4 vs 5; p < 0.05). 4.1.3 Use of Turnitin Our university’s regulations necessitate our students to submit assignments via Turnitin, which checks submissions for potential plagiarism from published sources. Students are provided with the opportunity to submit a draft of each assignment via Turnitin and so it is essential that they are able to use Turnitin and interpret the reports which it provides. Participants were thus asked a series of questions relating to the use of Turnitin (Additional File 2; Figure S4). The results in Table 4 indicate that both PDUK and PDE students agree or strongly agree that they know how to use Turnitin and navigate and interpret the report generated with respect to identifying potential problems in their work (Median = 4-5). However, while PDUK students correctly disagreed that a low Turnitin score would indicate they have not plagiarised, PDE students were neutral (Median = 2 vs 3; p=0.008), indicating they were less certain about the meaning of a low score. 4.1.4 Impact of Resource on Student Understanding of Plagiarism and How to Avoid It To evaluate the impact of the content and design of the resource, the final section of the online survey asked questions surrounding whether elements of the resource were beneficial to enhance students’ knowledge and understanding of plagiarism and how to avoid it (Additional File 2; Figure S5). Strikingly, in nine out of the ten questions in this section, scores were significantly higher among PDE students compared to PDUK students (Median = 4; p <0.05) (Figure 1; Table 5), suggesting they perceive the resource to be more useful with regards to enhancing their knowledge and skills to avoid plagiarism. The majority of both PDUK and PDE students agreed that the content was detailed, engaging, well-structured and that the one-page summary was a useful reference. 4.2 Qualitative Analyses Thematic analysis was conducted on student responses to five free-text questions: 1. What would you like to know more about with respect to plagiarism? Is there anything else you would like to add? 2. What did you find was beneficial about the content of the Moodle and why? 3. What enhancements could be made to the content of the Moodle for the benefit of students and why? 4. What did you find was beneficial with respect to the design of the Moodle and why? 5. What enhancements to the design of the Moodle could be made for the benefit of students and why? Broadly, responses to Q1 (n=24 after data cleaning) were grouped under an overarching “knowledge and understanding” theme, responses to Q2 and Q3 (n=69 after data cleaning) under “content” and responses to Q4 and Q5 (n=54 after cleaning) under “design”. If a response fell under more than one overarching theme, it was included in each relevant theme. For the purposes of reporting, due to significant overlap between content and design themes, these are combined under one subsection. Figure 2 illustrates these relationships between the main themes and subthemes further. Overall, student feedback indicated that the Moodle resource was perceived as both helpful and user-friendly, with many appreciating its clarity, self-paced structure, and accessibility. Despite these positive impressions, the thematic analysis uncovered several areas where students felt the resource could be enhanced. These included gaps in understanding key academic integrity concepts, limitations in content depth, and design features. The following sections outline these findings in detail, organised by theme and subtheme, with further representative quotes highlighted in Table 6. 4.2.1 Knowledge and Understanding of Plagiarism Gaps in Understanding and Identifying Plagiarism When queried on areas of plagiarism which they would like to know more about, a prominent theme was confusion about where the boundaries of plagiarism lie, especially in more nuanced scenarios. Notably, of the students who answered, many (n = 15) cited ongoing difficulties in understanding or properly identifying plagiarism in their own work. One particular area of concern was self-plagiarism: “The concept of self-plagiarism remained vague to me no matter how much I read about it” In addition, students highlighted challenges in identifying plagiarism in highly technical or discipline-specific content. Some also noted that they were unsure how to avoid accidental plagiarism, particularly when absorbing academic language during reading and writing tasks: “differences between paraphrasing and types of accidental plagiarism and how to avoid them while writing” “it's easy to read a paper or an article and have that language imprinted in your mind when writing your own essay” Challenges with Academic Referencing Conventions Difficulties with adhering to academic referencing conventions were also common, with n = 10 of the Q1 responses mentioning this. Students requested more support in mastering citation styles and formatting references across disciplines. In line with this, content suggestions in Q4 included more comprehensive referencing guides tailored to their discipline, as well as activities that allowed for practical application of academic writing conventions: “References to non-traditional papers, such as websites could do with better explanation” Preference for Support and Delivery While the self-paced, online format was appreciated, there was a clear preference among some students for in-person support to complement the digital resource. Students felt that live workshops would offer valuable opportunities for clarification, real-time practice and feedback: “More in-person and online zoom sessions, along with many activities and quizzes” As mentioned above, several participants also requested clearer and more discipline-specific examples to bridge general academic principles with field-specific expectations. Concerns About AI Tools and Detection Technologies Some responses also demonstrated uncertainty regarding the appropriate use of AI tools such as ChatGPT and Grammarly. Rather than expressing outright opposition in all instances, students highlighted a lack of clarity around guidelines governing AI-assisted writing. This ambiguity led to concerns about unintentionally breaching academic integrity policies, and the potential disadvantage to students who don’t use these tools vs those who do: “I do think that students who do not use AI are at a considerable disadvantage compared to those who do” Turnitin was mentioned by several students, both positively and negatively. While some sought more opportunity to learn from Turnitin similarity scores, others expressed concern about the reliability of its algorithm in accurately detecting plagiarism. One student questioned whether Turnitin could distinguish between genuinely plagiarised content and coincidental similarities, highlighting a perceived limitation in the system’s detection capabilities: “there have been several times that occasional sentences in my work have resembled those of others - sometimes there's only one way of saying certain things” Confusion on University Integrity Policy In-keeping with this, students highlighted inconsistencies in university messaging around academic integrity, particularly concerning AI use. There was a shared view that current messaging was either lacking or unclear, and a desire for stronger institutional expectations. Suggestions included clearer communication around academic misconduct procedures and more robust enforcement of academic integrity policies: “I've read and understand the [institution’s] guidance on AI, but I think there are many loopholes and grey areas” 4.2.2 Content and Design Experience Application to Learning The real-world application of the user content to respondents learning was a highly referenced benefit of the Moodle resource, with n = 15 respondents commenting positively on the application of the content to their learning experience. Interactive elements such as quizzes and real-life examples were highlighted as beneficial features that reinforced key concepts and allowed for practical application: “gave examples that helped me understand what was expected of me” “updated my understanding (previous degree was started almost 20 years ago) and helped me navigate the university's policies” Additionally, there were requests for more practical examples and further guidance on aspects such as referencing and Turnitin as highlighted previously. Clarity, Accessibility and Ease of Use The feedback from students was largely positive in relation to the use of the resource, with many highlighting the clarity of the content (n = 15), as well as its ease of use (n = 10). This desire for quick, concise learning was further reflected in a small number of students who suggested that content could be even more concise: “I think a little more concise. Will be easier to remember.” Visual and Design Students consistently cited the clean and simple design of the resource as one area which promoted its ease of use and support of their learning. Interactive and engaging elements, as discussed previously, were praised for their engagement and there was a clear desire for more of these formats, with more engaging visual elements such as infographics, animations, and shorter videos recommended to further enhance learning. “Photographs or pictures of example can be presented with animation to be more attractive and memorable to watch.” Barriers to Inclusivity A small number of participants who identified in their responses as being neurodivergent and/or had specific learning differences (such as dyslexia, ADHD, or colour blindness) highlighted barriers related to layout, colour contrast, and navigation. Others requested downloadable versions of key resources to accommodate poor internet connectivity and varied learning preferences. “As a dyslexia I know you can change the appearance but I find it hard to find stuff and it can feel overwhelming” 4.3 Semi-Quantitative Analyses Sentiment categorisation of open-text responses showed that the majority of comments were either positive or neutral regarding the Moodle resource. Specifically, 40% of all responses (n=75) were classified as positive, often highlighting aspects such as ease of access, clarity, and usefulness. A further 39% (n=73) were categorised as neutral, typically offering suggestions for improvement without explicitly positive or negative framing. In contrast, 8% (n=15) of responses were negative, generally relating to perceptions of limited clarity or insufficient depth in certain areas. An additional 3% (n=5) of responses were coded as negative but not directly towards the Moodle course, instead expressing concerns about broader institutional policies or practices or about Moodle itself. Finally, 9% (n=17) were coded as mixed, reflecting both positive and negative elements within a single comment. Overall, this distribution indicates that student perceptions of the Moodle resource were predominantly positive or neutral, with comparatively few negative views expressed. Table 7 presents a semi-quantitative overview of umbrella mentions. While many participants submitted responses, not all provided substantive answers to each question (for example, some entries were only “.”. The table includes the proportion of responses that meaningfully addressed each question. Discussion Overall, our findings show that our intervention was effective in enhancing students’ understanding of plagiarism and related academic skills, especially for students who had not previously studied in the UK. This is consistent with prior research that showed these students are more vulnerable to unintentional plagiarism due to lack of familiarity with local academic conventions and perceived difficulty in understanding related documentation (Davis, 2022 ). Our data suggests that targeted support may be a good strategy to mitigate accidental academic misconduct. Indeed, international students reported perceiving the resource developed as more beneficial than their UK peers, underscoring its value as a levelling tool to promote not only good academic literacy but also a more equal and inclusive education, which can be targeted in a culturally sensitive way, across a diverse cohort of students. Fatemi and Saito ( 2020 , p1307) highlight that “.... universities are required to understand their students, especially those who come from different academic and cultural backgrounds, so that they can provide more effective support and promote the highest standards of academic integrity among students”. Furthermore, Magyar ( 2012 ) and more recently Denisova-Schmidt ( 2024 ) emphasises that because prior education and English language ability are significant challenges faced by international students, inclusive approaches are essential to support them with respect to academic integrity matters. Our quantitative analysis identifies that although most students state they understand the principles of plagiarism, international students still report lower confidence in key skills including referencing and interpreting Turnitin outputs. Qualitative feedback reinforces these findings, with students highlighting concerns and confusion around self- and accidental plagiarism. This lack of knowledge, skills, confidence, confusion and uncertainty may be indicative of unintentional plagiarism due to unfamiliarity with UK educational norms, a perception that is also noted by Underwood et al. ( 2022 ). Other studies also report a superficial understanding of plagiarism among students (Ashworth et al., 1997 ; Selemani et al., 2018 ) and that international students have limited referencing skills (Tran, 2012 ). Our findings linked to student perceptions of Turnitin are likely reflective that in trying to avoid a high score (which is equated with plagiarism), students’ lack understanding of the concept of what similarity means versus plagiarism (Bensal et al ., 2014). Zheng ( 2021 ) have reported that over 80% of Chinese students experience anxiety surrounding the Turnitin score and Thompsett and Ahluwalia ( 2010 ) document that students at their British institution did not find Turnitin easy to use and that they placed undue significance on the level of the Turnitin score. We concur with recommendations reported by Alua et al. ( 2023 ) that additional training should be provided to students relating to using Turnitin, including how to interpret similarity reports. In contrast, our findings are somewhat disparate to a recent study by Khaleel et al. ( 2025 ) at a UK institution which found that the type of plagiarism which international students are most likely to carry out is malpractice (which would be considered intentional in nature) as opposed to negligence (which could be unintentional due to lack of understanding) or misconduct (a serious breach of the rules). It would be of interest as part of future work to analyse senate data from our institution in detail to see what types of misconduct are most prevalent and the kind of assessments which are being sanctioned. Another emerging point in the qualitative analysis was the concern around AI use. The subject of AI was beyond the scope of this paper as at the time the survey was completed, the state and usage of the technology was lower than at present and there was no clear institutional policy concerning its use. Guidance on AI use had not been incorporated into the resource and so we did not ask any direct questions about it as part of the survey. However, there was indication from student open responses that they had uncertainty about use of AI and Institutional guidelines on this subject, reflecting wider debates around AI and good academic practice. We recognise there have been rapid advancements in capability of AI technology and exponential growth in its use since this study began (Stanford HAI, 2025 ), which combined with our