EJ_May2007_B.qxd

>

4/25/07

2:51 PM

Page 81

GENERAL INTEREST

P. L. Thomas

Of Flattery and Thievery: Reconsidering Plagiarism in a Time of Virtual Information

M

P. L. Thomas provides a framework for discussing plagiarism and calls on us to avoid overly simplified policies. After considering various perspectives on intent and the purposes of documentation, Thomas advocates developing standard definitions and guidelines for plagiarism in the department or the classroom. We should also offer professional development opportunities to help teachers transfer abstract concepts of plagiarism to classroom instruction, discussion, and assignments.

argaret Atwood, in Negotiating with the Dead: A Writer on Writing, confesses that she is neither scholar nor literary critic, but that she works as writers work: “[W]e steal the shiny bits, and build them into the structures of our own disorderly nests” (xix). Many of us who are also writers—who have learned to write and who have attempted to teach others to write—know that the path to being a writer includes mimicking those writers who turn us inside out as readers. Some clichés are apt: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. As teachers of writing, we are faced with two important but conflicting responsibilities—fostering authentic writers who tend to grow by reading deeply and richly while stealing from other writers, as Atwood confesses, and simultaneously fostering young scholars who understand and embrace the ethics of documentation that are at the heart of academic honesty. There is much hand-wringing over the ease with which contemporary students seem to be able to plagiarize now that the World Wide Web gives them access to huge amounts of text at the touch of a few buttons (“Plagiarism”; Plumb; “Teaching”). I have been struck, however, by a much more pressing issue than the claimed rise in student dishonesty in their writing. Let me share the series of events that raised this issue for me. Since I entered higher education several years ago, I have noticed a rising emphasis by my university on student academic honesty, with a notable focus by the university on policies concerning plagiarism. The most recent manifestation of that concern

has been the reshaping of our process for addressing professors’ charges of plagiarism by their students. I was asked to serve on the committee addressing charges of plagiarism, and the first case proved to be illuminating. While I feel that revealing too many details of the situation would be unfair to all involved, I do want to frame what grew from the incident. The student, a senior in college, submitted a documented paper in a course that began with students’ signing a pledge that clearly addressed plagiarism and that stated flatly that any plagiarism would result in The student noted that failure of the course. The stu- scholars and journalists who dent did submit a paper that plagiarize are far more apt had serious and consistent documentation errors as well as to be caught for purposeful significant sections of text misrepresentation of ideas flagged by a Web-based pro- for professional rewards, gram that detects plagiarism. while students are far less The student shared with the likely to be seeking credit committee (consisting of profor others’ ideas; students fessors and fellow students) that the student had never simply make last-minute written a single documented efforts to slip an assignment paper in school before college by a professor. and that the paper in question was only that student’s second documented paper while in college. And, quite significantly, the student was not native to the United States. Two additional aspects during this process are also extremely important. First, one of the students on the committee made a statement about student

English Journal

Vol. 96, No. 5

Copyright © 2007 by the National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved.

May 2007

81

EJ_May2007_B.qxd

4/25/07

2:51 PM

Page 82

Of Flattery and Thievery: Reconsidering Plagiarism in a Time of Virtual Information

plagiarism. To paraphrase, the student suggested that undergraduates do not plagiarize in the same way that professional academics plagiarize. This student made the distinction that most undergraduates (and K–12 students, I would add) plagiarize as the result of laziness, lack of concern, and completing Within our English assignments at the last departments and our minute. The student noted larger faculties at the that scholars and journalists secondary and university who plagiarize are far more levels, we are all growing apt to be caught for purposeful more and more concerned misrepresentation of ideas for professional rewards, while about plagiarism and students are far less likely to academic honesty along be seeking credit for others’ with the roles the Internet ideas; students simply make and students’ electronic last-minute efforts to slip an sophistication play in assignment by a professor. I those concerns. think this student offered a vital distinction to consider in this discussion, but we know that it expresses a somewhat naive position; some students do intentionally steal others’ ideas. After the hearing, I discussed the case with my department chair, who is also not native to the United States. My department chair shared with me that her educational experiences outside of the United States were heavily steeped in European traditions that included rewarding students for rote memorization of authoritarian texts. The colleague made me aware that perceptions of intellectual property—particularly as it pertains to students—are different within different cultures. Our contemporary paradigms for acknowledging sources of information or even direct quotes are unique to US academics in some respects. Broadly, as this academic discipline committee debated whether or not the professor was justified in failing the student—in other words, as we attempted to determine whether or not the student had plagiarized—I was struck by the range of opinions among the professors, students, and administrators on the committee concerning the nature of plagiarism. No clear consensus existed for what plagiarism is, much less whether or not the student had plagiarized. The central questions in this discussion involved the following:

82

May 2007

> What role does intent play in whether or not plagiarism occurred? Once we raised this issue, the discussions became much less clear since many of us had mixed stances on the role of intent. > Is there a distinction between documentation errors and plagiarism? And if there is, where is the line that distinguishes the two? Ultimately, we were faced with a clear disagreement between two groups within the committee—one that held that mere documentation errors do not equal plagiarism and one that held that the two are equal. From this experience, I have decided that we need to make a greater effort in academic settings to address plagiarism and academic honesty up front, instead of dealing primarily with policies and punishments. Here, I wish to consider a way to address the issues through a framework for discussing these concerns.

A Framework for Discussions of Honesty and Plagiarism Within our English departments and our larger faculties at the secondary and university levels, we are all growing more and more concerned about plagiarism and academic honesty along with the roles the Internet and students’ electronic sophistication play in those concerns. What adds to this concern is the discussion taking place in the popular arena spurred by James Frey’s A Million Little Pieces and Kaavya Viswanathan’s How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life. People outside of education are debating the nature of academic honesty and plagiarism. Here I would like to offer a possible framework for discussing the nature of plagiarism, the purposes of documentation, and the conventional assumptions about fair use of other people’s works and ideas within different genres. I believe this framework, in slightly modified forms, should be applied in a variety of settings—within our English departments, among our entire faculty, and within our classrooms (between teacher and students). The process may include the following steps. Define Terms

Begin where each teacher or student stands in his or her perceptions of plagiarism, documentation, and

EJ_May2007_B.qxd

4/25/07

2:51 PM

Page 83

P. L. Thomas

genre. I have found that everyone needs to state clearly what the terms plagiarism, documentation, and genre mean and that everyone involved must be pushed to be highly specific, even offering examples. The discussion can begin in small groups or as a whole-group discussion with sharing. Once the discussion begins, several key points must be addressed directly. The pivotal issue with plagiarism, for example, is asking where each person stands concerning intent to plagiarize; a clear divide exists between those who consider intent and those who don’t. One other key discussion must clarify where all stand concerning the role of teaching and implementing documentation. As I stated above, we must all be able to distinguish between errors in documentation and plagiarism, possibly creating a spectrum of examples to clarify these concepts for students and teachers (see sidebar). Develop Guidelines

Working from individual assumptions and perceptions about plagiarism and academic honesty clarified in the initial discussions, develop guidelines for the department, the faculty, or the classroom that provide everyone with a standard from which to work. Simply acknowledging our varied perceptions of plagiarism and academic honesty does us little good in the long run. What we hope to accomplish with this framework is a consensus on these issues that will support the writing program within the department, the entire school or college, and the classroom. I recommend that schools and colleges adopt clear statements of what constitutes plagiarism and what academic honesty entails. Those statements must become common aspects of all classes that are reinforced for students in every writing situation. These statements should include examples for each guideline as well. Creating examples with students as part of the discussions is a valuable learning activity, too. Provide Professional Development

Coordinate professional development opportunities for teachers and professors that explore instructional and assessment best practices that integrate those statements concerning plagiarism and academic integrity. Policies can soon be relegated to a shelf or computer hard drive if those policies are not a part of the classroom practices of teachers and students.

