Fair point. Engage brain before typing.
I guess it is just the frustration of having to deal with a fair number of
cases of plagiarism, or suspected plagiarism, where it is clear that the
student did not know that what they were doing is wrong. This is despite
being told, and explained, and demonstrated to them in every way that we can
think of.
The problem then is how to deal with such situations. We have our
institutional policies, of course, but it is difficult to have a policy that
is robust enough to deal with the deliberate cheats, and flexible enough to
deal sympathetically with the students who did not set out to deceive, but
through bad practice, not listening to instruction, laziness, or whatever,
committed the same offence.
If we leave it to academic discretion, which would seem sensible at first
glance, we end up with some problems of equality of treatment.
The round-and-round threads, although are useful (I take back my original
suggestion that it did not help), seem to be on a level above that which
taxes the mind of the average undergraduate (rightly or wrongly). In my
mind, it highlights one of the reasons for the difficulty we have in
advising students, in that we can't always agree ourselves what constitutes
plagiarism, and how to deal with it. I haven't the answers though, only
some questions!
Derek.
_________________________________
Derek Ord
Head of Student Administrative Services
University of Hull
(01482) 465980
-----Original Message-----
From: Plagiarism [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Duncan
Williamson
Sent: 07 June 2006 06:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Plagiarism in context: HOW A SIMPLE ERROR IN SETTING UP A
DOCUMENT CAN GIVE RISE TO AN ACCUSATION OF PLAGIARISM
Derek,
You have the right to say what you like in this thread: legal, decent and
honest. However, I didn't find your contribution added anything.
I didn't agree with Appleton's interpretation of plagiarism vis a vis the
apparent error in Levin's paper. I thought Appleton's interpretation was
harsh and said so and said why I thought that. Then it turns out that some
institutions have rules that seem to say that if it's not in quotes and it's
not your own then it's plagiarism. Just when I was about to say that one
paragraph with a footnote appended would surely be given the benefit of the
doubt then we learn that an institution has a word limit for such an
eventuality of 40.
I found such information useful.
I generally agree that this forum often goes round in circles and is a
perfect example of how to design a horse by committee; and I think it is a
little surprising that what I have just said has come out of Levin's work
since I think it came as an aside rather than from the main thrust of what
Levin was trying to achieve.
If I might say so, contributors should say something constructive rather
than merely dismissive. It could be interesting for you to say more about
the problems you identify in your own institution, why they are a problem
and how they arose.
Duncan
-----Original Message-----
From: Derek Ord [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 06 June 2006 09:13
Subject: Re: Plagiarism in context: HOW A SIMPLE ERROR IN SETTING UP A
DOCUMENT CAN GIVE RISE TO AN ACCUSATION OF PLAGIARISM
Having read this thread for the past few days, I wonder how on Earth we
manage to advise our students at all.
I have great sympathy for student accused of plagiarism (or is that "guilty"
of plagiarism through error?)
I'm not an expert in plagiarism, but do have to deal with the cases
administratively. It often strikes me that even though as an institution we
have clear definitions, even within individual departments there is
variation in understanding. How do the students know where they stand if
academics have the problems listed in this email thread?
This recent thread has not enlightened me at all on the best way to deal
with the problem in our student body.
(And now I'm almost scared to post, in case someone picks up on some error
in my text!)
Derek.
_________________________________
Derek Ord
Head of Student Administrative Services
University of Hull
(01482) 465980
-----Original Message-----
From: Plagiarism [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jon
Appleton
Sent: 05 June 2006 17:43
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Plagiarism in context: HOW A SIMPLE ERROR IN SETTING UP A
DOCUMENT CAN GIVE RISE TO AN ACCUSATION OF PLAGIARISM
I trust this won't simply appear pedantic but I think that there is an
important definition at stake here. I would argue that plagiarism does not
require an intent to deceive
- if the work appears to pass the work of others off as your own, then it is
plagiarism. Hence, when Peter Levin says:
"a beautiful example of how a simple error in setting up a document can lead
to the writer being accused of plagiarism",
I think that should actually read:
"a beautiful example of how a simple error in setting up a document can lead
to the writer committing plagiarism".