findings highlights an urgent need for clear, consistent institutional policies and explicit guidance for students. Our qualitative findings highlight the ease of access, clarity, and usefulness of our online academic integrity training resource to international students in particular. These results are in keeping with those of Sbaffi and Zhao ( 2022 ) who identified similar factors (accessibility, usefulness and understandability) had improved when evaluating perceptions of existing resources compared to a new online induction programme on academic integrity matters, which was introduced to a large cohort of PGT students. Although many students praised the online format for its ease of use and access, there were those with a clear preference for face-to-face or blended sessions. This contrast may indicate the presence of two distinct learner profiles: one that values efficiency and autonomy, and another that benefits from structured, face-to-face engagement. This notion is supported by Bright and Vogler’s ( 2024 ) study which found that student preference for learning modality since the pandemic was linked to reasons including support to aid self-regulation and the opportunity to interact with others (peers and staff) in the case of face-to-face learning and the degree of flexibility offered by online learning. Training programmes may need to accommodate both styles to be fully inclusive. Indeed, Sanger ( 2020 ) highlights two frameworks, inclusive pedagogy and universal design for learning, which emphasise the importance of making learning accessible to all and supporting the diversity of learner needs through multiple approaches respectively. Although our study did not assess the impact of the Moodle resource on incidence of plagiarism cases, we argue that it has the potential to reduce numbers of these cases and improve overall good academic practice. Findings from a recent systematic review of previous studies that developed similar academic integrity educational training resources documents that these obtained success in reducing plagiarism cases (Miranda-Rodríguez et al., 2024 ). Future research could explore this potential more directly and a longitudinal design could track changes in behaviour or misconduct cases to assess real impact of the Moodle resource. Our study has limitations, including the reliance on convenience sampling and voluntary participation, both of which introduce potential bias by limiting the diversity of the sample and increasingly the likelihood that participants differ systemically from the wider population. Future studies should relate self-reported knowledge or cognitive gains in good academic practice to actual plagiarism incidence or student behaviour. Second, because our study is based in one College at one University means that results may not be generalizable to other contexts. Conclusion and Recommendations Student feedback indicates that the Moodle resource was clear, accessible, and effective in promoting understanding of plagiarism and academic integrity, particularly among international students with less familiarity with UK conventions. While the self-paced and interactive elements were widely appreciated, students highlighted ongoing challenges with nuanced aspects of plagiarism and referencing. The emergence of AI-assisted writing tools introduced novel concerns, underscoring the need for clear institutional guidance. Preferences for face-to-face engagement and accessibility concerns suggest that future training should offer flexible delivery and better support diverse learning needs. Overall the resource shows promise as a levelling tool to promote inclusive academic literacy, but further development is required. Based on the findings from the qualitative and quantitative analysis, several targeted actions are proposed to improve the effectiveness and inclusivity of the Moodle academic integrity resource. These recommendations address specific content and design enhancements, including clearer explanations of citation practices, more explicit guidance on emerging challenges such as AI-assisted tools, and strategies for supporting diverse student groups. These findings highlight the value of early, compulsory engagement with academic integrity training, particularly for students without prior UK academic experience, who reported the greatest benefit from the resource and remain at higher risk of plagiarism. The actions outlined in Table 8 provide practical guidance for institutions seeking to strengthen postgraduate plagiarism education by adopting similar learning resources, and focus on improving student engagement and ensuring equitable access for all learners. Declarations 10.1 Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate This study was approved by our College’s Ethics Committee (project number: 200220393) according to our institution’s policies. Participants provided informed consent via the online survey platform, Qualtrics, prior to answering the online survey. Prior to consent, participants were informed of the purpose, procedures, and voluntary nature of the study, and were assured of their right to withdraw at any point without penalty. A data protection impact assessment was completed and data management plan implemented throughout the research process to maintain confidentiality and anonymity of participants. 10.2 Funding No funding or financial support was received, ensuring the objectivity and independence of the research process and its findings. References Aaron, L. S., & Roche, C. M. (2013). Stemming the Tide of Academic Dishonesty in Higher Education: It Takes a Village. Journal of Educational Technology Systems , 42 (2), 161–196. https://doi.org/10.2190/ET.42.2.h Alua, M. A., Asiedu, N. K., & Bumbie-Chi, D. M. (2023). Students’ Perception on Plagiarism and Usage of Turnitin Anti-Plagiarism Software: The Role of the Library. Journal of Library Administration , 63 (1), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2022.2146445 Ashworth, P., Bannister, P., Thorne, P., & Students On The Qualitative Research Methods Course Unit. (1997). Guilty in whose eyes? University students’ perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment. Studies in Higher Education , 22 (2), 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079712331381034 Awasthi, S. (2019). Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct A Systematic Review. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology , 39 (2), 94–100. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.39.2.13622 Babaii, E., & Nejadghanbar, H. (2017). Plagiarism Among Iranian Graduate Students of Language Studies: Perspectives and Causes. Ethics & Behavior , 27 (3), 240–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2016.1138864 Bensal, E. R., Miraflores, E. S., & Tan, N. C. C. (2013). Plagiarism: Shall we turn to Turnitin. Computer-Assisted Language Learning-Electronic Journal , 14 (2), 2–22. Birks, M., Mills, J., Allen, S., & Tee, S. (2020). Managing the mutations: academic misconduct in Australia, New Zealand and the UK. International Journal for Educational Integrity , 16 (1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-020-00055-5 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3 (2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Bright, K., & Vogler, J. (2024). Learning Online vs. Learning in Person: A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding How Student Preferences and Perceptions have Evolved Since the Pandemic. Online Learning , 28 (4). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v28i4.4565 Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research , 6 (1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (Eighth edition). Routledge. Coneyworth, L., Jessop, R., Maden, P., & White, G. (2020). The overlooked cohort? – Improving the taught postgraduate student experience in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 57 (3), 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1617184 Davis, M. (2012). International postgraduate students’ experiences of plagiarism education in the UK: Student, tutor and expert perspectives. International Journal for Educational Integrity , 8 (2), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.21913/IJEI.v8i2.807 Davis, M. (2022). Examining and improving inclusive practice in institutional academic integrity policies, procedures, teaching and support. International Journal for Educational Integrity , 18 (1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-022-00108-x Denisova-Schmidt, E. (2024). Academic Integrity and International Students: An Inclusive Approach. In S. E. Eaton (Ed.), Second Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 1187–1200). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54144-5_130 Evans, C., Nguyen, T., Richardson, M., & Scott, I. (2018). Managing the transition from undergraduate to taught postgraduate study: perceptions of international students studying in the UK. Research in Post-Compulsory Education , 23 (2), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2018.1444386 Fatemi, G., & Saito, E. (2020). Unintentional plagiarism and academic integrity: The challenges and needs of postgraduate international students in Australia. Journal of Further and Higher Education , 44 (10), 1305–1319. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1683521 Fishman, T. (2009, September 28). “We know it when we see it” is not good enough: toward a standard definition of plagiarism that transcends theft, fraud, and copyright. 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Educational Integrity (4APCEI), University of Wollongong NSW Australia. George, J. W., & Cowan, J. (1999). A handbook of techniques for formative evaluation: Mapping the student’s learning experience . Kogan Page; Stylus Publishing, Inc. Gow, S., & Sun, Q. (2023). Academic Integrity in China: Challenges for Policy, Practice, and Quality Assurance in Higher Education. In S. E. Eaton (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 1–25). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_175-1 Gullifer, J. M., & Tyson, G. A. (2014). Who has read the policy on plagiarism? Unpacking students’ understanding of plagiarism. Studies in Higher Education , 39 (7), 1202–1218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.777412 Halak, B., & El-Hajjar, M. (2019). Design and evaluation of plagiarism prevention and detection techniques in engineering education. Higher Education Pedagogies , 4 (1), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2018.1563757 HESA. (n.d.). HESA - Experts in higher education data and analysis . Retrieved August 1, 2025, from https://www.hesa.ac.uk/ Heussi, A. (2012). Postgraduate student perceptions of the transition into postgraduate study. Student Engagement and Experience Journal , 1 (3), 2047–9476. https://doi.org/10.7190/seej.v1i3.52 Hu, G., & Lei, J. (2015). Chinese University Students’ Perceptions of Plagiarism. Ethics & Behavior , 25 (3), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2014.923313 Husain, F. M., Al-Shaibani, G. K. S., & Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2017). Perceptions of and Attitudes toward Plagiarism and Factors Contributing to Plagiarism: a Review of Studies. Journal of Academic Ethics , 15 (2), 167–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9274-1 Jereb, E., Perc, M., Lämmlein, B., Jerebic, J., Urh, M., Podbregar, I., & Šprajc, P. (2018). Factors influencing plagiarism in higher education: A comparison of German and Slovene students. PLOS ONE , 13 (8), e0202252. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202252 Jung, J., & Li, X. (2021). Exploring motivations of a master’s degree pursuit in Hong Kong. Higher Education Quarterly , 75 (2), 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12276 Kashian, N., Cruz, S. M., Jang, J., & Silk, K. J. (2015). Evaluation of an Instructional Activity to Reduce Plagiarism in the Communication Classroom. Journal of Academic Ethics , 13 (3), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-015-9238-2 Khaleel, F., Ghunmi, L. A., Avdukic, A., Ghunmi, D. A., & Harte, P. (2025). The Delphic ambiguity in academic integrity breaches of international students. Studies in Higher Education , 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2025.2457000 Liu, G., Lu, H., Lin, V., & Hsu, W. (2018). Cultivating undergraduates’ plagiarism avoidance knowledge and skills with an online tutorial system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 34 (2), 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12223 Loveridge, C., Davis, K., & Tasler, N. (2024). A Multi-factorial Approach Towards Tackling Plagiarism: A Comparison Between Attitudes and Perceptions Towards Plagiarism at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught Level . 739–771. https://doi.org/10.22492/issn.2188-1162.2024.58 Maarouf, H. (2019). Pragmatism as a Supportive Paradigm for the Mixed Research Approach: Conceptualizing the Ontological, Epistemological, and Axiological Stances of Pragmatism. International Business Research , 12 (9), 1. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v12n9p1 Magyar, A. E. (2012). Plagiarism and attribution: An academic literacies approach? Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education , 4 . https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.v0i4.141 Mahmud, S., & Ali, I. (2023). Evolution of research on honesty and dishonesty in academic work: a bibliometric analysis of two decades. Ethics & Behavior , 33 (1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2021.2015598 Mbutho, N. P., & Hutchings, C. (2021). The complex concept of plagiarism: Undergraduate and postgraduate student perspectives. Perspectives in Education , 39 (2), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v39.i2.6 McPherson, C., Punch, S., & Graham, E. (2017). Transitions from Undergraduate to Taught Postgraduate Study: Emotion, Integration and Belonging. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice , 5 (2), 42–50. https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v5i2.265 Miranda-Rodríguez, R. A., Sánchez-Nieto, J. M., & Ruiz-Rodríguez, A. K. (2024). Effectiveness of intervention programs in reducing plagiarism by university students: a systematic review. Frontiers in Education , 9 . https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1357853 Mulenga, R., & Shilongo, H. (2024). Academic Integrity in Higher Education: Understanding and Addressing Plagiarism. Acta Pedagogia Asiana , 3 (1). https://doi.org/10.53623/apga.v3i1.337 Nash, J. (2018). Plagiarism, culture, the Middle East and Westernization: a mixed methods study. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives , 15 (1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.18538/lthe.v15.n1.287 Ooms, J. (2026). magick: Advanced Graphics and Image-Processing in R [Computer software]. Perkins, M., Ulas Basar Gezgin, & Gordon, R. D. (2019). Plagiarism in higher education: classification, causes and controls. Pan-Pacific Management Science , 2 , 3–20. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.20694.11841 QAA. (2011). Explaining contact hours. Guidance for institutions providing public information about higher education in the UK. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/contact-hours-guidance.pdf QAA. (2020). Characteristics Statement: Master’s Degree . https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/master's-degree-characteristics-statement.pdf QAA. (2024). The Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree-Awarding Bodies . https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/the-frameworks-for-higher-education-qualifications-of-uk-degree-awarding-bodies-2024.pdf?sfvrsn=3562b281_11 Ronai, K. (2020). Plagiarism Defined? Apples - Journal of Applied Language Studies , 14 (1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.17011/apples/urn.202003282558 Sanger, C. S. (2020). Inclusive Pedagogy and Universal Design Approaches for Diverse Learning Environments. In C. S. Sanger & N. W. Gleason (Eds.), Diversity and Inclusion in Global Higher Education (pp. 31–71). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1628-3_2 Sbaffi, L., & Zhao, X. (2022). Evaluating a pedagogical approach to promoting academic integrity in higher education: An online induction program. Frontiers in Psychology , 13 , 1009305. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1009305 Selemani, A., Chawinga, W. D., & Dube, G. (2018). Why do postgraduate students commit plagiarism? An empirical study. International Journal for Educational Integrity , 14 (1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0029-6 Shannon-Baker, P. (2016). Making Paradigms Meaningful in Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research , 10 (4), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815575861 Simon, D. (2019). Cross-Cultural Differences in Plagiarism: Fact Or Fiction? Duquesne Law Review , 57 (1), 73. https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr/vol57/iss1/6 Stanford HAI. (2025). The 2025 AI Index Report . The 2025 AI Index Report. https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report Suprapto, N., Nurhasan, Simamora, R. M., Mursid, A., & Ardha, M. A. A. (2025). Academic Integrity vs. Academic Misconduct: A Thematic Evolution Through Bibliometrics. Journal of Academic Ethics , 23 (3), 997–1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09580-1 Thompsett, A., & Ahluwalia, J. (2010). Students Turned Off by Turnitin? Perception of Plagiarism and Collusion by Undergraduate Bioscience Students. Bioscience Education , 16 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.16.3 Tran, M. N., Hogg, L., & Marshall, S. (2022). Understanding postgraduate students’ perceptions of plagiarism: a case study of Vietnamese and local students in New Zealand. International Journal for Educational Integrity , 18 (1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00098-2 Tran, T. T. (2012). The perceptions and attitudes of international students towards plagiarism. The ACPET Journal for Private Higher Education , 1 (2), 13–21. Turnitin. (n.d.). Plagiarism Spectrum 2.0 . Retrieved September 17, 2025, from https://www.turnitin.co.uk/instructional-resources/plagiarism-spectrum-2-0 Underwood, J., Truong, T. T., Tai, L. (Elly), & Tra, N. H. (2022, June 15). Supporting International Students to Adjust to Academic Culture in the UK . THINK.IAFOR.ORG. https://think.iafor.org/supporting-international-students-to-adjust-to-academic-culture-in-the-uk/ Wang, F., Huang, R., Wu, J., & Lim, W. M. (2025). Employability of international postgraduate taught students in the UK: A systematic literature review using PRISMA. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling , 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2025.2496173 Watkins, D., & Gioia, D. (2015). Mixed Methods Research . Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199747450.001.0001 Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis . Springer-Verlag. Wickham, H. (2025). stringr: Simple, Consistent Wrappers for Common String Operations [Computer software]. Wickham, H., & Bryan, J. (2025). readxl: Read Excel Files [Computer software]. Wickham, H., François, R., Henry, L., Müller, K., & Vaughan, D. (2025). dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation [Computer software]. Wickham, H., & Henry, L. (2026). purrr: Functional Programming Tools [Computer software]. Wickham, H., Vaughan, D., & Girlich, M. (2026). tidyr: Tidy Messy Data [Computer software].Yang, A., Stockwell, S., & McDonnell, L. (2019). Writing in your own voice: An intervention that reduces plagiarism and common writing problems in students’ scientific writing. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education , 47 (5), 589–598. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21282 Zheng, Q. (2021). Chinese University Students’ Perceptions of the Use and Effectiveness of Turnitin in EAP Writing. International Journal of TESOL Studies , 3 (2), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.46451/ijts.2021.06.04 Tables Tables 1 to 8 are available in the supplementary files section Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files AdditionalFile1.docx Additional File 1 The file format is .docx. This file contains the Unformatted Qualtrics survey with comments. AdditionalFile2.docx Additional File 2 The file format is .docx. This file contains Supplementary Figures S1-S5 and associated legends. These figures comprise stacked bar graphs outlining survey responses to Likert questions. TablesRevised.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 21 Feb, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 27 Jan, 2026 First submitted to journal 26 Jan, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7973068","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":591370543,"identity":"05ef96bd-3195-4649-ad59-f90b71ed478c","order_by":0,"name":"Carolyn Loveridge","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Glasgow","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Carolyn","middleName":"","lastName":"Loveridge","suffix":""},{"id":591370544,"identity":"21be9102-2463-4622-974b-25c6799e1a2c","order_by":1,"name":"Laura Richmond","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Glasgow","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Laura","middleName":"","lastName":"Richmond","suffix":""},{"id":591370545,"identity":"a88f8af0-3bc9-4935-aeec-4ec7967d538f","order_by":2,"name":"Rafael Henry-Venson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Glasgow","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rafael","middleName":"","lastName":"Henry-Venson","suffix":""},{"id":591370547,"identity":"6b2ff3d8-0bc9-434b-8c8b-cff28b6b61d3","order_by":3,"name":"Louise Miller","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Glasgow","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Louise","middleName":"","lastName":"Miller","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-28 18:38:35","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7973068/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7973068/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":102894770,"identity":"83569282-00bb-4b98-ae54-7c778d08d57a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-18 06:13:07","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1520610,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudent perceptions of impact of the “Good Academic Practice in the Biosciences” training resource\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of students’ perceptions of the impact of the \u003cem\u003e“Good Academic Practice in the Biosciences” \u003c/em\u003etraining resource according to location where previous degree was attained [blue = prior degree in UK (PDUK); red = prior degree elsewhere (PDE)]. Shown is a box-whisker plot of Likert question responses. Score represents level of agreement/disagreement with statements which students were asked to consider (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree). Solid line represents the median; upper and lower quartiles are represented by the coloured boxes; whiskers extend to non-outlying values; outliers are represented by data points (filled circles). Kruskal Wallis test was used to compare responses and calculate p values (See Table 5) and those with significance are shown; *: p\u0026lt;0.05, **: p\u0026lt;0.01, ***: p\u0026lt;0.005.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7973068/v1/411b3a52768006dbf45b1cc0.png"},{"id":102963667,"identity":"893d80bb-4f0a-4910-bd21-741bec31ce7d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-19 04:19:53","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1555285,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThematic map illustrating key themes and categories derived from student responses to the Moodle-based academic integrity intervention.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe map visually represents the relationships between three overarching themes -Knowledge and Understanding, Content, and Design- and their associated categories. Overlapping areas indicate interconnected feedback, such as interactivity and visual elements, which span both content and design domains. This structure reflects the complexity of student experiences and highlights areas for targeted improvement.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7973068/v1/33bb5c58f26c8f995caaaf18.png"},{"id":104400550,"identity":"93fc8480-99f7-44ca-a552-b4754718fd80","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-11 12:10:19","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":4136814,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7973068/v1/e73efb71-5a4d-4691-89dc-1b7db045474d.pdf"},{"id":102894766,"identity":"1f0908a8-ce07-4a22-adf0-0416946694ed","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-18 06:13:07","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":35825,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdditional File 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe file format is .docx. This file contains the Unformatted Qualtrics survey with comments.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"AdditionalFile1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7973068/v1/93dffc089e2d330a4fac6666.docx"},{"id":102894769,"identity":"2e1d80af-c232-4065-b905-6c8f9a62ee8d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-18 06:13:07","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":975488,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdditional File 2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe file format is .docx. This file contains Supplementary Figures S1-S5 and associated legends. These figures comprise stacked bar graphs outlining survey responses to Likert questions.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"AdditionalFile2.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7973068/v1/8f555f803ee280d8140b4074.docx"},{"id":102963681,"identity":"c3c9d73a-aea8-4421-85d7-cd504fcbc2bb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-19 04:20:00","extension":"docx","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":51538,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"TablesRevised.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7973068/v1/adb85455713b390a0141cf41.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eEducating for academic integrity: effectiveness of a digital resource on plagiarism awareness among postgraduate bioscience students\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eAcademic integrity is a core principle of higher education institutions to safeguard the value of academic qualifications and ensure a culture of honesty, credibility, and respect (Aaron \u0026amp; Roche, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Suprapto \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2024). Plagiarism, which is regarded as the most common breach of academic integrity, is an ongoing, increasing problem in the global higher education sector (Awasthi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Birks 2020) and a particular challenge at post-graduate taught (PGT) level where students come from varied educational backgrounds (Tran et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Ensuring a consistent and comprehensive understanding of plagiarism among the diversity of PGT students is essential for maintaining standards of academic integrity (Mulenga \u0026amp; Shilongo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Halak \u0026amp; El-Hajjar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). While a small number of studies have examined UK postgraduate students\u0026rsquo; experiences of plagiarism education (Davis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Magyar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), systematic evaluation of structured plagiarism education, particularly in recent years, remains limited (Coneyworth et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This is especially relevant when considering the context in which academic integrity has evolved in the decade or so preceding this paper; varied delivery models, the rise of digital tools, and a significant increase in the international student population, which has more than doubled in the UK over the last 10 years according to the UK Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA, n.d.).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere are recent reports in the literature of higher levels of plagiarism and malpractice among PGT compared to undergraduate (UG), and international compared to domestic students over time (Loveridge et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Khaleel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). As a step to mitigate such concerning trends, we developed and introduced an intervention to promote academic integrity literacy among life science PGT students in our college at our UK-based institution: \u0026ldquo;Good Academic Practice in the Biosciences\u0026rdquo;, a training resource made available on the Moodle virtual learning environment (VLE) that comprises a broad spectrum of academic integrity and plagiarism training components, including a formative assessment which students are required to pass to complete the course. In this study, we evaluated the intervention with regards to its impact on attitudes and perspectives towards plagiarism behaviour among life science PGT students.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe begin this paper by reviewing the literature, starting with definitions of academic integrity and plagiarism followed by an overview of the underlying reasons for plagiarism behaviour and an outline of specific considerations for PGT students. We then provide a brief overview of the current intervention, what informed its introduction, and detail the aims and research questions of the present study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Literature Review\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.1 Definitions \u0026ndash; what are academic integrity and plagiarism?\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen considering matters of academic integrity and plagiarism, it is first important to define what these are. Academic integrity is described by Suprapto \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. (2024, p2) as \u0026ldquo;the ethical foundation upon which scholarly pursuits are built, encompassing honesty, trust, and responsibility in academic endeavours\u0026rdquo; which necessitates \u0026ldquo;upholding principles of fairness, originality, and proper attribution in research, writing, and other academic activities\u0026rdquo;. Academic misconduct relates to unethical behaviours which result in a breach of this code of conduct (Mahmud \u0026amp; Ali, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). We align with the definition of plagiarism by Ronai (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, p31) as a sub-set of academic misconduct that can involve the following six elements, \u0026ldquo;(i) an object, (ii) which has been taken (borrowed or stolen), (iii) from a particular source, (iv) by an agent, (v) without (adequate) acknowledgement, and (vi) with or without intention to deceive\u0026rdquo;. To add to this, the \u0026lsquo;object\u0026rsquo; could be text, style or ideas (Halak \u0026amp; El-Hajjar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTurnitin, a globally-employed academic integrity tool, documents twelve forms of plagiarism on the \u0026lsquo;Plagiarism Spectrum 2.0\u0026rsquo; (Turnitin, n.d.) which fall under three categories: (i) foundational misconduct (AI misuse; poor paraphrasing; inadvertent plagiarism; verbatim copying without acknowledgement of sources; collusion), (ii) complex plagiarism (self-plagiarism, mosaic plagiarism where phrases are generated using text from different sources; source-based plagiarism where references do not exist), and (iii) advanced misconduct (manual text modification to avoid detection by plagiarism software; contract cheating; fabricating or using data without permission; automated text modification either by another person or a large learning model such as a translation tool).