PLAGIARISM AND ACADEMIC DISHONESTY:A MORAL AND COMMUNITY ISSUE

Plamen Miltenoff & Olivia Olivares

Fall Convocation, SCSU

August 19, 2008

Avalabile @ http://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/plagiarism/convocation2008.ppsx

This presentation:

An overview of plagiarism and academic dishonesty As defined in SCSU and MnSCU college policies The national scope The student perspective The faculty/institutional response

A discussion of the moral aspects and ramifications of efforts to detect and prevent academic dishonesty within the university community

A discussion of the impacts of efforts to detect and prevent academic dishonesty on the university community: plagiarism and academic dishonesty in a communitarian context

Our theses:

Any efforts to prevent academic dishonesty and plagiarism at SCSU will have little effect unless said efforts are built on clear, specific descriptions of what behaviors constitute academic dishonesty

A university-wide dialogue on the abovementioned clear, specific descriptions and the community/ies within which those behaviors take place must occur, followed by the establishing of community norms that both define and proscribe academic dishonesty, for detection and prevention efforts to be successful

As part of the university-wide dialogue, students must be apprised and reminded continuously as to what behaviors constitute academic dishonesty and what the community’s norms are. Students should also be convinced of the reality and likelihood of sanctions occurring when those norms are violated

Plagiarism and academic dishonesty as usually defined

SCSU Student Handbook - Prohibited Conduct “Academic dishonesty, including but not limited to, cheating, plagiarism,

misrepresentation of student status, and resume falsification. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to, the use by paraphrase or direct quotation, the published or unpublished work of another person without full and clear acknowledgment; unacknowledged use of materials prepared by another person or agency engaged in selling or otherwise providing term papers or other academic materials; and commercialization sale or distribution of class notes without the instructors' permission.”

“Prohibited conduct noted with an asterisk generally will be referred to the judicial panel for resolution unless the accused specifically requests a hearing with the Associate Vice President for Student Life and Development and when final examinations, breaks or other vacation periods would prevent a timely hearing by the judicial panel; or when, in the judgment of the Associate Vice President for Student Life and Development, appearing before the judicial panel poses a threat to the physical welfare of panel members or witness(es).”

http://www.stcloudstate.edu/studenthandbook/code/conduct.asp

Plagiarism and academic dishonesty as usually defined

Plagiarism and academic dishonesty as defined in other MnSCU college policies ESTABLISHED PRACTICE: general statements of purpose with little detail

The “community” is alluded to, but not fully defined The nature of the offense is only generally described Sanctions are not always elucidated

MSU – Moorhead Student Handbook: “The University expects all students to represent themselves in an honest fashion. In

academic work, students are expected to present original ideas and give credit for the ideas of others. The value of a college degree depends on the integrity of the work completed by the student.”

http://www.mnstate.edu/StHandbook/academic_info/academicpolicies.htm

MSU Mankato – Basic Stuff: the Student Handbook “In order for an academic community to teach and support appropriate educational values, an

environment of trust, cooperation, and personal responsibility must be maintained. As members of this University community, students assume the responsibility to fulfill their academic obligations in a fair and honest manner. This responsibility includes avoiding such inappropriate activities as plagiarism, cheating or collusion. Students found responsible for one or more of these activities may face both academic sanctions (such as lowering a grade, failing of a course, etc.) and disciplinary sanctions (such as probation, suspension, expulsion).”

http://www.mnsu.edu/supersite/administration/basic-stuff/policies.html#honesty

Plagiarism and academic dishonesty as usually defined

Plagiarism and academic dishonesty as defined in other MnSCU college policies LESS USUAL PRACTICES: statements that place academic dishonesty in a

moral and community context The community within which academic dishonesty is proscribed is defined: the

university, the larger community The nature of the offense and its consequences are described Sanctions are clearly enumerated

Bemidji State University – Student Guide “Bemidji State University fosters the highest standards of integrity and personal

responsibility in all areas of university life. Honesty, integrity and responsibility begin with the self and extend to others in the university environment and the community at large … Acting with integrity involves cultivating an ability to make difficult choices; to hear the voice of another; and to accept responsibility for our actions.”

“Honesty, integrity and trust are central to the university workplace. Breaches of this trust, including lying, misrepresentation, theft, [...] are unacceptable behaviors. This also includes the attempt by students, faculty or staff to present as their own work achievements not actually performed by them. In classroom activities, this would include collusion, fabricating and cheating on examinations, papers or coursework; in particular plagiarizing the work of others, [long list of offenses] … Behaviors of this nature are considered breaches of academic integrity, and destructive to the larger mission of the university.”

http://www.bemidjistate.edu/students/guide/documents/student_guide_07-08.pdf

The national scope

A number of surveys of university students from the early 1960s to the present indicate that as many as 50 to 75 percent of college students have admitted to cheating [1]

The percentage of students admitting to cheating appears to be affected by how the question is asked When generally questioned (i.e., “have you committed an act of academic dishonesty?”), the

percentage is lower When asked about a specific behavior (i.e., “have you ever copied a friend’s term paper and

submitted it as your own?”), the percentage is higher [2]

The rise in academic dishonesty from the 1960s to present as reflected in studies appears to be at least partially the result of students being queried about specific acts, rather than on academic dishonesty in general [3]

There is a sufficiently wide variation in the levels of academic dishonesty reported in studies that it is best to approach any reports of cheating levels with caution; the level of academic dishonesty at American universities is by no means well established

The student perspective: student attitudes and academic dishonesty

All studies appear to indicate that students will cheat: If their peers deem cheating to be of little importance

[4], and If they perceive, rightly or wrongly, that the university

will impose little or no sanctions [5]

There is often a disconnect between the beliefs of students and the beliefs of faculty as to what constitutes academic dishonesty Behaviors that faculty consider to be dishonest (e.g.,

collaborating on a take-home exam) are considered to be allowable by students

Generally, if students are not warned that a particular behavior is considered to be academic dishonesty, they will consider those behaviors to be allowable [6]

The student perspective: student attitudes and academic dishonesty

Thus, the primary deterrents to academic dishonesty in the university classroom are: A university community climate in which there

is a widely understood and accepted norm prohibiting academic dishonesty

Explicit warning against particular, described behaviors, any of which being committed constitutes an act of academic dishonesty

The existence of a credible threat of punishment for those who engage in such behaviors

Types of Plagiarists and Plagiarism

Types of Plagiarists Thieves: steal/buy/reuse

whole papers Weavers: use passages,

possibly from multiple sources, but include some original work or at least their own editing. Includes both deliberate and ignorant plagiarists

Ghost-students: use ideas and arguments from outside sources reworked mostly into their own words. These students mostly need help and confidence building.

Types of Plagiarism Bought/copied/shared whole

papers Unauthorized collaboration Repeated performance

Words Important words Facts

Ideas: perhaps, not the same as plagiarism

Historical/SCSU perspective

Teaching and Learning Technology Roundtable (TLTR) efforts

Campus-wide discussion Turnitin.com trial TLTR efforts

As early as 2000 recognized as an issue Individual faculty efforts (mostly those involved in

distance ed and technology) College of Business LR&TS English Department

Search for the most suitable (time-, cost-effective) solution

Historical/SCSU perspective

Before, during and after the Turnitin period How was plagiarism and academic dishonesty combated

before the Internet How is plagiarism and academic dishonesty combated now

[10-20 minute discussion with participants: past experiences w/plagiarism or academic dishonesty at SCSU; possible questions] Ask participants: share experiences w/discovery of

plagiarism/AD [15 minutes] How was student’s pla/AD exposed? i.e. how was student informed

of discovery? Student perspective: what rationale was offered? What was result of discovery? What sanction applied, if any? Any appeal? What was department/univ VP response?

Recommendations for future detection work

obtain a trial of the plagiarism detection software, Turnitin.com We advertised the existence of the trial through several venues

- campus-wide listserv- Faculty Senate- College Liaison Program

A faculty forum presented through the Faculty Center for Teaching Excellence entitled “Student Cheating: why, How, Detection & Consequences” was designed specifically to address plagiarism from a multitude of perspectives and incorporate those understandings into a discussion about the trial

Educational venues were provided through the development of workshops to assist faculty in learning how to use the software

Trial (extended twice) ran for almost an entire year Survey instrument was developed to obtain feedback and

assess user perspectives and an assessment of user comments obtained from that survey.

Recommendations for future detection work

In addition to the qualitative analysis from user feedback we will also examine the statistical usage of the software in conjunction with the qualitative feedback to determine what value(s) if any the software had for those who did use it.

We learned a lot along the way about plagiarism detection software. But we also learned a lot about faculty resolve or lack thereof regarding actually trying and utilizing the software -- despite our best efforts. We strongly believe that most faculty really do want to add this type of utility to their cache of tools in teaching students the importance of academic integrity and were puzzled by the seeming techno-phobia we encountered. The software is exceedingly easy to use and does not require a technological background. Hence, we question the psychology of perception when it comes to new information technology tools.

Plagiarism/AD today: prevention vs. punishment

Prevention/discouragement Integration of plagiarism/AD education into

classroom instruction How often? At what point in semester? In college career? What aspects?

Moral component: why plagiarism/AD is bad Practical component:

how plagiarism/AD has the potential to destroy academic/professional career

COMMUNITARIAN ASPECT – PLA/AD AS OFFENCE AGAINST SCSU/COMMUNITY OF SCHOLARS

[10-15 minutes: should we integrate p/AD ed into classroom instruction? How? Could it be handled another way? How?]

