 |
 |
I think the message is that we should be entirely open about what resources students have access to, but make it absolutely clear to them that they will be rewarded both for acknowledging their sources, and for the independent thinking they apply to those sources. The trick is to set things up so that they can't fake the independent thinking. George. -----Original Message----- From: Plagiarism [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Burkhard Schafer Sent: 07 November 2006 15:21 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: List response to Acumen proposal A reply to both George and Penny (whose email I cut and pasted below George's, for context) My initial response was to agree without qualification with George (and I too "cut out the middle man" and give students past essay answers, both "best" and "worst" practice cases - its my job to make sure that they can't be used for plagiarism) This would answer Penny's point: the code of conduct only has a business model if it is robust enough that not only the students (who arguably could not care less) but academics see them as a teaching resource, and recommend them. Indeed, when I was student, past essays were made available not just from my department and the student union, but mainstream publishers, either within textbooks or in self-standing collections. Is it a concern that students would pay for something the university can and maybe should provide, as George argues? Possibly. But then, we (well, every university I taught at or externaled) also recommend books for purchase. This too may disadvantage poorer students. They too could be provided for free by the university, through adequate library provisions. They too can be used for plagiarism. And judging from the second hand market in academic books, they too are regularly bought by students "strategically", for exam purposes only, and then discarded. Given the "convenient moral panic" over plagiarism and the political posturing it brought with it, this official endorsement of essay banks is unlikely to happen at present, I would guess. If it were, some departments would still (or again) offer them for free, as a reason to chose them over competitors, others would refer to the "approved" banks. This may diminish/destroy the market for the unapproved ones Detecting misuse (or ideally preventing it from occurring in the first place, through careful question setting)would remain an issue, but one that does not get worse and arguably easier than in an environment where students can get them only from banks that do not open up their data to turnitin. One possible addition to the code though: One problem with essay banks (or indeed all online resources) is that they make is simply too easy to cut and past, they are more tempting than the same product was in paper from. Now some forms of documents prevent this. I think JSTOR pdf files have the text select function disabled. A technical adjustment like this would make the online essays more like traditional articles/books and reduce the temptation for inappropriate use. Burkhard George MacDonald Ross wrote: > I'm very surprised that this highly original proposal hasn't generated > any debate on the list. > > I let my students see good essays written by students in previous > years > on very similar topics. They know that I use Turnitin, so they can't > cheat by simply copying. The best students use these essays as secondary > literature, and engage with them intellectually. For example, two years > ago a student wrote an essay in which he criticised my interpretation of > Kant (which the module is about), and I gave him high marks for > independence of thought. Last year, another student defended my > interpretation against what the previous student had written, and she > got high marks for the same reason. I think this is higher education at > its best, when students are engaging with essays, whoever wrote them, in > the same way as we academics engage with journal articles. > > I don't see that Acumen is necessarily doing anything different from > what I am already doing for my own students. My worry, as with other > for-profit agencies, is that rich students can buy services which > universities ought to be providing for free, and which poorer students > can't afford. > > George. --------------------------------------------- Penelope Booth wrote > Absolutely. > > BUT - such unethical operators > (a) might not sign up (would we know?) and > (b) would not care anyway, as they don't now care. > > Plus - would it mean that we would have identified the ones that > unethical students would like to use as they could then advertise not having signed up as being somehow an 'advantage' to the student? > > Anyay - I would still like some code so than we know who is and is > not...... > > Penny ************************************************************************ * 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 *************************************************************************