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlagiarism is a highly complex phenomenon not only because there are the multiple forms which it can take, but there is also the matter of intent on behalf of the individual who engages in the behaviour (Fishman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Although some acts are deliberate, it is recognised that plagiarism can be accidental or unintentional (Gullifer \u0026amp; Tyson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). The complexity of plagiarism is further compounded by various factors which have been identified as contributing to this behaviour (Mbutho \u0026amp; Hutchings, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Hussain, 2017; Yang \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2019; Jereb et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), including: (i) institutional frameworks and policies on matters of academic integrity (e.g. University policy does not discriminate between intentional and unintentional plagiarism when cases are reviewed and sanctioned), (ii) the level of students\u0026rsquo; academic skills (e.g. ability to reference the work of others, express their own ideas and synthesise the work of others into their own words), (iii) cultural differences (e.g. language barrier), (iv) external pressures (e.g. part-time employment, caring responsibilities, family pressure to succeed), (v) personal traits (e.g. being lazy), (vi) the rise of information technology and (v) socio-political factors (e.g. wars, pandemics).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.2 Plagiarism and PGT Level\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is important to recognise that factors contributing to plagiarism may have a variable impact upon students at different levels of study. Increasing numbers of students are undertaking master\u0026rsquo;s level study to gain specialist knowledge and skills to enhance their employment prospects in a competitive job market (Evans et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Jung \u0026amp; Li, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In the UK, data from HESA indicates that the total number of students undertaking PGT study has significantly increased from ~\u0026thinsp;470,000 in 2017-18 to ~\u0026thinsp;728,000 in 2023-24 (HESA, n.d.). Within this cohort, the percentage of international students has increased from ~\u0026thinsp;27% to ~\u0026thinsp;53% of total PGT students, highlighting the growing diversity that exists among PGT students. For this reason, PGT students cannot be treated as a homogeneous group given that they come from a variety of cultural and previous educational backgrounds. Such diversity will inevitably include differences in their perceptions, knowledge, understanding, experience and ability surrounding academic practice and plagiarism (Tran et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePGT study is recognised as having complexity and unique challenges. Firstly, there is an underlying presumption that PGT students are \u0026lsquo;experts\u0026rsquo; by virtue of having completed an undergraduate education (Heussi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). However, it is noted by McPherson et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e, p42) that the transition to PGT study is associated with a period of \u0026ldquo;anxiety, self-doubt and disorientation\". International students face obvious challenges from negotiating changes in both culture/environment and level of study. It is noted by Evans et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) that approximately 6 months is required for students to adjust to PGT level study. Furthermore, Coneyworth et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) highlight that it takes approximately 10 months for students to adapt to their new country and cultural and learning environment. These time frames are highly significant given the short and intensive nature of a taught master\u0026rsquo;s degree in the UK, which is typically 12 months in duration (QAA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Wang, 2025). Second, even domestic students who have completed an UG degree at the same institution are noted to find the transition to PGT study as anxiety-inducing (Coneyworth et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), suggesting the change in level of study is a particular challenge.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAligning with UK sector standards (QAA, 2024), there are several key differences between PGT and UG or doctoral level study. First, reflecting the more advanced level of study, there is an expectation at postgraduate level for students to engage in more independent study compared to UG level, which may be associated with less contact hours with academic staff (QAA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Second, students are required to demonstrate criticality and formulate and synthesise their own ideas based upon their assessment of the available literature (Evans et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Third, PGT students may be studying a different subject to which they took at UG level. Fourth, there may be a long gap between a student\u0026rsquo;s prior education and PGT study, meaning that they are more likely to be older (Heussi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). For this reason, external factors (e.g. caring responsibilities; necessity to undertake part-time employment for financial support; pressure to pass due to scholarship award) may be more significant for PGT students (Coneyworth, 2020; Mbutho \u0026amp; Hutchings, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, unlike doctoral research students, there is little opportunity for PGT students to integrate into the institution\u0026rsquo;s research community as they only complete a short research project at the end of their master\u0026rsquo;s programme of study (McPherson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the diversity of the PGT student population, it is important to highlight ongoing debate in the literature about the influence of culture on plagiarism behaviour. Eastern cultures e.g. China, Japan, Korea, are viewed as being \u0026lsquo;collectivist\u0026rsquo; in nature, which place an emphasis on the combined actions and knowledge of individuals within larger social groupings, whereas Western cultures e.g. USA, UK, Australia, are \u0026lsquo;individualist\u0026rsquo; whereby people are accountable for their own actions, behaviour and knowledge (Nash, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). At Western institutions, generalisations often made about Asian cultures include that (i) plagiarism is acceptable in Eastern society (Gow and Sun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), (ii) that \u0026ldquo;plagiarism of a teacher or person of authority is a virtue, a sign of respect: the student is simply reproducing what the student knows to be true\u0026rdquo; (Simon ,2019, p77) and (iii) the act of memorization and rote learning practices are connected to plagiarism behaviour with respect to failure to cite sources of information (Nash, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). However, such stereotypical views have been challenged. Gow and Sun (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) highlight that plagiarism is consistently condemned in China. Furthermore, Hu and Lei (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e, p236) stress that plagiarism among Asian and other students with English as a second language is \u0026ldquo;.... consequential on a complex of factors such as different conceptions of plagiarism, limited knowledge of illegitimate intertextuality, insufficient command of the target language, pedagogical practices, and various other situational variables\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollectively, the unique and complex challenges faced by international PGT students in particular may have the potential to impact plagiarism behaviour.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Overview of the Current Intervention\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA previous study at a UK institution that analysed data from their institution\u0026rsquo;s academic senate on the number of cases of plagiarism among life sciences students over a period of time demonstrated statistically significantly more plagiarism in (i) PGT than UG students; (ii) international students compared to UK students (p values\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 for comparisons within session 2016-17 and session 2021-22 respectively) (Loveridge et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Levels of plagiarism were also significantly higher within level of study and nationality demographic sub-groupings when comparing levels in 2016-17 to those in 2021\u0026ndash;2022 (p values\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Furthermore, additional findings from that study identified key recommendations for educators to adopt to help mitigate plagiarism, including the necessity for enhancement of current educational approaches to support students\u0026rsquo; knowledge and understanding of plagiarism and how to avoid it (Babaii \u0026amp; Nejadghanbar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Kashian et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Perkins et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address such concerning trends of rising levels of plagiarism among PGT students and recommendations to enhance educational provision on academic integrity, we initially carried out an audit of plagiarism guidance provision in our college. We identified various sources of guidance and resources that were being signposted and used, which included: (i) central University documents on plagiarism policy; (ii) central resources from Student Learning and Development (SLD) service on plagiarism, academic writing skills, and using Turnitin; (iii) personal resources developed by academic staff which they used during their own programme and/or course inductions. Furthermore, we found that some of these documents and resources were difficult to navigate to, which could lead to confusion and disengagement of students with the materials.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn light of the findings from the audit, we developed a new training resource made available via the Moodle VLE, \u0026ldquo;Good Academic Practice in the Biosciences\u0026rdquo; which was rolled out to all life sciences PGT students within our college in September 2022 as a non-mandatory component of PGT courses. This resource provides information and links to academic integrity and plagiarism training resources in one place, aiding student accessibility to these resources in addition to the key goal of enhancing students\u0026rsquo; knowledge and understanding of plagiarism and how to avoid it. Students can work through the resource at their own pace, but it is a requirement that they complete and pass an assessment quiz at the end to demonstrate their understanding prior to completion of the first assessment on their programme of study. By having the materials and assessment quiz on Moodle, we as staff can also monitor student\u0026rsquo; engagement with the resource.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Aim and research questions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe overall aim of this project was to evaluate the views of life science PGT students regarding the content of the \u0026ldquo;Good Academic Practice in the Biosciences\u0026rdquo; training resource and its impact on their attitudes and perspectives towards plagiarism behaviour. We were particularly interested in students\u0026rsquo; perceptions regarding (i) the amount and level of content of the training resource and (ii) whether their knowledge and understanding of plagiarism and how to avoid it had improved after completing the course.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study sought to extend existing research on plagiarism education in the postgraduate context but offering a large-scale evaluation of an academic integrity training intervention for PGT students. Unlike much of the previous literature, which often focuses on small cohorts, single programmes of study, or qualitative accounts only, our study draws from a large and diverse PGT population enrolled on a multitude of MSc programmes across the life sciences. By including both domestic and international students, and situating the analysis within the current state of an ever-evolving UK HE landscape, this study offers timely empirical evidence that compliments earlier works.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Theoretical and Methodological Stance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlagiarism is a highly complex phenomenon with multiple forms and underlying contributing factors. For this reason, our research methodology is rooted pragmatism (Shannon-Baker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) and intersubjectivism (Maarouf, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) as we believe that tackling plagiarism requires multiple perspectives, interpretations and viewpoints to be considered in order to address it.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Study design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address the research questions of this study, both quantitative and qualitative elements of data were required. We were particularly interested to make comparisons between responses for different demographic sub-groups according to nationality and so quantitative data and analyses were necessary (Cohen \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2018). We also wanted to gain more detailed insight concerning the students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the resource. For this, qualitative data was important (George and Cowan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). Taking this into consideration, we opted to conduct an online survey with both closed (Likert-style) and open-ended questions to generate both quantitative and qualitative data respectively as this is a well-established and recognised method for this purpose (Cohen \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2018). The combination of the two types of data allows for triangulation and complementarity, providing us with a greater understanding than either type of data on its own (e.g. Bryman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Watkins \u0026amp; Gioia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Ethical Considerations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e This study was approved by our College\u0026rsquo;s Ethics Committee (project number: 200220393) according to our institution\u0026rsquo;s policies. Participants provided informed consent via the online survey platform, Qualtrics, prior to answering the survey, in line with British Educational Research Association (BERA) guidelines.