-    To analyse and categorise the themes and language used by external commentators in the UK and other English speaking countries who write and campaign about the issue of student plagiarism

-    To document instances where external intervention has impacted on universities’ management of the issue

-    To identify the risks and impediments that attention to external voices might have on university policies and procedures for dealing with plagiarism

-    To suggest strategies and actions to limit the negative impact of external pressures on decisions and procedures within the academy designed to deal with student plagiarism

The study uses a mixture of discourse analysis and case study as well as reflection on the author’s personal experience over many years with a range of media. Building on the work by Leask (2004) who investigated the use of metaphor for characterizing plagiarism, the study will inspect a range of articles and reports to identify recurring metaphors, to characterize the language used and to identify (where possible) the assumptions which journalists, politicians and social commentators used when writing about student plagiarism. The study then creates case studies of instances where, on the one hand, institutions or identified individuals seemed to have altered their approach in response to concerns about external pressures and/or fear of unwelcome publicity. On the other, the paper identifies examples where approaches arose from evidence-based practices or pedagogic priorities. Within the limitations of case study methodology and allowing for the difficulties of showing a causal relationship between pressures and actions, the paper then speculates on the past and potentially, any future impact of universities continuing to act and react in similar ways to external pressures which are not derived from evidence-based stances.

Metaphors of disease, war, theft and attack predominate in the popular press and often creep into academic and pedagogic writing as well. Journalists and the articles they write almost always stress the relatively small number of cases where deliberate cheating is the concern rather than addressing the very much larger number of cases where students misunderstand what they are expected to do. The issue of plagiarism is frequently treated as simple, one-dimensional and amenable to easy fixes. Institutional reactions are largely negative, either to actual events or to imagined external commentary. Institutions act as if being identified with the issue or having your practices reviewed publicly is highly dangerous and to be avoided.

Four institutional stances are common: denial and/or concealment; over-anxiety [about legal and reputational consequences]; failures of collaboration or co-operation; and ‘faking good’. Perhaps the most worrying reaction was for institutions to appear to take on board the headline writers’ language of theft, war, plague and threat to the integrity of academic awards. Universities and/or those who work in them seemed to accept (despite the lack of evidence to support such a view) that the problem of plagiarism was huge and potentially, overwhelming. This risked them adopting a kind of helplessness and was often seen as justification for not adopting the range of actions that are regularly recommended in the literature on dealing with student plagiarism (see, for example, Macdonald and Carroll, 2006).

The findings strengthen the arguments for co-operation and collaboration between universities. They remind academics that plagiarism is best managed in the same way as so many difficult issues are managed: i.e. according to academic judgment, consensus and sharing of good practice. In this way, journalistic language is countered by treating the issue as a normal low-risk (albeit increasingly high volume) part of pedagogic practice. The study also provides systematic tools for identifying and hopefully improving the management of external pressures on institutions. The findings further enhance calls for a holistic, learning-centred approach to the issue of student plagiarism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- To augment the methods currently in use to teach students the skills they need to comply with academic writing requirements and conversely, to avoid accusations of student plagiarism.

 

- Also, to investigate and address the concerns of academic colleagues that by showing students how the text matching tools work and exposing their capability and limitations, we undermine attempts to deal with the rising number of students who submit others’ work as their own. Those who adopt this position claim that by allowing access, we encourage students to alter text to avoid detection rather than to learn correct citation. Further, they argue that students who understand the tools are less likely to fear them, given their often limited scope and finite capacity to identify copied text.

 

- To document the positive aspects of using text matching software for students’ learning.

 

 

The study aims to collect and compare data gathered under varying circumstances with a view to eliciting common themes and issues. Students in a range of settings used Turnitin and reported on their experiences. Teachers, too, were interrogated as to their aims in using the tools with students and their subsequent views after having done so. The tools were used under several protocols. In some cases, students accessed the text matching tool themselves and then interpreted its findings. In others, the feedback was teacher mediated with the feedback serving as formative information for subsequent revision. Student characteristics varied as well. In particular, several groups of students for whom the language of instruction was not their primary language were surveyed to determine their experiences. Their teachers’ views were also collected.

 

Findings were analysed using constructivist learning theory for any evidence of students applying Kolb’s learning theories systematically rather than adopting pragmatic and strategic approaches. We also drew conclusions on students ‘patchwriting’ behaviours as described in Howard (2001) and Percorari (2003) where interim approaches to paraphrasing and using original texts was highlighted as a common and arguably, acceptable practice for novice writers.

 

 

Anecdotal evidence that asserts students will alter their behaviour in response to the feedback received through text matching tools is confirmed. In general, post-report students align their text more closely to that deemed acceptable. The studies elicited little evidence of the deliberate cheating alleged to occur by those advocating withholding students’ access. However, students’ actions can be interpreted as ‘making the colour go away’ (that is, adopting surface approaches to generating text that is acceptable) rather than genuinely improving their attribution skills and grasping the underlying tacit and implicit understandings needed for academic writing. A key to effecting change in student attitudes was the nature of the interaction between the teacher, student and detection/learning tool. ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) students responded positively to a particular approach to using the detection tool within an educational framework. One significant finding was students reporting a diminution in levels of fear and concern which may in turn be a significant help to their ability to learn. More studies are needed with a wider range of students to confirm the pedagogic benefits of this kind of approach.

