Conference Papers

“We know it when we see it” is not good enough: toward a standard definition of plagiarism that transcends theft, fraud, and copyright

Teddi Fishman — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:00:00 PDT

Many of the assumptions that inform the ways we respond to issues of plagiarism are based in laws and traditions that pertain to stealing or to copyright. Laws about stealing, however, assume key concepts that are at odds with the conceptual realities of plagiarism. The notion of taking something, for instance, carries with it the concomitant idea that the rightful owner is deprived of the use of that thing. Laws about copyright are similarly derived from the notion of a physical text being duplicated to make additional (physical) copies to be sold, implying that if copyright is violated, the rightful owner suffers (financial) harm. Neither set of laws appropriately addresses plagiarism, however, which can occur without depriving the author/owner of the work or the right to profit from it. This paper will differentiate the elements of plagiarism from those of theft and copyright violations, and attempt to define plagiarism in terms that accurately describe its essential elements.

Plagiarism, ethics and education: where to now?

Wendy Sutherland-Smith et al. — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:30:00 PDT

Agreement within tertiary institutions about the most effective ways to deal with plagiarism continue to be fraught with tension. Institutions often opt for multiple means of deterrence, including electronic and human detection; revamped policies and procedures to increase deterrence and instigating an overall increased awareness of academic integrity issues within the academic community. One approach focuses on ethics as a vehicle in overcoming plagiarism. Universities add compulsory ‘ethical’ units or segments within existent subjects to ‘cover’ plagiarism and other issues of academic integrity in programs. However, how is this approach operating in practice? Are students sustaining notions of ethical practice throughout their courses of study and into the workplace? This session seeks to tease out some of the current ‘ethical approaches’ to plagiarism and collaboratively examine what appears to be working or not working and why. In particular, common academic practices will form a focal point for discussion, in terms of the notion of ethical engagement with students.

Electronic portfolios: balancing learning and assessment

Gail Ring — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:30:00 PDT

In 2006, our university instituted a requirement that all undergraduates create and submit a digital portfolio as evidence of academic and experiential mastery of academic competencies. The rationale for this ePortfolio Program is to build a mechanism through which core competencies (Written and Oral Communication; Reasoning, Critical Thinking, and Problem Solving; Mathematical, Scientific, and Technological Literacy; Social Science and Cross-Cultural Awareness; Arts and Humanities; and Ethical Judgment) can be both demonstrated and evaluated. Although the ePortfolio was originally implemented as an assessment tool, its broader educational function is to make students' college education more meaningful and to assess the integrity of the educational process.

Research apprenticeship: is this the answer to inadvertent plagiarism in undergraduate students’ writings?

Ursula McGowan — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:30:00 PDT

To deal with inadvertent plagiarism, a conceptual framework based on an apprenticeship model for undergraduate education is proposed here. It aims to provide students with guidance, feedback and time to develop (1) an understanding of the rationale for the requirement of referencing conventions in university education and (2) tools for lifelong language learning and skills in emulating the writings of the experts in their disciplines.

Managing university reputations

Peter Curtin — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:00:00 PDT

There has been a failure to recognise the effects of commercial pressure on university administration, and a failure to recognise the different and incompatible goals of commerce and education. To the extent there is conflict and competition between the goals of education and commerce, short term commercial considerations seem to be paramount. Reputation management which brings short term commercial success includes suppression of dissent and criticism, and the covering up of misconduct and wrongdoing in universities. Reputation management which allows dissent and criticism leading to the exposure of wrongdoing, and then allows reform of university administrations, results in longer term improvement in the achievement of educational goals. A long term reputation for integrity may come at a short term commercial price. The competition for Asian students studying abroad has resulted in the compromise of standards of university integrity, and has spawned some spectacular financial losses on overseas campuses.

A space odyssey: the implications of moving the writing center into the virtual world

Barbara Ramirez — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:00:00 PDT

For decades, traditional writing centers have offered tutoring services in face-to-face environments, but with the growing popularity of distance education, many students now need online access to tutoring. To meet this need, some writing centers are exploring the idea of “virtual” tutoring. As we explore options using virtual environments such as Second Life for this purpose, we are confronted with a range of questions about changes in the dynamics of the tutoring process, many of which concern academic integrity.