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Participant Recruitment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA convenience sampling approach was adopted due to the relative ease of access to students\u0026rsquo; enrolment information. All PGT students enrolled in courses within our college during 2023\u0026ndash;2024 academic year (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1224) were invited to partake in the study via institutional email. This strategy assumes that only a subset of the overall student population will opt to participate, which is a limitation to acknowledge, as the resulting sample may not be generalisable to the broader population.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5 Data collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe online survey was developed using Qualtrics (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.qualtrics.com\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.qualtrics.com\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) to assess students\u0026rsquo; self-reported perceptions and behaviour regarding plagiarism with respect to the following: (i) knowledge and understanding of plagiarism and how to avoid it; (ii) academic skills and referencing; (iii) using Turnitin and (iv) the content and design of the Moodle training resource. The full survey is available in Additional File 1. The survey included Likert-scale and open-text items, as well as some demographic questions (e.g. nationality, location of where previous degree was completed). The survey was made available to the students after completion of the course and was active from 04.03.2024 to 22.03.2024.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.6 Data analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants who provided consent but only partially completed the survey were still included in subsequent analyses. Quantitative data analyses were performed using SPSS [Version 29.0.1.0 (171). Descriptive statistics, where responses were grouped according to demographics e.g. location where previous degree was completed, were evaluated using \u0026lsquo;cross-tabs\u0026rsquo; function. The Kruskal\u0026ndash;Wallis test was employed to compare differences in responses between demographic sub-groups, as the data were ordinal (e.g., Likert-scale ratings) and did not meet the assumptions of normality required for parametric tests. Graphs were generated using either SPSS or R version 2025.09.2 with the following packages: readxl (Wickham and Bryan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), dplyr (Wickham et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), tidyr (Wickham et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e), ggplot2 (Wickham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), purr (Wickham and Henry, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e), stringr (Wickham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), and magick (Ooms, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOpen responses were analysed qualitatively using thematic analyses method by Braun and Clarke (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Data were coded deductively under preset themes of \u0026ldquo;knowledge and understanding\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;content\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;design\u0026rdquo;. The process was done independently by two researchers followed by discussion to refine the identified themes which emerged. Answers that were not related to the resource itself were excluded (for instance, a general comment about Moodle or comments on other Moodle courses).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to thematic analysis, all open-text responses were analysed and categorised into five groups in terms of sentiment: Positive, Neutral, Negative, Negative but not towards the Moodle course, and Mixed. Below, there is a list of examples of statements that would allow for comments to be categorised into specific groups:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003ePositive: \u0026ldquo;Easy access\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eNeutral: \u0026ldquo;It would be helpful if you could provide more information on the various categories of text...\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eNegative: \u0026ldquo;...lacks clarity\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e Negative but not towards the Moodle course: \u0026ldquo;Whilst writing with AI is of course forbidden, guidelines about using it within other areas of studies should be made clearer to students\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eMixed: \u0026ldquo;Although the online self-paced classes were convenient, I would've preferred there to be in-person classes\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the following \u0026ldquo;umbrella\u0026rdquo; mentions were looked for in each open-ended answer:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the question \u0026ldquo;What would you like to know more about with respect to plagiarism? Is there anything else you would like to add?\u0026rdquo;, any mentions to the quiz or on the design of the resource were counted.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the question \u0026ldquo;What enhancements could be made to the content of the Moodle for the benefit of students and why?\u0026rdquo;, mentions to clarity and length of the Moodle course were recorded.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach response could have assigned to it one or more \u0026ldquo;mentions\u0026rdquo;, and the frequency of mentions for each response was recorded. For the sentiment categorisation, all answers were taken into account for the calculation. For the umbrella mentions, only answers that related to the questions were taken into consideration (for instance, for \u0026ldquo;What did you find was beneficial with respect to the design of the Moodle and why?\u0026rdquo; the answer \u0026ldquo;Content and they are very informative\u0026rdquo; does not answer the question and therefore was not included in the analysis of umbrella terms; however, this is still an answer with a positive sentiment, and was considered in this part of the analysis). This semi-quantitative perspective approach complemented the qualitative findings, highlighting the relative prominence of key issues raised by students.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.1\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Quantitative Analyses\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe have a high percentage demographic of international students in our college at our institution – this was 63.9% in 2023-24 academic year when the survey was conducted. Given this observation and in light of the considerations for plagiarism linked to student nationality which we highlighted in the introduction, quantitative analyses of ‘closed’ Likert-style survey questions were performed to investigate if there were any statistically significant differences in online survey responses between participants who had a previous degree (PD) from the UK (PDUK) compared to those who had a previously completed a degree elsewhere (PDE) prior to commencing their PGT studies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere was a total of 139 participants for the online survey, representing a response rate of 11.4%. Of the 139 participants, 33 (23.7%) identified as being from the UK; 105 (75.5%) indicated they were international students and 1 preferred not to state their nationality. With regards to location where participants completed their previous degree, 48 (34.5%) had done so in the UK with the remaining 91 participants (65.5%) having completed this elsewhere.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.1.1\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Knowledge and Understanding of Plagiarism\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo assess students’ knowledge and understanding of plagiarism, participants were first asked a series of questions relating to their understanding of plagiarism and how they should avoid it (Additional File 2; Figure S1). The majority of PDUK and PDE students agreed or strongly agreed that they understood (i) what plagiarism is; (ii) what the University’s rules and regulations are and how to find these, (iii) expectations of students with respect to academic conduct (iv) the impact and potential consequences of plagiarism; (v) where to find help and (vi) the steps which they should take to avoid it (Table 1; Median = 4-5). There were no statistically significant differences between PDUK and PDE students for these questions. However, PDE students scored significantly lower than PDUK students with respect to having enough knowledge and skills to help them avoid plagiarism (Table 1; Median = 4 vs 5; p=0.036).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNext, students were provided with a list of six scenarios and asked to what degree of certainty they considered these to be plagiarism (Additional File 2; Figure S2). For four of these scenarios (3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6), both PDUK and PDE students were able to correctly identify with a high degree of certainty that these statements outlined what would be regarded as plagiarism (Table 2; Median = 5). For one scenario (3.2, Listing sources in the reference list but not acknowledging them in the assignment), both PDUK and PDE students correctly identified this as plagiarism but with less confidence (Median = 4). For the remaining statement (3.3), PDE students were significantly less certain than PDUK students that ‘changing the order of words in a sentence taken directly from a source’ constitutes plagiarism (Table 2; Median = 4 vs 5; p=0.046).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.1.2\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Academic Skills and Referencing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were next asked about their academic skills and ability to reference sources (Additional File 2; Figure S3). The results in Table 3 demonstrate that with regards to writing concepts in their own words, both PDUK and PDE students agreed that they found this easy and that doing so would help them to get higher marks (Median = 4). The majority of PDUK and PDE students agreed that they have academic skills/abilities to (i) acknowledge; (ii) quote from, (iii) paraphrase material from, (iv) critically appraise, (v) synthesise and integrate material from multiple sources (Median = 4). However, when asked about referencing, PDE students scored significantly lower than PDUK students for knowing: how to integrate sources into their own writing, what the key referencing styles are for the discipline and how to prepare a reference list of cited work (Median = 4 vs 5; p \u0026lt; 0.05).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.1.3\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Use of Turnitin\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur university’s regulations necessitate our students to submit assignments via Turnitin, which checks submissions for potential plagiarism from published sources. Students are provided with the opportunity to submit a draft of each assignment via Turnitin and so it is essential that they are able to use Turnitin and interpret the reports which it provides. Participants were thus asked a series of questions relating to the use of Turnitin (Additional File 2; Figure S4). The results in Table 4 indicate that both PDUK and PDE students agree or strongly agree that they know how to use Turnitin and navigate and interpret the report generated with respect to identifying potential problems in their work (Median = 4-5). However, while PDUK students correctly disagreed that a low Turnitin score would indicate they have not plagiarised, PDE students were neutral (Median = 2 vs 3; p=0.008), indicating they were less certain about the meaning of a low score.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.1.4\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Impact of Resource on Student Understanding of Plagiarism and How to Avoid It\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo evaluate the impact of the content and design of the resource, the final section of the online survey asked questions surrounding whether elements of the resource were beneficial to enhance students’ knowledge and understanding of plagiarism and how to avoid it (Additional File 2; Figure S5). Strikingly, in nine out of the ten questions in this section, scores were significantly higher among PDE students compared to PDUK students (Median = 4; p \u0026lt;0.05) (Figure 1; Table 5), suggesting they perceive the resource to be more useful with regards to enhancing their knowledge and skills to avoid plagiarism. The majority of both PDUK and PDE students agreed that the content was detailed, engaging, well-structured and that the one-page summary was a useful reference.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.2\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Qualitative Analyses\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThematic analysis was conducted on student responses to five free-text questions:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;What would you like to know more about with respect to plagiarism? Is there anything else you would like to add?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;What did you find was beneficial about the content of the Moodle and why?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;What enhancements could be made to the content of the Moodle for the benefit of students and why?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;What did you find was beneficial with respect to the design of the Moodle and why?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;What enhancements to the design of the Moodle could be made for the benefit of students and why?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBroadly, responses to Q1 (n=24 after data cleaning) were grouped under an overarching “knowledge and understanding” theme, responses to Q2 and Q3 (n=69 after data cleaning) under “content” and responses to Q4 and Q5 (n=54 after cleaning) under “design”. If a response fell under more than one overarching theme, it was included in each relevant theme. For the purposes of reporting, due to significant overlap between content and design themes, these are combined under one subsection. Figure 2 illustrates these relationships between the main themes and subthemes further.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, student feedback indicated that the Moodle resource was perceived as both helpful and user-friendly, with many appreciating its clarity, self-paced structure, and accessibility. Despite these positive impressions, the thematic analysis uncovered several areas where students felt the resource could be enhanced. These included gaps in understanding key academic integrity concepts, limitations in content depth, and design features. The following sections outline these findings in detail, organised by theme and subtheme, with further representative quotes highlighted in Table 6.