Types and Metaphors

Types of plagiarism Venal versus mortal Inadvertent versus

deliberate Innocent versus

criminal Casual versus blatant

Metaphors of plagiarism

• Taking it personally: we are turned from teachers to cops: plagiarism is theft

• Not intended to be personal: students see it as expediency rather than as criminal activity with a victim

Academic dishonesty and the community: students

A need to create different approaches for the different types of students who commit acts of academic dishonesty The unwitting plagiarist:

No offense against the community, as no intent to defraud Sanction, if applied, should reflect the lack of intent to

defraud

The deliberate plagiarist Intent to defraud requires an intentional sanction Sanctions should be correspondingly severe, reflecting the

seriousness of the offense against the community as well as its immorality

Academic dishonesty and the community: students

All research/studies point to same conclusions: Students don’t cheat when there is a strong community onus

against it The existence of a community with said onus, and student

awareness of said community, and the relevance of that community to the student, are paramount in the prevention of academic dishonesty and plagiarism

Communities in question: The community of peers: fellow students bringing opprobrium to

bear The university itself as community: sanctions for academic

dishonesty in place

And yet, little mention of any sort of community in college codes of conduct

Few specifically mention any community of any sort In cases where the “community” is referenced in codes,

there is often little definition of said community forthcoming; where it is forthcoming, it’s ill-defined

The role of faculty and administration within the community

Institutional responsibility for the prevention of academic dishonesty: MacDonald and Carroll (2006): – the institution has a

responsibility to ensure that students “move fairly quickly to an understanding of the appropriate conventions and practices implicit in academic study in a western university – even though this may be open to challenge within certain disciplines or philosophical positions. Regulations are not just designed to punish but to ‘rehabilitate the offender,’ i.e., to provide the means whereby they can avoid it in the future.” [7]

The role of faculty and administration within the community

Institutional responsibility for the prevention of academic dishonesty, cont.: Faculty must make clear to students both the moral and

community aspects of plagiarism/AD as offenses Faculty, as arbiters of the classroom, must not hesitate to

apply sanctions Difficulty lies in unwillingness of faculty to “police”; fear of being

unpopular or of garnering poor evaluations

What’s to be done at SCSU?

A three-pronged approach:

An agreement among SCSU faculty, staff and students as to what the appropriate moral norms are for the detection and sanctioning of plagiarism/academic dishonesty

The creation of a code of conduct that explicitly enumerate and define prohibited behaviors and their consequences/sanctions

The fostering, strengthening and encouraging of an academic community within which the code of conduct is enforced and sanctions for its violation are uniformly applied

What’s to be done at SCSU?

Establishing the norms, creating the community: continuing dialogue among SCSU instructors Educating students on plagiarism/academic dishonesty: best

practices Educating faculty on plagiarism/academic dishonesty: best

practices

Networking: Listerv? Blog? Regular campus-wide meetings? Should networking efforts extend to other MnSCU colleges?

Academic integrity committee?

Conclusion

Process needs to be more organized Campus-wide Nation-wide Global

Need support from administration (8) Need preventive work. “WE NEED TO

TEACH THE TEACHERS AND NOT TURN OURSELVES INTO AN EFFECTIVE POLICE FORCE

Thanks for listening!Questions?

Notes

1. William J. Bowers, W.J. (1964). Student dishonesty and its control in colleges. New York: Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University; Baird, J.S. (1980). Current trends in college cheating. Psychology in the Schools, 17(4), 515-522; McCabe, D.L., Trevino, L.K., and Butterfield, D.L. (2002). Honor code and other contextual influences on academic integrity: a replication and extension to modified honor code settings. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 368.

2. Burrus, R.T., McGoldrick, K., and Schuhmann, P.W. (2007). Self-reports of student cheating: does a definition of cheating matter? Journal of Economic Education, Winter 2008 (3-16).

3. Brown, B.S., and Emmett, D. (2001). Explaining variations in the level of academic dishonesty in studies of college students: some new evidence. College Student Journal, 35(4), 529-

4. Bowers,

5. Vandehey, M.A., Diekhoff, G.M., and LaBeff, E.E. (2007). College cheating: a twenty-year follow-up and the addition of an honor code. Journal of College Student Development, 48(4), 468-480.

6. Burrus, 4.

7. MacDonald, R. and Carroll, J. (2006). Plagiarism – a complex issue requiring a holistic institutional approach. Assessment and evaluation in higher education, 31(2), 233-245.

8. Bertram Gallant, P., and Drinan, P. (2006, September/October). Organizational Theory and Student Cheating: Explanation, Responses, and Strategies. The Journal of Higher Education. 77(5). 839-860