Clearly this error was not as heinous a breach as if Levin had omitted all
references from that paragraph altogether.
But, without checking the reference, it was impossible to tell what part of
the text was not Levin's own work - was he acknowledging a similar idea in
the reference to those he expressed in the paragraph? Was it that he had
quoted the final sentence of the paragraph? Was it, as turned out to be the
case, that he had quoted the whole paragraph? Or, had this occurred in a
piece of work that did not have a quote immediately preceding it, did this
mean that actually the previous several pages was a direct quote?
And, before I am accused me of exaggerating for the sake of the argument, I
have been in exactly this last situation with a student over their final
year synoptic dissertation - they had copied large chunks of it verbatim and
claimed that, as they had put an endnote flag at the end of each multi-page
lift, they had not done anything wrong. Unlike Levin, their submission was
not due to a error in their layout but in their understanding. But, if we
had detected them doing this, even by error, in their first or second years,
we would have been able to save them from the far worse difficulties they
found themselves in at that late stage in their course.
There is also a deeper issue (for those of us who believe that passing off
others work as our own is wrong). It is very difficult to prove that
someone intended to cheat when they are found to have submitted the work of
others as their own, given the endless list of possible excuses about not
understanding what plagiarism is, or not understanding how to paraphrase
without plagiarising, or not understanding how to reference properly, or not
understanding how to take notes and then use them without subsequently
plagiarising, etc, etc all compounded by the personal difficulties the
student was going through at the time, or the time pressures caused by a
clash of deadlines or by the need to work to pay the tuition fees, or the
friend who typed up the essay but didn't understand about footnotes or who
missed out some of the references, or the strange computer programme that
destroyed all the careful layout indicating quotes, etc, etc (some few of
which may even be, in the case of some students, at least partly true). If
we do not take all plagiarism seriously, whether or not we can safely
conclude that it was deliberate, and impose penalties for it based primarily
on the extent of the plagiarism, it is almost impossible to penalise most
cases of deliberate cheating and that is an offence against those students
who do submit their own work, who expect others to do likewise and who
expect the University to detect and punish those who do not.
Jon Appleton
Oxford Brookes
[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> I am indebted to Jon Appleton for a beautiful example of how a simple
> error in setting up a document can lead to the writer being accused of
plagiarism. The paragraph to which he refers in the extract below, which is
at the foot of page 3 of my paper, should have been indented. By an error on
my part (now corrected), it wasn't. Just as well that I'm not a student at
Brookes, where - even though that paragraph was properly footnoted - 'we are
clear that this would be regarded as plagiarism'!
>
> Just possibly a slight excess of zeal here?
>
> Peter Levin
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Plagiarism on behalf of Jon Appleton
> Sent: Mon 05/06/2006 14:14
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Plagiarism in context
>
>
> Jon Appleton wrote: ...
>
> I was also intrigued by Levin's fifth reference (at the foot of page
> 3). Nothing is in quotes and nothing is inset, so what text is the
> reference referring to? On checking the reference, it can be found
> that, in fact, the whole paragraph is a direct quote from the source
> but this is effectively hidden from the reader. In other words, it
> gives the appearance that the author has developed certain ideas (or,
> at the very least, has reformulated certain ideas of others) when, in
> fact, they were simply copied verbatim from the work of someone else.
>
> At Oxford Brookes, we are clear that this would be regarded as
> plagiarism (although, if there was only one instance in the work
> submitted and particularly if the student was at an early stage of
> their course, it would not be particularly serious plagiarism) because
> we believe that it is essential to ensure that students understand the
> importance of very clearly distinguishing between, in the biblical
> phrase, mine and thine in the work they submit for assessment.
>
>
>
>
>
*************************************************************************
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
*************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************
To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.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
*************************************************************************
|
