From: Professional & Organization Development Network in Higher
[mailto:
POD@listserv.nd.edu]
On Behalf Of bonnie mullinix
bmullini@monmouth.edu
For many students, I find that the problem is less cheating and more
'not understanding' what constitutes academic dishonesty and plagerism
(this discussion and others I have witnessed among academics shows that
as a group we faculty are clear on some points, and less clear on
others). So it becomes an educational challenge - one we ought to be up
to.
Personally, I generally let students know that they are "expected to
maintain high standards of academic honesty and integrity and are
expected to consistently and clearly differentiate between their own
thoughts and opinions and those of others". I then guide them through
(or at higher levels of study, direct them to) places that offer them
greater clarity on what this means. I do this by saying something like:
"Students who would like greater clarification regarding what
constitutes plagiarism or would like to test their understanding of it
are referred to the following two websites:
http://education.indiana.edu/~frick/plagiarism/ and
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pub/integrity/pages/plagiarism.html
Ethelynda, I think these are the sites you might be most interested in.
The first is a site
(indiana/~frick) that has a ready-made quiz on plagerism that helps
clarify the differences. The second (princeton) is an example of a
University website helping to clarify the point (it provides 2 sets of
examples (textual plagiarism from verbatim copying to thorough
paraphrasing and plagiarism of a computer program). I also send them to
the of the American Psychological Association website and Publication
Manual that gives them the clear stylistic procedures they need for
doing this (as the
primary reference for scholarship and research in my areas). This might
be a starting point from which to build your scenarios/critical
incidents.
Most importantly perhaps,as I design my course, syllabus, sessions and
assignments I bear in mind my adult learning theory background and
Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle . As such, I make sure that each
assignment requires students to move beyond experience/research and
observation/reflection and begin to analyze and consider application of
their newly acquires/honed knowledge or skills that have
emerged from content well grounded in the course. Since early sessions
generally require in-class or original writing and contributions, I have
a good sense for thier writing style. When/if there is a major shift in
style, the descrepancy between "borrowed" text and their own voice is
quite clear. Having them reflect on what they have found and what it
means to them, means that they are less likely/able to borrow or simply
recast papers from other classes/people. Like as not should they try,
it would not fit their assignment, the format or address the detailed
grading rubric I develop.
As such, I have experienced few problems with plagerism/cheating, etc.
When I have, it was usually a mistake grounded in a lack of
experience/knowledge...no one taught them how/when to properly cite
sources (even at the graduate level). They are happy to correct and
rewrite. Yes, I know there are those out there who would flaunt this.
Google, etc. works well to catch this (actually, just as they do, we
have more tools at our disposal now then we used for addressing
plagerism). There was an interesting piece on National Public Radio two
weeks ago about how our understanding of plagerism is
likely to change/may need to be adjusted. It raised the idea that
web-based sources are, by in large, public domain and (especially when
difficult to know origins) questionable as to how and when to quote for
most students. Even more interesting was the comments by students who
felt that: a) some clearly original ideas of theirs did exist elsewhere
(not the textual duplication mind you, simply the common interpretation)
or b) they couldn't always or easily track how their ideas emerged as
the majority of
their day was spent surfing between sites (news, e-mail, paper
authoring, web-based research, etc.) and that such an interactive
organic process gave birth to ideas in different ways. As I said, some
interesting thoughts might be drawn from the transcript of those
interviews.
As for building knowledge forward, to a point I both encourage
(especially in graduate students) and scaffold this for them. Sometimes
in this encouragement I will request that they submit the earlier
version so I can see how far they have come with it.
As for our own work: I agree that building forward on ideas is
important, as is reaching new audiences. Where this differs for
students (especially at undergraduate levels) is that they need to be
exposed to new knowledge, resources, information and experiences. A
large part of our job as scholars is to disseminate ideas that we have
developed to different audiences (while continuing to learn more and
develop further). This is less a focus of students, whose primary
attention (until the end of their higher level studies) should be on
gathering and interpreting new material. Fitting them
in within their understanding, knowledge base and conceptual constructs
is important, but expansion and exposure to new ideas and information
should be their focus (not dissemination to wider and more varied
audiences - and certainly not recycling old works). If their own work
is it inherently dishonest? No.
It is just a waste of their precious learning time.
Just some thoughts. Hope this helps.
Bonnie
Dr. Bonnie B. Mullinix
Office of Academic Program Initiatives
Monmouth University
West Long Branch, NJ 07764
732/263-5486
bmullini@monmouth.edu
____________
Ethelynda Harding wrote:
> Colleagues,
>
> I have received a request for a set of scenarios to be used to
> introduce students to the finer nuances of cheating and plagiarism.
> For example, is it cheating to use a paper previously submitted for
> another class as the basis for a paper in a second class? If you have
> good examples that we can use for mini-cases, I'd love to hear them.
>