 

 

Could provide additional encouragement and impetus to institutional attempts to address students’ plagiarism and more importantly, lessen the likelihood that students will inadvertently breach academic conventions and attract penalties that will leave them disempowered as learners and less inclined to view the rules as fair and therefore, worth investing effort in developing the skills needed to comply. Also provides useful data concerning how detection tools should be used to encourage student learning.

In accounts of student plagiarism, use of technology is often assigned a pivotal role. Students are positioned as plagiarists who copy and paste or download essays with the explicit purpose of cheating. Technology (and the academic dishonesty it engenders) is seen as threatening the quality of education. In order to counter this trend, many argue for upholding discipline rather than upholding learning. When considering accounts which take this line, it is possible to discern a discourse that treats Academia as if it were a unitary system, with stable values that unite scholars from different fields of research and even from different institutions, disciplines and countries. In contrast, there are frequent references to threats to these universal values by a counter-culture to which students in increasing numbers are assumed to belong. A range of techniques to counter this trend and to secure academic integrity are suggested such as implementing policies or installing anti-plagiarism ‘detectors’. This vision derives from a simplistic view of Academia in which the latter is seen as infallible and the student is inadequate. We argue that those who view Academia in such terms run the risk of failing to recognise uncertainty as an integral part of academic activity.   More significantly, those who dismiss technology as a threat and attribute students’ dishonesty to its introduction ignore the impact of uncertainty on learning, especially for those who participate as students.    

 

Learning provides an alternative value system as to how one might position students (Howard 1995), a value system that recognises the uncertainty involved in learning. It is widely held in discourse that society is becoming more and more complex and the outcome of decisions more uncertain (Giddens 1991, 1999;  Beck 1992, 1999). Hirst (1985) claims that work in modern society is characterised by high task-uncertainty. We argue that the same can be said for learning. Student learning currently takes place in ill-structured and ill-defined domains (Bruner 1957; Spiro 1988  ) with few if any certain solutions. Consequently today’s learning environments are rapidly evolving into ones where management of uncertainty takes on a new importance. Technological and cultural changes introduce increased uncertainty which student in turn need to manage. By assuming that their primary aim is to cheat, we obscure dilemmas students confront in their efforts to manage uncertainty and address tasks designed to engender learning.

 

One aim of this study is to focus on how students make sense of their use of technology in practice and thereby to contribute to discussions about the effects of the use of technology in education. To those ends, three cases were derived from video-recorded sessions in which students were asked to use technology in problem-based and collaborative learning. Analysis of the sessions was inspired by socio-cultural discourse analysis and interaction analysis. It focuses on how students, through their actions, make sense of technology. We were interested in identifying what kind of uses students highlight and turn into objects of knowledge what kind of dilemmas students encounter as they move from searching for information to producing texts.

 

The results indicate that students undertaking problem-based and collaborative work spend a considerable time making sense of their assignment. They are uncertain about how to turn teacher’s instructions into guidelines for their own work. Despite having formulated their own questions students are still unsure about what constitutes acceptable answers. This uncertainty impacts on how they search for and value information. This is not merely a question of finding the right type of texts, but making sure that those texts actually provide the right kind of information. Decisions about whether texts actually can be used are often only resolved through peer interaction, discussions revolving around the quality of information or appraisal of bias. How students make sense of technology impacts on how they value their sources. For example they consider where the information came from when making judgments about its use. Sometimes, “found on the Internet” is enough to disqualify it as a source. If, on the other hand, a source has been endorsed/ handed to them by a teacher or has been found in a website deemed authoritative, it may be accepted at face value. However, in most cases, students seem to find it necessary to discuss the value of a source.

 

Managing information for writing purposes also introduces dilemmas. Texts, once located, seldom provide straight answers nor is it immediately clear how downloaded texts can be used to support production of something new and original.   Students wonder how to treat texts in accordance with rules for paraphrasing, attributing and referencing How much from a text, they ask themselves, is it possible to use without citing directly; what needs to be changed and how does one make sure that the content is still adequately represented? Such matters need continual deliberation. As if this uncertainty was not enough, technology, can make these questions grow even more problematic. Students who move parts of texts or edit directly in texts say they are not sure about how their transformation affects issues of ownership. What changes render the text their own as opposed to one that belongs to the original author? Other dilemmas concern referencing, when a citation is required, and what may be viewed as common knowledge. Finally, students wonder whose property, if anyone’s, are they accessing when they the use the Internet?

 

To conclude, our results demonstrate that a range of actions often categorised as acts of plagiarism surface as dilemmas, especially when students undertake problem-based and collaborative work. Task uncertainty is highlighted in students’ discussions: they attempt to re-formulate questions; search via information technology; restructure information using technology; create texts; and address assignments they have been given. The actions, often unhelpfully characterised as plagiarism, are rooted in students’ uncertainty about how to manage information and write a text. Rather than an inevitable result of student use of technology, plagiarism may result from complex work activities. It may be an emergent characteristic   of learning in modern society and as such, is best dealt with within a domain of learning.