Plagiarism Education and Prevention

A Subject-Driven Case-Based Approach

Cara Bradley

• Publisher: Chandos Publishing
• Year: 2011
• ISBN:
  9781780632605
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Academic librarians and university instructors worldwide are grappling with an increasing incidence of student plagiarism. Recent publications urge educators to prevent plagiarism by teaching students about the issue, and some have advocated the value of a subject-specific approach to plagiarism prevention education. There is, however, a complete lack of resources and guidance for librarians and instructors who want to adopt this approach in their teaching. This book opens with a brief overview of plagiarism today, followed by arguments in favour of a subject-based approach. The rest of the book is divided into academic subject areas and features an overview of the major issues in that subject area, followed by a high profile and engaging case within the discipline.

• Subject-based approach to highlight the differing issues and conventions of various disciplines
• Real-life cases to capture student attention and illustrate the implications of plagiarism in academia and beyond
• Discussion questions to ensure an active and engaging student learning experience

1

The need for a subject-specific case-driven approach to plagiarism education

Plagiarism today

Despite the increasing media attention it has received in recent years, academic misconduct is nothing new. William J. Bowers’ 1964 study of over five thousand students from 99 schools was the first widespread study of the prevalence of academic misconduct and found that almost three-quarters of students surveyed reported engaging in some level of academic misconduct, with 30 percent admitting to plagiarism and 49 percent acknowledging copying a couple of sentences without footnoting (McCabe et al., 2001: 224). McCabe and Trevino repeated slightly modified versions of Bowers’ study throughout the 1990s and found little change in the percentage of students admitting to plagiarism. For example, 26 percent of students admitted to plagiarism in 1993 and 54 percent admitted to copying a few sentences without footnoting, numbers which do not differ substantially from Bowers’ earlier results (McCabe et al., 2001: 224). These and other studies have been variously interpreted as indicating a consistent level of plagiarism over the decades, or as masking an increasing incidence of the offense because of changing understandings of what constitutes plagiarism. Interpretation of the numbers is beyond the scope of this book and best left to others, but regardless of specifics, they do reflect knowledge shared by anyone working in postsecondary education: plagiarism is a major issue in today’s academy.

The Academy’s response

Tricia Bertram Gallant characterizes institutional response to plagiarism as falling into one of two categories: ‘rule compliance and integrity’ (2008: 5–6). Rule compliance strategies tend to be twofold, focusing on detection of rule violation and punitive action for lack of compliance. Detection of rule violation has always, to a certain extent, been triggered by instructors’ recognition of disparity between a student’s prior work and the present assignment, as well as a keen memory for passages they may have read elsewhere. However, although the causes for suspicion may remain the same, the method of and tools for investigation have changed substantially over the years. The paper chase of earlier years gave way to use of non-purpose-specific electronic tools (electronic databases, Internet search engines), and has finally been supplanted by purpose-built plagiarism detection software programs. Comprehensive analyses of these software programs have been undertaken elsewhere (Chao et al., 2009; Evans, 2006). Here it will suffice to note that while they definitely have benefits, such as saving instructor time in tracking down rule violations, these programs also have drawbacks. Students report feeling that the use of plagiarism detection software assumes student guilt and promotes a culture of distrust that undermines the teaching and learning process. Other students have objected to the inclusion of their own work in the database against which future student papers will be analyzed for transgressions, claiming that this violates their copyright on their own work, with some even pursuing legal action along these lines (Young, 2008). Finally, although it is clearly not possible for these plagiarism programs to be absolutely comprehensive (there is, after all, no electronic database of all written work), instructors can come to depend on them in such a way that they miss violations not highlighted by the software program, even in the face of obvious clues.

The other main tenet of a rule compliance strategy in handling plagiarism is the use of punitive action. Universities frequently mandate or at least recommend that instructors ensure that students are cautioned against plagiarism at the beginning of each course. This typically takes the form of a written admonition on the course syllabus followed by a brief verbal reiteration of institutional penalties for plagiarism offenses. Students who are not sufficiently deterred by the threat of consequences are punished accordingly, with penalties ranging from a need to redo the assignment in question, a reduced grade on the assignment or in the class, to removal from the class or expulsion from the institution. Dependence on this component of a ‘rule compliance’ strategy also has both benefits and drawbacks. Some students will likely be deterred from plagiarism once they understand potential consequences, and at least some of those who offend will be caught. The major drawback to relying on punitive action is that it is too late. Renard’s analogy is a good one: ‘It’s a lot like doing an autopsy. No matter how terrific the coroner is at determining how or why a person died, the damage has been done. Bringing the culprit to light won’t change that’ (2000: 41).

Integrity, the other main institutional approach identified by Bertram Gallant, often takes the form of honor codes or pledges asking new students to make a public claim about their moral character and intentions that they will, so the argument goes, be loath to violate through plagiarism or other offenses. As with the rule compliance strategies, this approach also has some strengths. It focuses on the positive, and encourages students to think more deeply when making decisions in their academic work. A major drawback to this approach is that the pledge is often limited to a couple of sentences and a place for students to sign. There is little education about the complex issues involved in academic integrity, and no reference to the different ways plagiarism may play out in various disciplines. Even a well-meaning student can violate the pledge because they do not really understand, for example, what constitutes proper paraphrasing.

A third widespread (but obviously not officially sanctioned) approach to plagiarism is to turn a blind eye. Conversations with instructors reluctant to engage in the confrontation and paperwork of a plagiarism challenge, as well as the incredulity expressed by students who are suddenly penalized for something they have been ‘doing all along’, indicate that simply ignoring offenses is not uncommon. Sessional lecturers (those hired to teach a specific course for a specified amount of money) are an increasingly large proportion of the teaching staff as institutions attempt to reduce costs associated with tenured faculty, yet they have the least incentive to pursue plagiarists. The very nature of a sessional contract discourages these instructors from following through on plagiarism cases as they must come to campus for additional meetings and appointments for which they receive no additional compensation, and may in fact have to take time away from other paid employment in order to see the plagiarism case through the appropriate channels.