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.2.1\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Knowledge and Understanding of Plagiarism\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eGaps in Understanding and Identifying Plagiarism\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen queried on areas of plagiarism which they would like to know more about, a prominent theme was confusion about where the boundaries of plagiarism lie, especially in more nuanced scenarios. Notably, of the students who answered, many (n = 15) cited ongoing difficulties in understanding or properly identifying plagiarism in their own work. One particular area of concern was self-plagiarism:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e“The concept of self-plagiarism remained vague to me no matter how much I read about it”\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, students highlighted challenges in identifying plagiarism in highly technical or discipline-specific content. Some also noted that they were unsure how to avoid accidental plagiarism, particularly when absorbing academic language during reading and writing tasks:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e“differences between paraphrasing and types of accidental plagiarism and how to avoid them while writing”\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e“it's easy to read a paper or an article and have that language imprinted in your mind when writing your own essay”\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eChallenges with Academic Referencing Conventions\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDifficulties with adhering to academic referencing conventions were also common, with n = 10 of the Q1 responses mentioning this. Students requested more support in mastering citation styles and formatting references across disciplines. In line with this, content suggestions in Q4 included more comprehensive referencing guides tailored to their discipline, as well as activities that allowed for practical application of academic writing conventions:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e“References to non-traditional papers, such as websites could do with better explanation”\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003ePreference for Support and Delivery\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile the self-paced, online format was appreciated, there was a clear preference among some students for in-person support to complement the digital resource. Students felt that live workshops would offer valuable opportunities for clarification, real-time practice and feedback:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e“More in-person and online zoom sessions, along with many activities and quizzes”\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs mentioned above, several participants also requested clearer and more discipline-specific examples to bridge general academic principles with field-specific expectations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eConcerns About AI Tools and Detection Technologies\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSome responses also demonstrated uncertainty regarding the appropriate use of AI tools such as ChatGPT and Grammarly. Rather than expressing outright opposition in all instances, students highlighted a lack of clarity around guidelines governing AI-assisted writing. This ambiguity led to concerns about unintentionally breaching academic integrity policies, and the potential disadvantage to students who\u0026nbsp;don’t\u0026nbsp;use these tools vs those who do:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e“I do think that students who do not use AI are at a considerable disadvantage compared to those who do”\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTurnitin was mentioned by several students, both positively and negatively. While some sought more opportunity to learn from Turnitin similarity scores, others expressed concern about the reliability of its algorithm in accurately detecting plagiarism. One student questioned whether Turnitin could distinguish between genuinely plagiarised content and coincidental similarities, highlighting a perceived limitation in the system’s detection capabilities:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e“there have been several times that occasional sentences in my work have resembled those of others - sometimes there's only one way of saying certain things”\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eConfusion on University Integrity Policy\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn-keeping with this, students highlighted inconsistencies in university messaging around academic integrity, particularly concerning AI use. There was a shared view that current messaging was either lacking or unclear, and a desire for stronger institutional expectations. Suggestions included clearer communication around academic misconduct procedures and more robust enforcement of academic integrity policies:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e“I've read and understand the [institution’s] guidance on AI, but I think there are many loopholes and grey areas”\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.2.2\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Content and Design Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eApplication to Learning\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe real-world application of the user content to respondents learning was a highly referenced benefit of the Moodle resource, with n = 15 respondents commenting positively on the application of the content to their learning experience. Interactive elements such as quizzes and real-life examples were\u0026nbsp;highlighted as beneficial features that reinforced key concepts and allowed for practical application:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e“gave examples that helped me understand what was expected of me”\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e“updated my understanding (previous degree was started almost 20 years ago) and helped me navigate the university's policies”\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, there were requests for more practical examples and further guidance on aspects such as referencing and Turnitin as highlighted previously.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eClarity, Accessibility and Ease of Use\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe feedback from students was largely positive in relation to the use of the resource, with many highlighting the clarity of the content (n = 15), as well as its ease of use (n = 10). This desire for quick,\u0026nbsp;concise learning was further reflected in a small number of students who suggested that content could be even more concise:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e“I think a little more concise. Will be easier to remember.”\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eVisual and Design\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudents consistently cited the clean and simple design of the resource as one area which promoted its ease of use and support of their learning. Interactive and engaging elements, as discussed previously, were praised for their engagement and there was a clear desire for more of these formats, with more engaging visual elements such as infographics, animations, and shorter videos recommended to further enhance learning.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e“Photographs or pictures of example can be presented with animation to be more attractive and memorable to watch.”\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eBarriers to Inclusivity\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA small number of participants who identified in their responses as being neurodivergent and/or had specific learning differences (such as dyslexia, ADHD, or colour blindness) highlighted barriers related to layout, colour contrast, and navigation. Others requested downloadable versions of key resources to accommodate poor internet connectivity and varied learning preferences.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e“As a dyslexia I know you can change the appearance but I find it hard to find stuff and it can feel overwhelming”\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.3\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Semi-Quantitative Analyses\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSentiment categorisation of open-text responses showed that the majority of comments were either positive or neutral regarding the Moodle resource. Specifically, 40% of all responses (n=75) were classified as positive, often highlighting aspects such as ease of access, clarity, and usefulness. A further 39% (n=73) were categorised as neutral, typically offering suggestions for improvement without explicitly positive or negative framing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, 8% (n=15) of responses were negative, generally relating to perceptions of limited clarity or insufficient depth in certain areas. An additional 3% (n=5) of responses were coded as negative but not directly towards the Moodle course, instead expressing concerns about broader institutional policies or practices or about Moodle itself. Finally, 9% (n=17) were coded as mixed, reflecting both positive and negative elements within a single comment. Overall, this distribution indicates that student perceptions of the Moodle resource were predominantly positive or neutral, with comparatively few negative views expressed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 7 presents a semi-quantitative overview of umbrella mentions. While many participants submitted responses, not all provided substantive answers to each question (for example, some entries were only “.”. The table includes the proportion of responses that meaningfully addressed each question.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eOverall, our findings show that our intervention was effective in enhancing students\u0026rsquo; understanding of plagiarism and related academic skills, especially for students who had not previously studied in the UK. This is consistent with prior research that showed these students are more vulnerable to unintentional plagiarism due to lack of familiarity with local academic conventions and perceived difficulty in understanding related documentation (Davis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Our data suggests that targeted support may be a good strategy to mitigate accidental academic misconduct. Indeed, international students reported perceiving the resource developed as more beneficial than their UK peers, underscoring its value as a levelling tool to promote not only good academic literacy but also a more equal and inclusive education, which can be targeted in a culturally sensitive way, across a diverse cohort of students. Fatemi and Saito (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, p1307) highlight that \u0026ldquo;.... universities are required to understand their students, especially those who come from different academic and cultural backgrounds, so that they can provide more effective support and promote the highest standards of academic integrity among students\u0026rdquo;. Furthermore, Magyar (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) and more recently Denisova-Schmidt (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) emphasises that because prior education and English language ability are significant challenges faced by international students, inclusive approaches are essential to support them with respect to academic integrity matters.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur quantitative analysis identifies that although most students state they understand the principles of plagiarism, international students still report lower confidence in key skills including referencing and interpreting Turnitin outputs. Qualitative feedback reinforces these findings, with students highlighting concerns and confusion around self- and accidental plagiarism. This lack of knowledge, skills, confidence, confusion and uncertainty may be indicative of unintentional plagiarism due to unfamiliarity with UK educational norms, a perception that is also noted by Underwood et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Other studies also report a superficial understanding of plagiarism among students (Ashworth et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Selemani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and that international students have limited referencing skills (Tran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Our findings linked to student perceptions of Turnitin are likely reflective that in trying to avoid a high score (which is equated with plagiarism), students\u0026rsquo; lack understanding of the concept of what similarity means versus plagiarism (Bensal \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2014). Zheng (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) have reported that over 80% of Chinese students experience anxiety surrounding the Turnitin score and Thompsett and Ahluwalia (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) document that students at their British institution did not find Turnitin easy to use and that they placed undue significance on the level of the Turnitin score. We concur with recommendations reported by Alua et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) that additional training should be provided to students relating to using Turnitin, including how to interpret similarity reports.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, our findings are somewhat disparate to a recent study by Khaleel et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) at a UK institution which found that the type of plagiarism which international students are most likely to carry out is malpractice (which would be considered intentional in nature) as opposed to negligence (which could be unintentional due to lack of understanding) or misconduct (a serious breach of the rules). It would be of interest as part of future work to analyse senate data from our institution in detail to see what types of misconduct are most prevalent and the kind of assessments which are being sanctioned.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother emerging point in the qualitative analysis was the concern around AI use. The subject of AI was beyond the scope of this paper as at the time the survey was completed, the state and usage of the technology was lower than at present and there was no clear institutional policy concerning its use. Guidance on AI use had not been incorporated into the resource and so we did not ask any direct questions about it as part of the survey. However, there was indication from student open responses that they had uncertainty about use of AI and Institutional guidelines on this subject, reflecting wider debates around AI and good academic practice. We recognise there have been rapid advancements in capability of AI technology and exponential growth in its use since this study began (Stanford HAI, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), which combined with our findings highlights an urgent need for clear, consistent institutional policies and explicit guidance for students.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur qualitative findings highlight the ease of access, clarity, and usefulness of our online academic integrity training resource to international students in particular. These results are in keeping with those of Sbaffi and Zhao (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) who identified similar factors (accessibility, usefulness and understandability) had improved when evaluating perceptions of existing resources compared to a new online induction programme on academic integrity matters, which was introduced to a large cohort of PGT students.