Hi Diane,
Omitting colons does not lead the reader to believe that the student has
come up with an idea or a particular formulation of an idea that was in fact
produced by someone else. If any behaviour produces such a belief in the
reader, objectively that behaviour is fraud whether a) it was intended as
such or b) was the result of ignorance (ie not understanding the conventions
for referencing) or c) was the result of carelessness (eg. didn't record
source when researching, eg failed to indent paragraph).
Such actions are not (in my experience) treated worse than ignorance of the
content. As I said, if the Disciplinary Officer is satisfied there was no
intention to cheat, if the student is in the first year of their u/g course,
etc, the normal penalty is a Formal Warning or, for more extensive errors,
say 5 marks deducted. Ignorance of the content is penalised far more
severely (by failing the assessment) but the key issue is that they are done
through different processes. Ignorance of the subject matter is an academic
judgement which is the responsibility of Examination Committees who make
their decisions without any input from the student other than the assessed
piece of work; whether a piece of plagiarised material was done deliberately
or accidentally (and how culpable any accidental breach is) requires a
dialogue with the student and the application of the rules of natural
justice which cannot occur within the processes of an Examination Committee.
I also don't know of any programme at Oxfords Brookes where students are
told about referencing once and then expected to know it all. However, our
experience is that many students repeatedly fail to take the issue of
referencing seriously until they are caught up in the Disciplinary process
and get their Formal Warning/ small deduction of marks. In almost every
case, this acts as a powerful wake-up call about how seriously Brookes takes
the issue, they then pay proper attention to it and, surprise, surprise,
they get it right from then on. In general, students learn what they
believe it is important for them to learn - if we do not take proper
referencing seriously, nor will they.
All the best,
Jon
On 5 September 2011 11:31, Schmitt, Diane <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Jon
>
>
>
> If a student fails to to include commas or semi-colons in a sentence, would
> you take off an equal number of marks or would you give the student feedback
> on the appropriate use of punctuation in an essay.
>
>
>
> I'm confused as to why there is such a quick rush to judge formatting
> errors as fraud when they occur in relation to referencing when they are
> often given very short shrift when they occur in other aspects of writing.
>
>
>
> Why is culpability or ignorance treated with such greater punitive action
> for referencing than when a student demonstrates ignorance of the content
> they are supposed to have learned.
>
>
>
> Why are students not allowed to "learn" how to use sources and references
> in the same way they are expected to learn other content and discourse
> features of their field. I can't think of any other area of teaching and
> learning where students are told once or given a on-line tutorial for
> something and expect to take it on board in its entirety the first time
> around.
>
>
>
> How can we expect students to effectively learn about referencing when
> they are in constant fear of being accused of cheating?
>
>
>
> Diane Schmitt
>
> ________________________________
> From: Plagiarism [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Jon Appleton [
> [log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 10:37 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Is "Proof reading" a legitimate action?
>
> Sorry to disappoint but, yes, if a student inserts a sentence or even a
> whole paragraph that is a direct quote, refers to the source but to fails to
> indicate it is a direct quote (or even whether the reference is to a
> sentence, more than one sentence or the whole paragraph), at Brookes we
> treat it as plagiarism and impose a (relatively light, eg, formal warning, 5
> marks off) penalty for this.
>
> All the best,
>
> Jon
>
> On 3 September 2011 16:58, Erik Borg <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> Following Jon Appleton's suggestion, I looked at the website mentioned in
> the discussion as supplying a "definition" of plagiarism (
> http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_what_is_plagiarism.html)
>
> Is there anyone on this list who believes that "failing to put a quotation
> in quotation marks" (bullet point 3, under "all of the following are
> considered plagiarism") is prima facia plagiarism or (and I am not a lawyer)
> is against US copyright law?
>
> The real question here is, "is this plagiarism?"
>
> This is iParadigms scare-mongering and drumming up business, not a
> thoughtful consideration of plagiarism
>
> Erik Borg
>
> ________________________________
> From: Plagiarism [[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>] on behalf of Jon Appleton [
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
> Sent: 02 September 2011 16:50
>
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Is "Proof reading" a legitimate action?
>
>
> * The full wording on the site (one of many variations) is:
> *
> * "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
> * to use (another's production) without crediting the source
> * to commit literary theft
> * to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an
> existing source.
>
> In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing
> someone else's work and lying about it afterward."
>
> The problem is that this makes huge assumptions even within its
> "definition". Several of the formulations within the "definition" are
> objective ("passing off the ideas of others", "using another's production
> without credit") while others bring in a significant subjective element
> ("steal", "theft"). In particular, the final sentence most certainly is not
> "in other words" - there is absolutely no implication in many of the variant
> definitions included above that plagiarism must be done knowingly or, most
> bizarrely of all, that it necessarily requires lying about it afterwards
> ("I've copied three-quarters of my dissertation from the web but when
> challenged I admitted it so it's not plagiarism" ???)
