O.K. The authors' own abstract is as follows:
"This study investigated the attitudes and beliefs of 291 science
students at a large university in the UK about plagiarism involving the
internet. Students from seven undergraduate classes, ranging from Year 1
to Year 3, completed a 12-item questionnaire anonymously, but in the
presence of the investigator and a host lecturer. The results revealed
that more than 50 percent of the students indicated an acceptance of
using the Internet for academically dishonest activities. Males and
first- and second-year students took a more liberal view about academic
dishonesty than females and third-year students. Guilt and moral
reasoning were significant factors in forming attitudes towards
plagiarism. The alarming figures disclosed here are a call for
preventative [sic] action to curtail students' academically dishonest
activities through the internet."
I accept that the study was properly conducted, and that it adds to the
already large body of evidence that there is a serious problem. No doubt
this was why the article was accepted for publication. What I
particularly object to is the conclusion of the article summarised in
the last sentence of the abstract, because (1) it betrays ignorance of
preventive action that is already in place thanks to the Plagiarism
Advisory Service, and (2) it advocates a punitive approach which flies
in the face of the consensus among plagiaronomists that the focus should
be on designing plagiarism out of our teaching and assessment rather
than on detection and punishment. No-one with the slightest knowledge of
the recent literature on plagiarism could either have written as the
authors did, or have approved the article as a referee.
George.
-----Original Message-----
From: Plagiarism [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Duncan
Williamson
Sent: 07 July 2004 07:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Promoting best practice and plagiarism prevention.
George,
I can't comment on the article since I haven't read it; and since I
don't
subscribe to the journal it's unlikely that I will read it. However,
since
the article went through the referee process, it must have some merit
...
are you able to include an abstract of the article or summarise the good
points for us?
Just a thought.
Duncan
-----Original Message-----
From: George MacDonald Ross [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 06 July 2004 10:33
Subject: Re: Promoting best practice and plagiarism prevention.
I agree with Marie that the conference was very useful, but the message
was that detection software is only one of many means for designing
plagiarism out.
When I got home, I found the latest issue (5.2) of Active Learning in HE
(the journal for members of the ILTHE as was) in my postbag. I was
deeply shocked when I read an article by Attila Szabo and Jean Underwood
called 'Cybercheats'. Apart from one passing reference to e-detection,
they don't seem to have heard of Turnitin or anything similar. They take
a crude behavourist approach (as if students were rats in a Skinner
box), whereby behaviour is determined by the balance between reward and
punishment, and the effect of punishment is a function of its severity
and the perceived likelihood of being caught. They conclude that since
students believe and will continue to believe they are unlikely to be
caught, the only solution is to make the punishment even more severe.
Attila Szabo is well named!
They seem to be blithely ignorant of all the good advice about making
plagiarism less likely which has increased exponentially over the last
decade. It is a disgrace that a refereed journal should stoop to
publishing such ill-informed and pernicious rubbish.
George.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
George MacDonald Ross
Director
Philosophical and Religious Studies Subject Centre
of the Higher Education Academy
School of Philosophy
University of Leeds
Leeds LS2 9JT UK
+44 (0)113-343-3283
[log in to unmask]
http://www.prs-ltsn.ac.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Plagiarism [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Marie
Hill
Sent: 05 July 2004 23:03
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Promoting best practice and plagiarism prevention.
I think we would all agree that the issue of plagiarism is a topic we
would not have to deal with within Higher Education Institutions,
(HEI's).
The recent conference at the University of Northumberland provided a
platform to promote Information Technology currently available to both
promote best practice but additionally prevent and detect plagiarism.
This should be viewed not as a threat (e.g. Mike Reddys 21st June
discussion) but rather as an opportunity for us with HEI's to embrace
this
new technology.
What are your views on this?
Marie Hill.
************************************************************************
*
You are subscribed to the JISC Plagiarism mailing list. To Unsubscribe,
change
your subscription options, or access list archives, visit
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/PLAGIARISM.html
************************************************************************
*
************************************************************************
*
You are subscribed to the JISC Plagiarism mailing list. To Unsubscribe,
change
your subscription options, or access list archives, visit
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/PLAGIARISM.html
************************************************************************
*
************************************************************************
*
You are subscribed to the JISC Plagiarism mailing list. To Unsubscribe,
change
your subscription options, or access list archives, visit
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/PLAGIARISM.html
************************************************************************
*
*************************************************************************
You are subscribed to the JISC Plagiarism mailing list. To Unsubscribe, change
your subscription options, or access list archives, visit
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/PLAGIARISM.html
*************************************************************************
|