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough many students praised the online format for its ease of use and access, there were those with a clear preference for face-to-face or blended sessions. This contrast may indicate the presence of two distinct learner profiles: one that values efficiency and autonomy, and another that benefits from structured, face-to-face engagement. This notion is supported by Bright and Vogler\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) study which found that student preference for learning modality since the pandemic was linked to reasons including support to aid self-regulation and the opportunity to interact with others (peers and staff) in the case of face-to-face learning and the degree of flexibility offered by online learning. Training programmes may need to accommodate both styles to be fully inclusive. Indeed, Sanger (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) highlights two frameworks, inclusive pedagogy and universal design for learning, which emphasise the importance of making learning accessible to all and supporting the diversity of learner needs through multiple approaches respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough our study did not assess the impact of the Moodle resource on incidence of plagiarism cases, we argue that it has the potential to reduce numbers of these cases and improve overall good academic practice. Findings from a recent systematic review of previous studies that developed similar academic integrity educational training resources documents that these obtained success in reducing plagiarism cases (Miranda-Rodr\u0026iacute;guez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Future research could explore this potential more directly and a longitudinal design could track changes in behaviour or misconduct cases to assess real impact of the Moodle resource.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur study has limitations, including the reliance on convenience sampling and voluntary participation, both of which introduce potential bias by limiting the diversity of the sample and increasingly the likelihood that participants differ systemically from the wider population. Future studies should relate self-reported knowledge or cognitive gains in good academic practice to actual plagiarism incidence or student behaviour. Second, because our study is based in one College at one University means that results may not be generalizable to other contexts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion and Recommendations","content":"\u003cp\u003eStudent feedback indicates that the Moodle resource was clear, accessible, and effective in promoting understanding of plagiarism and academic integrity, particularly among international students with less familiarity with UK conventions. While the self-paced and interactive elements were widely appreciated, students highlighted ongoing challenges with nuanced aspects of plagiarism and referencing. The emergence of AI-assisted writing tools introduced novel concerns, underscoring the need for clear institutional guidance. Preferences for face-to-face engagement and accessibility concerns suggest that future training should offer flexible delivery and better support diverse learning needs. Overall the resource shows promise as a levelling tool to promote inclusive academic literacy, but further development is required.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the findings from the qualitative and quantitative analysis, several targeted actions are proposed to improve the effectiveness and inclusivity of the Moodle academic integrity resource. These recommendations address specific content and design enhancements, including clearer explanations of citation practices, more explicit guidance on emerging challenges such as AI-assisted tools, and strategies for supporting diverse student groups. These findings highlight the value of early, compulsory engagement with academic integrity training, particularly for students without prior UK academic experience, who reported the greatest benefit from the resource and remain at higher risk of plagiarism. The actions outlined in Table 8 provide practical guidance for institutions seeking to strengthen postgraduate plagiarism education by adopting similar learning resources, and focus on improving student engagement and ensuring equitable access for all learners.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e10.1 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was approved by our College\u0026rsquo;s Ethics Committee (project number: 200220393) according to our institution\u0026rsquo;s policies. Participants provided informed consent via the online survey platform, Qualtrics, prior to answering the online survey. Prior to consent, participants were informed of the purpose, procedures, and voluntary nature of the study, and were assured of their right to withdraw at any point without penalty. A data protection impact assessment was completed and data management plan implemented throughout the research process to maintain confidentiality and anonymity of participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e10.2 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Funding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo funding or financial support was received, ensuring the objectivity and independence of the research process and its findings.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAaron, L. S., \u0026amp; Roche, C. M. (2013). Stemming the Tide of Academic Dishonesty in Higher Education: It Takes a Village. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Educational Technology Systems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(2), 161\u0026ndash;196. https://doi.org/10.2190/ET.42.2.h\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAlua, M. A., Asiedu, N. K., \u0026amp; Bumbie-Chi, D. M. (2023). Students\u0026rsquo; Perception on Plagiarism and Usage of Turnitin Anti-Plagiarism Software: The Role of the Library. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Library Administration\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e63\u003c/em\u003e(1), 119\u0026ndash;136. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2022.2146445\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAshworth, P., Bannister, P., Thorne, P., \u0026amp; Students On The Qualitative Research Methods Course Unit. (1997). Guilty in whose eyes? University students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(2), 187\u0026ndash;203. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079712331381034\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAwasthi, S. (2019). Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct A Systematic Review. \u003cem\u003eDESIDOC Journal of Library \u0026amp; Information Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(2), 94\u0026ndash;100. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.39.2.13622\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBabaii, E., \u0026amp; Nejadghanbar, H. (2017). Plagiarism Among Iranian Graduate Students of Language Studies: Perspectives and Causes. \u003cem\u003eEthics \u0026amp; Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(3), 240\u0026ndash;258. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2016.1138864\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBensal, E. R., Miraflores, E. S., \u0026amp; Tan, N. C. C. (2013). Plagiarism: Shall we turn to Turnitin. \u003cem\u003eComputer-Assisted Language Learning-Electronic Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(2), 2\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBirks, M., Mills, J., Allen, S., \u0026amp; Tee, S. (2020). Managing the mutations: academic misconduct in Australia, New Zealand and the UK. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal for Educational Integrity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-020-00055-5\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(2), 77\u0026ndash;101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBright, K., \u0026amp; Vogler, J. (2024). Learning Online vs. Learning in Person: A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding How Student Preferences and Perceptions have Evolved Since the Pandemic. \u003cem\u003eOnline Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(4).\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v28i4.4565\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 97\u0026ndash;113.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877Cohen, L., Manion, L., \u0026amp; Morrison, K. (2018). \u003cem\u003eResearch methods in education\u003c/em\u003e (Eighth edition). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eConeyworth, L., Jessop, R., Maden, P., \u0026amp; White, G. (2020). The overlooked cohort? \u0026ndash; Improving the taught postgraduate student experience in higher education. \u003cem\u003eInnovations in Education and Teaching International\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(3), 262\u0026ndash;273. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1617184\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDavis, M. (2012). International postgraduate students\u0026rsquo; experiences of plagiarism education in the UK: Student, tutor and expert perspectives. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal for Educational Integrity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(2), 21\u0026ndash;33. https://doi.org/10.21913/IJEI.v8i2.807\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDavis, M. (2022). Examining and improving inclusive practice in institutional academic integrity policies, procedures, teaching and support. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal for Educational Integrity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-022-00108-x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDenisova-Schmidt, E. (2024). Academic Integrity and International Students: An Inclusive Approach. In S. E. Eaton (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eSecond Handbook of Academic Integrity\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1187\u0026ndash;1200). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54144-5_130\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEvans, C., Nguyen, T., Richardson, M., \u0026amp; Scott, I. (2018). Managing the transition from undergraduate to taught postgraduate study: perceptions of international students studying in the UK. \u003cem\u003eResearch in Post-Compulsory Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(2), 249\u0026ndash;265. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2018.1444386\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFatemi, G., \u0026amp; Saito, E. (2020). Unintentional plagiarism and academic integrity: The challenges and needs of postgraduate international students in Australia. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Further and Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1305\u0026ndash;1319. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1683521\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFishman, T. (2009, September 28). \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;We know it when we see it\u0026rdquo; is not good enough: toward a standard definition of plagiarism that transcends theft, fraud, and copyright.\u003c/em\u003e 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Educational Integrity (4APCEI), University of Wollongong NSW Australia.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGeorge, J. W., \u0026amp; Cowan, J. (1999). \u003cem\u003eA handbook of techniques for formative evaluation: Mapping the student\u0026rsquo;s learning experience\u003c/em\u003e. Kogan Page; Stylus Publishing, Inc.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGow, S., \u0026amp; Sun, Q. (2023). Academic Integrity in China: Challenges for Policy, Practice, and Quality Assurance in Higher Education. In S. E. Eaton (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Academic Integrity\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1\u0026ndash;25). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_175-1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGullifer, J. M., \u0026amp; Tyson, G. A. (2014). Who has read the policy on plagiarism? Unpacking students\u0026rsquo; understanding of plagiarism. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1202\u0026ndash;1218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.777412\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHalak, B., \u0026amp; El-Hajjar, M. (2019). Design and evaluation of plagiarism prevention and detection techniques in engineering education. \u003cem\u003eHigher Education Pedagogies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 197\u0026ndash;208. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2018.1563757\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHESA. (n.d.). \u003cem\u003eHESA - Experts in higher education data and analysis\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved August 1, 2025, from https://www.hesa.ac.uk/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHeussi, A. (2012). Postgraduate student perceptions of the transition into postgraduate study. \u003cem\u003eStudent Engagement and Experience Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(3), 2047\u0026ndash;9476. https://doi.org/10.7190/seej.v1i3.52\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHu, G., \u0026amp; Lei, J. (2015). Chinese University Students\u0026rsquo; Perceptions of Plagiarism. \u003cem\u003eEthics \u0026amp; Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(3), 233\u0026ndash;255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2014.923313\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHusain, F. M., Al-Shaibani, G. K. S., \u0026amp; Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2017). Perceptions of and Attitudes toward Plagiarism and Factors Contributing to Plagiarism: a Review of Studies. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Academic Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(2), 167\u0026ndash;195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9274-1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJereb, E., Perc, M., L\u0026auml;mmlein, B., Jerebic, J., Urh, M., Podbregar, I., \u0026amp; \u0026Scaron;prajc, P. (2018). Factors influencing plagiarism in higher education: A comparison of German and Slovene students.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePLOS ONE\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(8), e0202252. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202252\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJung, J., \u0026amp; Li, X. (2021). Exploring motivations of a master\u0026rsquo;s degree pursuit in Hong Kong. \u003cem\u003eHigher Education Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e75\u003c/em\u003e(2), 321\u0026ndash;332. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12276\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKashian, N., Cruz, S. M., Jang, J., \u0026amp; Silk, K. J. (2015). Evaluation of an Instructional Activity to Reduce Plagiarism in the Communication Classroom. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Academic Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(3), 239\u0026ndash;258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-015-9238-2\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKhaleel, F., Ghunmi, L. A., Avdukic, A., Ghunmi, D. A., \u0026amp; Harte, P. (2025). The Delphic ambiguity in academic integrity breaches of international students. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;13. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2025.2457000\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLiu, G., Lu, H., Lin, V., \u0026amp; Hsu, W. (2018). Cultivating undergraduates\u0026rsquo; plagiarism avoidance knowledge and skills with an online tutorial system. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Computer Assisted Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(2), 150\u0026ndash;161. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12223\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLoveridge, C., Davis, K., \u0026amp; Tasler, N. (2024). \u003cem\u003eA Multi-factorial Approach Towards Tackling Plagiarism: A Comparison Between Attitudes and Perceptions Towards Plagiarism at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught Level\u003c/em\u003e. 739\u0026ndash;771. https://doi.org/10.22492/issn.2188-1162.2024.58\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMaarouf, H. (2019). Pragmatism as a Supportive Paradigm for the Mixed Research Approach: Conceptualizing the Ontological, Epistemological, and Axiological Stances of Pragmatism. \u003cem\u003eInternational Business Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v12n9p1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMagyar, A. E. (2012). Plagiarism and attribution: An academic literacies approach? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Learning Development in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.v0i4.141\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMahmud, S., \u0026amp; Ali, I. (2023). Evolution of research on honesty and dishonesty in academic work: a bibliometric analysis of two decades. \u003cem\u003eEthics \u0026amp; Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(1), 55\u0026ndash;69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2021.2015598\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMbutho, N. P., \u0026amp; Hutchings, C. (2021). The complex concept of plagiarism: Undergraduate and postgraduate student perspectives. \u003cem\u003ePerspectives in Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(2), 67\u0026ndash;81. https://doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v39.i2.6\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMcPherson, C., Punch, S., \u0026amp; Graham, E. (2017). Transitions from Undergraduate to Taught Postgraduate Study: Emotion, Integration and Belonging. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(2), 42\u0026ndash;50. https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v5i2.265\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMiranda-Rodr\u0026iacute;guez, R. A., S\u0026aacute;nchez-Nieto, J. M., \u0026amp; Ruiz-Rodr\u0026iacute;guez, A. K. (2024). Effectiveness of intervention programs in reducing plagiarism by university students: a systematic review. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1357853\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMulenga, R., \u0026amp; Shilongo, H. (2024). Academic Integrity in Higher Education: Understanding and Addressing Plagiarism.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eActa Pedagogia Asiana\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.53623/apga.v3i1.337\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNash, J. (2018). Plagiarism, culture, the Middle East and Westernization: a mixed methods study. \u003cem\u003eLearning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 54\u0026ndash;67.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.18538/lthe.v15.n1.287\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOoms, J. (2026). \u003cem\u003emagick: Advanced Graphics and Image-Processing in R\u003c/em\u003e [Computer software].\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePerkins, M., Ulas Basar Gezgin, \u0026amp; Gordon, R. D. (2019). Plagiarism in higher education: classification, causes and controls. \u003cem\u003ePan-Pacific Management Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e, 3\u0026ndash;20. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.20694.11841\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eQAA. (2011). \u003cem\u003eExplaining contact hours. Guidance for institutions providing public \u0026nbsp;information about higher education in the UK.\u003c/em\u003e https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/contact-hours-guidance.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eQAA. (2020). \u003cem\u003eCharacteristics Statement: Master\u0026rsquo;s Degree\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/master\u0026apos;s-degree-characteristics-statement.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eQAA. (2024).\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;The Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree-Awarding Bodies\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/the-frameworks-for-higher-education-qualifications-of-uk-degree-awarding-bodies-2024.pdf?sfvrsn=3562b281_11\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRonai, K. (2020). Plagiarism Defined? \u003cem\u003eApples - Journal of Applied Language Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(1), 25\u0026ndash;46. https://doi.org/10.17011/apples/urn.202003282558\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSanger, C. S. (2020). Inclusive Pedagogy and Universal Design Approaches for Diverse Learning Environments. In C. S. Sanger \u0026amp; N. W. Gleason (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eDiversity and Inclusion in Global Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 31\u0026ndash;71). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1628-3_2\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSbaffi, L., \u0026amp; Zhao, X. (2022). Evaluating a pedagogical approach to promoting academic integrity in higher education: An online induction program. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e, 1009305. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1009305\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSelemani, A., Chawinga, W. D., \u0026amp; Dube, G. (2018). Why do postgraduate students commit plagiarism? An empirical study. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal for Educational Integrity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(1), 7.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0029-6\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShannon-Baker, P. (2016). Making Paradigms Meaningful in Mixed Methods Research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Mixed Methods Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(4), 319\u0026ndash;334.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815575861\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSimon, D. (2019). Cross-Cultural Differences in Plagiarism: Fact Or Fiction? \u003cem\u003eDuquesne Law Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(1), 73. https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr/vol57/iss1/6\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStanford HAI. (2025). \u003cem\u003eThe 2025 AI Index Report\u003c/em\u003e. The 2025 AI Index Report. https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSuprapto, N., Nurhasan, Simamora, R. M., Mursid, A., \u0026amp; Ardha, M. A. A. (2025). Academic Integrity vs. Academic Misconduct: A Thematic Evolution Through Bibliometrics. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Academic Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(3), 997\u0026ndash;1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09580-1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThompsett, A., \u0026amp; Ahluwalia, J. (2010). Students Turned Off by Turnitin? Perception of Plagiarism and Collusion by Undergraduate Bioscience Students. \u003cem\u003eBioscience Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;15. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.16.3\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTran, M. N., Hogg, L., \u0026amp; Marshall, S. (2022). Understanding postgraduate students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of plagiarism: a case study of Vietnamese and local students in New Zealand. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal for Educational Integrity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00098-2\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTran, T. T. (2012). The perceptions and attitudes of international students towards plagiarism. \u003cem\u003eThe ACPET Journal for Private Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(2), 13\u0026ndash;21.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTurnitin. (n.d.). \u003cem\u003ePlagiarism Spectrum 2.0\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved September 17, 2025, from https://www.turnitin.co.uk/instructional-resources/plagiarism-spectrum-2-0\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUnderwood, J., Truong, T. T., Tai, L. (Elly), \u0026amp; Tra, N. H. (2022, June 15). \u003cem\u003eSupporting International Students to Adjust to Academic Culture in the UK\u003c/em\u003e. THINK.IAFOR.ORG.\u0026nbsp;https://think.iafor.org/supporting-international-students-to-adjust-to-academic-culture-in-the-uk/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang, F., Huang, R., Wu, J., \u0026amp; Lim, W. M. (2025). Employability of international postgraduate taught students in the UK: A systematic literature review using PRISMA. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Guidance \u0026amp; Counselling\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;27.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2025.2496173\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWatkins, D., \u0026amp; Gioia, D. (2015). \u003cem\u003eMixed Methods Research\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199747450.001.0001\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWickham, H. (2016). \u003cem\u003eggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis\u003c/em\u003e. Springer-Verlag.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWickham, H. (2025). \u003cem\u003estringr: Simple, Consistent Wrappers for Common String Operations\u003c/em\u003e [Computer software].\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWickham, H., \u0026amp; Bryan, J. (2025). \u003cem\u003ereadxl: Read Excel Files\u003c/em\u003e [Computer software].\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWickham, H., Fran\u0026ccedil;ois, R., Henry, L., M\u0026uuml;ller, K., \u0026amp; Vaughan, D. (2025). \u003cem\u003edplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation\u003c/em\u003e [Computer software].\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWickham, H., \u0026amp; Henry, L. (2026). \u003cem\u003epurrr: Functional Programming Tools\u003c/em\u003e [Computer software].\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWickham, H., Vaughan, D., \u0026amp; Girlich, M. (2026). \u003cem\u003etidyr: Tidy Messy Data\u003c/em\u003e [Computer software].Yang, A., Stockwell, S., \u0026amp; McDonnell, L. (2019). Writing in your own voice: An intervention that reduces plagiarism and common writing problems in students\u0026rsquo; scientific writing. \u003cem\u003eBiochemistry and Molecular Biology Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e(5), 589\u0026ndash;598. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21282\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZheng, Q. (2021). Chinese University Students\u0026rsquo; Perceptions of the Use and Effectiveness of Turnitin in EAP Writing. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of TESOL Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(2), 40\u0026ndash;54. https://doi.org/10.46451/ijts.2021.06.04\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTables 1 to 8 are available in the supplementary files section\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"international-journal-for-educational-integrity","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ijei","sideBox":"Learn more about [International Journal for Educational Integrity](https://edintegrity.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"40979","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/40979/3","title":"International Journal for Educational Integrity","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Plagiarism, Academic Integrity Training, Higher Education, Postgraduate Taught Students, International Students, Moodle","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7973068/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7973068/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003ePlagiarism remains an ongoing and complex challenge in higher education, particularly among postgraduate taught (PGT) students who comprise great diversity of academic and cultural backgrounds. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a bespoke Moodle-based academic integrity training resource developed to enhance plagiarism literacy among life sciences PGT students at our UK-based institution. An online survey, combining quantitative and qualitative elements from closed and open-ended questions respectively, was conducted among life sciences PGT students (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;139). Quantitative data analysis of closed question responses revealed that students with prior degrees from elsewhere (PDE) reported significantly lower confidence in their knowledge of plagiarism, the use and integration of source material and using Turnitin but more favourable perceptions with regards to enhancing their knowledge and understanding of plagiarism compared to those with prior degrees from the UK (PDUK) (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Qualitative, thematic analyses of open-ended responses indicated positive perceptions surrounding the clarity, accessibility, and interactivity of the resource but also demonstrated a need for additional inclusive design features and optional face-to-face support. Students highlighted confusion regarding what constitutes plagiarism, difficulty with referencing and uncertainty surrounding institutional policy and use of digital tools. These results underscore the need for a more inclusive and accessible approach towards academic integrity training for diverse PGT cohorts, with wider implications for institutional strategies to mitigate academic misconduct. Our key recommendation is for academic integrity training resources to be culturally sensitive, equitable and learner-friendly through the incorporation of varied and blended learning resources and opportunities.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Educating for academic integrity: effectiveness of a digital resource on plagiarism awareness among postgraduate bioscience students","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-18 06:13:02","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7973068/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-02-21T17:42:51+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-01-28T04:32:54+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"International Journal for Educational Integrity","date":"2026-01-26T16:38:02+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"international-journal-for-educational-integrity","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ijei","sideBox":"Learn more about [International Journal for Educational Integrity](https://edintegrity.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"40979","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/40979/3","title":"International Journal for Educational Integrity","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"56b14423-ab46-42dc-bb1b-45e63324b323","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 18th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-01T16:38:32+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-18 06:13:02","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7973068","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7973068","identity":"rs-7973068","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}