>
> It is entirely possible to commit plagiarism through (culpable) ignorance
> or misunderstanding of the required referencing conventions or through
> (culpable) negligence in recording sources. This is less culpable than
> deliberately setting out to cheat but it is still plagiarism in that a
> reader of the work is deceived as to what the personal contribution of the
> writer is. On that basis, sub-editing can be plagiarism although possibly
> proof-reading would not be. Yes families and friends do this - that does
> not make it acceptable, just less detectable.
>
> While it is a huge step change in the work-load, I'm not clear how an
> assessor can establish whether all the changes were to elements that were
> not covered by the learning outcomes (eg grammar and spelling if these are
> not being assessed) unless the student submits both their original draft as
> well as the proof-read/ corrected draft.
>
> All the best ,
>
> Jon Appleton
>
>
>
> On 2 September 2011 14:29, Duncan Williamson <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Adding proof reading to the list of plagiarism crimes must lead to a wide
> variety of other crimes having to be added, surely?
>
> My initial reaction to this debate was to go back to the definition of
> plagiarism itself. In summary, plagiarism can be defined as
>
> … an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying
> about it afterward.
> http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_what_is_plagiarism.html
>
> I don’t know if this list has accepted this definition but if it has, or a
> definition similar to this, then proof reading is not part of the crime is
> it?
>
> On the other hand, if we define plagiarism to cover, “all my own work” then
> that’s a different story.
>
> What you might want to consider is to insist that students/authors add a
> clause that says something like this:
>
> Blah, blah, blah, used the services of a proof reader. The Proof reader
> should then have added an acknowledgement of their involvement and that they
> have corrected grammar and spellings etc but not the substance and meaning
> of the work …
>
> Best wishes
>
> Duncan
>
>
>
> From: Wells, Julian [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>]
> Sent: 01 September 2011 15:57
>
> Subject: Re: Is "Proof reading" a legitimate action?
>
> Speaking as a former professional journalist who has done a lot of
> sub-editing and proof-reading, I’d say
>
>
> 1) From the point of view of the printing and publishing trades these
> are quite distinct tasks.
>
> a. Sub-editing is correcting and *improving* a text submitted by a
> contributor (internal or external to the publication)
>
> b. Proof-reading is ensuring that the edited text has been set by the
> typesetter in accordance with the text and any typographic instructions, and
> indicating any further corrections
>
> 2) However, there is obviously (?) a fuzzy boundary between correction
> and improvement (and indeed the reverse; pedants who – wrongly – feel that
> split infinitives are impermissible are definitely not improving a text when
> they needlessly remove them)
>
> In the present case one senses that what is really being asked for is
> considerably over the border on the improvement side, at the very least.
>
> Assuming that there was in fact any correction in the first place one would
> need to compare original and subsequent versions and come to a judgment.
>
>
> Dr Julian Wells
> Director of Studies
> School of Economics
>
> staff web-page: http://fass.kingston.ac.uk/staff/cv.php?staffnum=287
> personal web-site: http://staffnet.kingston.ac.uk/~ku32530
>
> Principal lecturer in economics
> School of Economics
> Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
> Kingston University
> Penrhyn Road
> Kingston-upon-Thames
> KT1 2EE
> United Kingdom
>
> +44 (0)20 8417 2341<tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%208417%202341>
>
>
>
> From: Plagiarism [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<mailto:[mailto:
> [log in to unmask]]> On Behalf Of Robert Clarke
>
> Sent: 01 September 2011 14:50
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Is "Proof reading" a legitimate action?
>
> As part of our research into "contract cheating" we are increasingly
> finding requests to outsource "proof reading" of essays and disserations,
> such as the one shown below:-
>
>
> "I'm looking for an English native user. The duties are to proofread my
> piece of work, correct my grammar mistakes and edit to better wording. I
> hope to look for long term cooperator. You must deliver the assignment with
> good quality on time. The topic of my works is related to financial
> products, IT knowledge and few electronic engineering. Please msg then I can
> send you a sample test. In addition, please inform me how will you charge. "
>
>
> Do you think that proof-reading is a legitimate practice?
>
>
>
> Bob Clarke
> School of Computing, Telecommunications and Networks
> Birmingham City University
> UK
> * For more information on "contract cheating" see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_cheating
>
> This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
> Security System.
> *************************************************************************
> 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*************************************************************************
>
> This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
> Security System.
> *************************************************************************
> 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*************************************************************************
>
> NOTICE
>
> This message and any files transmitted with it is intended for the
> addressee only and may contain information that is confidential or
> privileged. Unauthorised use is strictly prohibited. If you are not the
> addressee, you should not read, copy, disclose or otherwise use this
> message, except for the purpose of delivery to the addressee.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the author
> and do not necessarily represent those of Coventry University.
>
>
>
> *************************************************************************
> 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*************************************************************************
> DISCLAIMER: This email is intended solely for the addressee. It may contain
> private and confidential information. If you are not the intended addressee,
> please take no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone. In this case,
> please reply to this email to highlight the error. Opinions and information
> in this email that do not relate to the official business of Nottingham
> Trent University shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the
> University. Nottingham Trent University has taken steps to ensure that this
> email and any attachments are virus-free, but we do advise that the
> recipient should check that the email and its attachments are actually virus
> free. This is in keeping with good computing practice.
>
*************************************************************************
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
*************************************************************************