Many teachers and students need help visualizing how concepts look in the real world of class instruction and student work. Discuss how academic honesty affects teacher instruction (Who owns the intellectual property of the content or the handouts?), classroom discussions (Should students acknowledge sources when talking?), and student performances and assignments (What role does academic honesty play in assignments?). Too often our response to academic honesty and issues of plagiarism focuses on how to punish offenders; while consequences must be addressed (see the next step), I genuinely believe that teachers and students can create classrooms where academic honesty becomes the norm, supported and encouraged by the instruction, classroom dynamics, and nature of student assignments. Research essays can be structured in ways that essentially eliminate student dishonesty, for example. One strategy is to require that students include with their multiple drafts of a documented essay copies of all source material along with any material quoted or paraphrased highlighted on the copies provided; the requirements of drafts and copies of sources create a record of student interaction with original material. Establish Consequences

Establish consequences for all levels of academic dishonesty, including plagiarism. This is a necessary evil in the process. I genuinely believe that we can create classrooms where plagiarism and academic dishonesty are extremely rare—primarily by having these discussions among faculty and with all students each year—but I also believe we are cheated if no policy exists for addressing academic dishonesty and plagiarism uniformly within a school or college. My main caveat with establishing policies for plagiarism and academic dishonesty is that we should avoid overly simplified policies. Regardless of the actual policy, we must also establish a process for determining the guilt or innocence of students accused of academic dishonesty, including who will be involved and how the process will unfold.

A Commitment to Ongoing Discussions Fifteen years or more ago, few of us anticipated the new concerns we now face in our English classrooms because of the expanding electronic world that is commonplace for students. I would argue that the

English Journal

83

EJ_May2007_B.qxd

4/25/07

2:51 PM

Page 84

Of Flattery and Thievery: Reconsidering Plagiarism in a Time of Virtual Information

future we face now is just as unpredictable. The best plan for teaching academic honesty, proper documentation, and scholarly ethics is for English teachers specifically and all teachers and professors broadly to commit to ongoing and continually evolving discussions of these issues. Atwood adds, “[W]riters tend to adopt their terms of discourse early in their reading and writing lives” (xxvi). I agree as both a teacher and a writer. We are obligated to include in students’ early lives the difficult but essential nature of honesty for all writers.

Works Cited

Atwood, Margaret. Negotiating with the Dead: A Writer on Writing. New York: Cambridge, 2002. “Plagiarism and Copyright—What Are the Differences?” Council Chronicle. Nov. 2005. 3 May 2006 . Plumb, Taryn. “Schools Set Mouse Traps for Copycats.” Boston Globe 30 Apr. 2006, 3rd ed.: 1. “Teaching about Plagiarism in a Digital Age.” Council Chronicle. Nov. 2005. 3 May 2006 .

P. L. Thomas taught high school English for eighteen years before entering teacher education. He teaches and supervises secondary and English certifiers. Recently, he published Reading, Learning, Teaching Kurt Vonnegut (Lang, 2006). email: [email protected].

FROM DOCUMENTATION ERROR TO PLAGIARISM > Student includes quote marks and appropriate page number but switches source author names. > Student includes quote marks and appropriate source author but cites inaccurate page number. > Student includes appropriate source author and page number but jumbles paraphrasing and quoting by misuse of quote marks. > All references in the text of the essay are appropriate, but they do not correspond with the bibliography in the works cited list. > Student documents accurately in the text of the essay but fails to include the source in the works cited list. > Student includes all appropriate documentation and cites the source properly in the works cited list but includes quoted material without including quote marks. > Student paraphrases or quotes from a source included in the works cited list but fails to acknowledge that source in the text of the essay (omitting source author names and page numbers). > Student paraphrases or quotes from a source but fails to cite that source in the text of the essay or the works cited list.

READWRITETHINK CONNECTION

Lisa Storm Fink, RWT

Thomas states that instructors need to think about plagiarism in a different way, thanks to the availability of resources on the World Wide Web. It is also important that students be involved in conversations on this topic. “Copyright Infringement or Not? The Debate over Downloading Music” invites students to discuss their experiences and conduct further research on the controversial topic of sharing music and other audio content on the Internet. Based on their research, students take a stand on the controversy and develop persuasive arguments on their position that they present in a class debate on the subject of downloading. This activity can be a springboard to further discussion of plagiarism. http://www.readwritethink.org/lessons/lesson_view.asp?id=855

84

May 2007