Taking action on academic integrity at one Australian university

Julianne East — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:00:00 PDT

Despite all the work put into writing policies to reduce academic misconduct, all the writing of guidelines for how to acknowledge, and all the declarations of how academic integrity is valued, few Australian universities could say with confidence that they have a holistic, integrated approach to dealing with academic misconduct and academic integrity. One Australian university, for example, has a well-written policy which clearly outlines lecturer responsibilities, yet that university has not monitored whether staff are aware of these responsibilities and if they are implementing them. Given the heavy workload of lecturers, why would lecturers seek out policy and/or bother to carefully read it when it seems peripheral to their research and teaching? Engaging lecturers in the topic of academic integrity requires more than a good policy and a check list. Through a distributed leadership initiative, an action research project in one faculty of this university was set up to engage lecturers in taking on their responsibilities in ways that are appropriate for their practice. In this paper I review the actions taken by the lecturers and reflect on the progress of the project.

Reminiscences of the University of Sydney psychology department’s discipline-focused education of young John (1958-65) under O’Neil’s god professorial reign (1945-65): Academic freedom, fairness in evaluation, and educational integrity

John Furedy — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:30:00 PDT

This paper is a modification of and some additions to an oral paper given in 2008 to philosophers and psychologists most of whose current thinking is along the lines of a post-modern, instrumentalist approach to knowledge and higher education. The paper’s (long) title shamelessly plagiarizes from the title of the book by the much more eminent Donald Horne. The approach I advocate, and look back to (perhaps with glasses that are somewhat rose tinted) is one that characterized O’Neil’s department. The approach was pre-modernist in a number of differentiating respects that included complete academic freedom, education rather than indoctrination, and fairness in the evaluation only of academic performance rather than of personal beliefs and attitudes. These conditions, rather than those of such features as “inclusiveness”, I argue, are necessary for integrity in higher education. These are also the conditions which are largely satisfied in competitive elitist sports and games, especially in Australia.

The effectiveness of plagiarism detection software as a learning tool in academic writing education

Brad Stappenbelt et al. — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:30:00 PDT

Plagiarism detection software (or more accurately, text-matching software) is commonly employed in a punitive capacity, detecting plagiarism after assignment submission. As an alternative to this approach, online plagiarism detection software was adopted as a learning tool for students instead. A trial was conducted in the foundation unit of the professional development component of the engineering degree at the University of Western Australia. Prior to the use of plagiarism detection software as a learning tool, efforts to instruct students regarding proper referencing and paraphrasing did not result in commensurate decreases in the levels of plagiarism detected. Many student assignments submitted displayed at the very least careless source acknowledgement. As part of the trial, students were given individual access to the software to self-assess their work as often as required prior to submission. The plagiarism detection algorithm assignment-originality statistics across three substantial written assignments throughout semester revealed continual and substantial improvement in student ability to avoid plagiarising. Through the use of this software, students were facilitated to learn how to properly acknowledge sources and improve their paraphrasing. This was accompanied by a dramatic decrease in the reportable incidence rates of plagiarism. Student perception of the use of plagiarism detection software in this capacity was also very positive.

Embedding academic integrity at the University of Wollongong

Pauline Lysaght et al. — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:30:00 PDT

This paper provides a preliminary report on a project designed to determine how effectively values associated with academic integrity have been embedded in the learning and teaching environment at UOW. Five key values have been formally identified at UOW: honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility. These values are based on those espoused by the Centre for Academic Integrity (CAI) at Duke University in North Carolina and are recognised as central to academic honesty. Academic staff at UOW, charged with responsibilities for shaping educational policy and implementing, monitoring and reviewing processes that support the development of academic integrity across the student population, have taken part in the project. Through their responses to surveys and focus group discussions, a broad understanding of academic integrity and the ways in which it may be supported is emerging.