The need for and obstacles to education

Bertram Gallant suggests that it is time for a new response to academic misconduct, one that ‘reframes the driving question from “how can we stop students from cheating?” to “how do we ensure students are learning?”‘ (2008: 6). Her call to focus on education as a means of increasing academic integrity among students makes sense, given that the current strategies for handling the problem – rule compliance, integrity pacts, turning a blind eye – have not significantly reduced transgressions. Unfortunately it does not seem that the education approach has as yet been widely adopted. Whitley and Keith-Spiegler cite several studies that found low levels of proactive educational efforts, concluding that ‘students are least likely to hear about academic integrity issues where they are most likely to pay attention – in the classroom’ (2002: 56).

Initially it seems puzzling, given the prevalence of plagiarism and the upset it causes students and instructors, that the topic does not receive greater classroom attention. Several factors likely contribute to the scarcity of discussion on plagiarism topics, the first being the ‘content is king’ philosophy that dominates much undergraduate education. Understandably, instructors struggling to cover a great deal of content are reluctant to sacrifice precious class time to what Simmons refers to as ‘disciplinary discourse’ or ‘the ways that members of a particular discourse community write, read, speak, and research, as well as the assumptions that they make and the epistemologies with which they craft their arguments’ (2005: 297). Students lacking this familiarity with the academic (and more specifically the subject) context are ill-equipped to participate in scholarly communication processes, regardless of the volume of course content to which they have been subjected.

The lack of a specific roster and sequence of courses in many undergraduate programs, while facilitating a customizable student learning experience, also poses problems for academic integrity and plagiarism education. A single course can contain students with a wide range of completed courses in diverse subject areas from various institutions. This makes it very difficult for an instructor to identify common ground from which to address the ethical use of sources, and indeed many assume that their students have had adequate past instruction on the topic, giving it only the most cursory coverage in their own courses.

Review of course syllabi and the content of (library and other) academic integrity workshops indicates that, even in instances where instruction is taking place, its emphasis may be misplaced. Too often, plagiarism instruction focuses on the mechanics of citing books and journal articles according to a specific style guide. Class time is devoted to ensuring an understanding of the intricacies of MLA, APA, Chicago, or other innumerable systems, without due attention given to developing a broader understanding of the disciplinary differences that have given birth to these diverse stylistic conventions. This approach seems backwards; it is understandably difficult for students to recognize the importance of seemly arcane citation rules without a broader understanding of conventions and intellectual issues that have given rise to them. Most university students, given a style manual and a bit of direction, can apply guidelines to their own work. However, their more formidable challenge (and the one that they need help with) is understanding the complexities of the larger scholarly communication framework.

Instructors may be hesitant to engage students in discussions about plagiarism and academic integrity issues because of their own discomfort with the shifting landscape. Scholarly disciplines are not static but dynamic, and new technologies, laws, and cultural changes are bound to have an impact on academic teaching and research. Many are, understandably, uncomfortable with the prospect of being the classroom authority who must admit that they do not know everything. It is important for faculty to realize and communicate to students that plagiarism raises many important questions and that there are not always clear answers. The important thing is to get the conversation started, bring students into the discussion and get them thinking about plagiarism in the context of their discipline of study. The result is honest discussion, critical thinking, and a new understanding of how and why these issues are important.

Even those instructors eager to engage their students in this type of discussion will face the challenge of putting themselves in their students’ place. They have become so thoroughly immersed in both academia and their own field of study that ‘this prodigious, focused knowledge can hinder the ability to make visible and to explain to undergraduate students the rhetorical practices that have become inseparable from the faculty members’ own ways of communicating’ (Simmons, 2005: 298). Most instructors have spent ten or more years completing undergraduate and graduate education, absorbing norms through course attendance, benefiting from instructor feedback on assignments, reading extensively in their speciality, and participating in the scholarly dialogue of their discipline. Librarians, in this case, can serve ‘simultaneously [as] insiders and outsiders,’ mediating ‘between the non-academic discourse of entering undergraduates and the specialized discourse of disciplinary faculty’ (Simmons, 2005: 298).

Subject-based approach

Implicit in the discussion above about the role of education in preventing plagiarism is the assertion that this education should be subject or discipline-specific. One of the greatest oversights in plagiarism instruction is the belief that what students have learned in previous courses applies equally well to the current course context. Students may well have learned about acceptable practices in one subject area and not be aware of disciplinary differences that compromise the applicability of their previous learning to the current situation. Research has repeatedly demonstrated that the incidence and purpose of citation, as well as the types of materials cited, differ markedly among disciplines (see Becher and Trowler, 2001; Smalley and Plum, 1982). Instructors who fail to discuss the issues and standards of their discipline are likely to find themselves marking coursework composed according to the norms of other fields of study and different types of assignments. Students suffer too, by being penalized for applying what they do not realize is inapplicable prior learning.

Post-secondary institutions worldwide face a formidable challenge in trying to teach writing and rese...

Table of contents

• Cover image
• Title page
• Table of Contents
• Copyright
• List of figures and table
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Note on style manuals
• About the author
• Chapter 1: The need for a subject-specific case-driven approach to plagiarism education
• Chapter 2: Humanities and social sciences
• Chapter 3: Science
• Chapter 4: Professional studies
• Chapter 5: Fine arts
• Chapter 6: General examples for first year writing classes
• Conclusion
• Index