Plagiarism Education and Prevention: A Subject-Driven Case-Based Approach

cara.bradley@uregina.ca

1

The need for a subject-specific case-driven approach to plagiarism education

Plagiarism today

Despite the increasing media attention it has received in recent years, academic misconduct is nothing new. William J. Bowers’ 1964 study of over five thousand students from 99 schools was the first widespread study of the prevalence of academic misconduct and found that almost three-quarters of students surveyed reported engaging in some level of academic misconduct, with 30 percent admitting to plagiarism and 49 percent acknowledging copying a couple of sentences without footnoting (McCabe et al., 2001: 224). McCabe and Trevino repeated slightly modified versions of Bowers’ study throughout the 1990s and found little change in the percentage of students admitting to plagiarism. For example, 26 percent of students admitted to plagiarism in 1993 and 54 percent admitted to copying a few sentences without footnoting, numbers which do not differ substantially from Bowers’ earlier results (McCabe et al., 2001: 224). These and other studies have been variously interpreted as indicating a consistent level of plagiarism over the decades, or as masking an increasing incidence of the offense because of changing understandings of what constitutes plagiarism. Interpretation of the numbers is beyond the scope of this book and best left to others, but regardless of specifics, they do reflect knowledge shared by anyone working in postsecondary education: plagiarism is a major issue in today’s academy.

The Academy’s response

Tricia Bertram Gallant characterizes institutional response to plagiarism as falling into one of two categories: ‘rule compliance and integrity’ (2008: 5–6). Rule compliance strategies tend to be twofold, focusing on detection of rule violation and punitive action for lack of compliance. Detection of rule violation has always, to a certain extent, been triggered by instructors’ recognition of disparity between a student’s prior work and the present assignment, as well as a keen memory for passages they may have read elsewhere. However, although the causes for suspicion may remain the same, the method of and tools for investigation have changed substantially over the years. The paper chase of earlier years gave way to use of non-purpose-specific electronic tools (electronic databases, Internet search engines), and has finally been supplanted by purpose-built plagiarism detection software programs. Comprehensive analyses of these software programs have been undertaken elsewhere (Chao et al., 2009; Evans, 2006). Here it will suffice to note that while they definitely have benefits, such as saving instructor time in tracking down rule violations, these programs also have drawbacks. Students report feeling that the use of plagiarism detection software assumes student guilt and promotes a culture of distrust that undermines the teaching and learning process. Other students have objected to the inclusion of their own work in the database against which future student papers will be analyzed for transgressions, claiming that this violates their copyright on their own work, with some even pursuing legal action along these lines (Young, 2008). Finally, although it is clearly not possible for these plagiarism programs to be absolutely comprehensive (there is, after all, no electronic database of all written work), instructors can come to depend on them in such a way that they miss violations not highlighted by the software program, even in the face of obvious clues.

The other main tenet of a rule compliance strategy in handling plagiarism is the use of punitive action. Universities frequently mandate or at least recommend that instructors ensure that students are cautioned against plagiarism at the beginning of each course. This typically takes the form of a written admonition on the course syllabus followed by a brief verbal reiteration of institutional penalties for plagiarism offenses. Students who are not sufficiently deterred by the threat of consequences are punished accordingly, with penalties ranging from a need to redo the assignment in question, a reduced grade on the assignment or in the class, to removal from the class or expulsion from the institution. Dependence on this component of a ‘rule compliance’ strategy also has both benefits and drawbacks. Some students will likely be deterred from plagiarism once they understand potential consequences, and at least some of those who offend will be caught. The major drawback to relying on punitive action is that it is too late. Renard’s analogy is a good one: ‘It’s a lot like doing an autopsy. No matter how terrific the coroner is at determining how or why a person died, the damage has been done. Bringing the culprit to light won’t change that’ (2000: