Plagiarism Confession

Guest Blogger: Bill Donohue

I have a confession to make. I have plagiarized. On Friday, January 20, 2017, at approximately 11:23 a.m., I committed an act of plagiarism—right in front of my composition students. I am a plagiarist. Turnitin told me that my writing submission was 80% similar, to use Turnitin’s term, to resources that that Turnitin used to check against my writing. As a matter of fact, all my students plagiarized that day.

Before you go snitching on us to the plagiarism police, the act of plagiarism was a demonstration. For the first time in my teaching career, I am using the Turnitin software as a component of the teaching of writing. And thanks to the Turnitin workshop sponsored by CETL and ATS (Thanks Anna and Nancy ;-), I have a solid understanding of how the program works, and I how I can avoid the pitfalls that kept me from using Turnitin in the past.

 This post is going to get long; so if you have had enough reading for a Saturday morning, here are a few discussion questions:

 What is your experience with plagiarism in your courses?

How have you handled plagiarism?

How do you teach students to engage with sources?

What advice do you have for a teacher who has not used Turnitin?

 To be clear, my aim has always been to teach students how to write; how to gather, understand, and use information; and how to use information responsibly. My courses have defined plagiarism, discussed plagiarism, reviewed examples of plagiarism, focused on citation conventions, and generally expanded the student’s knowledge about plagiarism. (Students are always surprised by the issues of minimal citations for paraphrases and self-plagiarism). I create assignments that limit the opportunities to plagiarize. I try to reason with the students by telling them that to become better writers, they need to do the work and receive feedback on that work. If I am giving feedback to work that someone else did or that was copied and pasted from an internet source, then the students are not becoming better writers. I also develop grading systems so that students are not focused on the grade but the writing itself. Finally, I do give the penalty lecture. I talk about how a professor’s job isn’t just to teach, but to create new knowledge. If someone steals those ideas as their own, they are stealing from me. And I review the sanctions for someone caught plagiarizing that can lead to expulsion!

 The notion of plagiarism as theft, and using detection software to police that crime, has never sat well with me as it puts the teacher and student in an adversarial position that does not aid in the teaching of writing. When I have caught someone plagiarizing, the most egregious examples are intentional plagiarism, which is not difficult for me to detect. A google search provides the evidence for me to confront the student. This is never a pleasant experience for both the student and myself. It can provide a teachable moment, and I do my best to work with the student.

Unintentional plagiarism, if it is considered plagiarism at all or rather the misuse of sources, is easier to contend with, although more difficult to detect and labor intensive in some cases. Most often, the citation convention is not employed correctly and the feedback mechanism can indicate to the student the issue without having to be adversarial. The adversarial positioning is one reason why The Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) passed a resolution denouncing the use of plagiarism detection software (http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resolutions/2013). Other issues with the use of the software are undermining student agency, threating privacy and intellectual property, ineffectiveness of detection, and distraction from teaching students how to write from sources.

Research, such as the Citation Project (http://site.citationproject.net/), has shown that instances of intentional plagiarism are quite low and that the larger issue is how students are engaging with the source material they are trying to use. Students need to be taught how to use source material. A focus on reading skills, especially when the subject is unfamiliar or complex as in upper division major courses, can aid students in synthesizing sourced ideas into their own arguments in deep and meaningful ways. Better understanding of the topic being written about and what the research says about those topics leads to better integration of ideas and less patch-writing. This approach is more labor intensive as class time, written feedback, and individual conferences may be needed to provide the proper amount of instruction. (Writing Centers are also useful for this instruction.)

 So why am I using Turnitin this semester? Partly, I am doing so because other professors are using the software. As a composition teacher teaching a subject that has a heavy burden of service, I want to make sure students have an awareness and an understanding of the tool so they can use it effectively to aid in their writing. Similar to my warning that plagiarism can have consequences, the use of Turnitin may dissuade a student from intentional plagiarism and compel them to give a more honest, if flawed, attempt at the writing assignment that creates a space for learning.

I use many of the best practices for teaching writing in regards to source work as outlined by CCCC and the Writing Program Administrators (http://wpacouncil.org/positions/WPAplagiarism.pdf). One of those is the creation of assignments that resist plagiarism. An example is from the Integrated Writing and Reading course. Students read A Lesson Before Dying, and an assignment is to write a characterization of five main characters. The intention is for students to use their reading skills to gain an understanding of who those characters are in the narrative. The characterization assignment has students use writing-to-learn in order to examine the characters and use the information for the essay they will write about the transformation of a dynamic character in the novel. In the past, students have copied and pasted from internet resources such as SparkNotes to complete the characterization. While some students realize this is intentional plagiarism, others think that the information is so basic and common that it is fine to copy it.

A way to change the assignment to resist plagiarism is to change the nature of the assignment. Instead of a straightforward assignment that calls for summary of a character’s position, the assignment could engage in higher level thinking such as asking students to write from the perspective of each character. They may write a brief letter from one character to another about an issue in narrative. A reflection assignment would focus on why the writer made the choices that they did in the letter. The problem with this assignment maybe that students struggle to complete it and miss the opportunity to gain a base understanding of one or multiple characters in narrative that are important for the essay they will write. Using Turnitin with the straightforward characterization version of the assignment may help students engage in the true intention of the assignment, which is the application of their ability to read and understand the narrative.

We shall see. And I will write a blog post later in the semester to update you on what happened. 

Seat Time or Skill Demonstration?

A short while ago, I got a notice from Facebook that Prof. Dohohue had mentioned me in one of his comments. While I confess that I rarely log in to Facebook and generally ignore Facebook’s messages trying to get me to, I couldn’t resist this time. 

What Bill was pointing out was an NPR program on the rise of competency-based education programs. The article described the growing trend of universities offering credits for skills developed and demonstrable, even though those skills did not necessarily grow out of an interaction between a student and an instructor in a school setting. The obvious beneficiaries of this trend are older adults who can save time and money if they can earn degree credit for skills gained through work and life experience. 

The Chronicle of Higher Education just reported that Pennsylvania’s community colleges have begun a statewide project to let adult learners earn college credit for previous training or work experience, a program called "College Credit FastTrack."

Lincoln is participating in a small way with its Bachelor of Human Services/FLEX program. BHS students can earn up to 45 Prior Learning Assessment credits. 

So Bill (and others), pretend we're having a Facebook conversation. Here's what I would have asked. Is this a direction Lincoln should consider for other programs? Are there other majors that we offer that would appeal to adult learners if we could award them some percentage of credit for skills earned and thus ease their path toward a degree? What are the worries you see if we move down this path? What are the advantages? How is the BHS working? What similar programs might we add? Should we care where a student learned something or just if a student learned something? 

It’s a great topic of discussion and an important issue to explore for strategic planning purposes. I am eager to hear where Lincoln faculty and staff stand.

Blurred Lines: An Invitation to Discuss Boundary Formation and Management for Teachers

Guest Blogger: James Wadley

In spring, 2013, Robin Thicke, Pharell, and TI released the chart topping song, “Blurred Lines” which discusses the courtship intentions for a woman who is currently in a romantic relationship with another man.  The premise of the song suggests that the woman is a “good girl” but that she wants to get “nasty” (sexually provocative) and be with the relevant suitor.  The concept of blurred lines also extends itself to teaching and education.

Some teachers struggle with their own blurred lines as it relates to their role as an educator for their students.  Because of the personal, emotional, institutional, programmatic and sometimes financial investment in students, teachers may become attached to their students in a manner in which they may not have anticipated.  This attachment pattern may come in the form of potentially inappropriate boundary violations including hugging students, giving gifts, curricular (e.g. discussion of morally and emotionally charged issues with vulnerable populations) and temporal infractions (e.g., providing one or more students with more time than others), emotional and power infringements, or improper communication (e.g., discussing or offering advice on personal issues) with students. 

Typically, colleges and universities address traditional boundary violations with policies that may address various forms of sexual harassment, coercion, and debilitative interpersonal relationships.  Oftentimes though, the teacher-student relationship evolves beyond conventional expectations and teachers find themselves extending their educational relationship beyond assumed parameters within and outside the classroom.  Policies typically don’t address the complexities of emotional and social navigation including dual relationships, codependence, and relational extraction.  Teachers are typically left to manage the educational, social, emotional, and cultural assumptions of themselves, their students, and the teacher-student relationship. 

In the light of the potential blurred lines that can develop between teachers and students, I extend an invitation to you to reflect and share about any of the following questions:

1. How do you build and maintain rapport with your students?

2. What personal information do you feel comfortable sharing with students?

3. Based upon your experience or what other teachers have shared with you, when do lines become blurred with students?

Finally, for amusement, below is a video link of last summer’s sensation, “Blurred Lines.”  :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDUC1LUXSU

Academic Integrity: A Constant in a Sea of Change

Guest Blogger: James DeBoy

American higher education embarked upon the road of mass education after World War II. The elite education system, designed for what WEB DuBois termed the Talented Tenth, was perceived by many in 1945 as undemocratic. With the influx of returning GIs and the emergence of community colleges, many of the traditional universities supplemented or revamped their classical- liberal arts focus with professional and or pre-professional programs of study. Normal schools (traditionally the providers of basic education) evolved into state teacher colleges while certain professional schools (e.g., pharmacy and more recently, PT and OT) escalated their credentials that would require graduate study. The late 1960s witnessed a proliferation of developmental/remedial courses designed to increase the likelihood of “underprepared” college freshmen achieving sophomore status; such actions were justified as college administrators more fully embraced the “mass education” model. One could argue that Lincoln entered the mass education fold in the late 1960s—a time when opportunities to enroll in white, “prestigious” colleges became available for high-performing African Americans.

Throughout all of these aforementioned challenges and concomitant changes to academe, one variable was constant: the academy’s adherence to principles of academic integrity was paramount. Students needed to adapt and adopt mindsets and behaviors if, in fact, they entered with values perceived as opposed to the academic culture. Yes, the more honest institutions provided additional opportunities for students with different feelings and habits to embrace/demonstrate the requisite skill set thought to be the necessary variables for degree completion. Despite the apparent change in (many) students flocking to our nation’s colleges in the post-war years, the university’s commitment to its “academic culture”, i.e., academic integrity, should not be compromised nor diminished. The academic integrity component to which I refer is the SLOs that are part-and-parcel of every academic/professional discipline: the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and habits of mind that academicians hold dear and deem absolutely essential for disciplines to be studies worthy of pursuit.

I have heard in recent years that faculty, curricula, and pedagogy must change to better meet the needs and wants of today’s “net generation”. I agree… to a point. First and foremost, we need to differentiate between needs and wants. Secondly, we need to keep in mind that one of the hallmarks of higher education has been its success in transforming students. Students of the net, me, and gimme generations (all generations) can, and should, change after experiencing 4 years of study. One operational definition of intelligence is the ability to adapt to a changing environment. Thus, if faculty teach and expect students to master x, x must be mastered. By all means, x must be authentic… connected to the real world of one’s chosen field. If faculty cannot justify x for being a part of the curriculum, if we cannot make connections of x to our profession or life, then we should probably not teach it.

Faculty can, and must, have standards to which they hold all students. To do otherwise is, in my opinion, a disservice to the students whom we are entrusted. Having said that, I am fully cognizant of unique learning styles, extenuating circumstances, and the like. While I can empathize, I must guard against sympathizing lest I lower my expectations. Students at all levels of the educational system (and marketplace) are better served for life after school when they consistently hear and see that performance supersedes intentions, promise, and ability. Students must learn early that causes (including inaction) have consequences: missed classes, late submissions, and blown opportunities are simply that… missed.

Pedagogically, many HPER faculty may be considered “conservative, old-fashioned, behaviorally rigid, and authoritative.” Formal training in the health sciences and physical education often times shapes that viewpoint. Perhaps, the content of the fields exacerbates a personal predilection for closure, structure, and practice. Principles and laws that guide HPER-related disciplines afford a sense of order in a chaotic world. In any event, HPER faculty seem to prefer environments and phenomena that are measurable, objective, and operationally defined. In short, we seek to identify, arrange, regulate, manage, systematize, classify, fix, and establish parameters that will assist our understanding of (and co-existence in) the world. We strive to share that approach/methodology with our students. In our opinion, the most efficient manner for doing so involves, by necessity, boundaries. At first, these boundaries may appear as deterrents to student growth and development but the opposite is true. Limits, i.e., faculty expectations/standards of conduct, will eventually set students free. To be truly free, one must be self-disciplined. Initially, some/many 18 year olds will need those limits imposed by faculty. Over the course of 8 semesters, other-imposed is gradually replaced with self-imposed. It has been HPER’s position that all students can learn and it is our responsibility to teach whoever enters our classrooms. While we start where students may be, we are obligated to take them where we (and those practitioners in the fields of HPER) believe they need to be in order to effectively deliver their services to society.

The beauty of higher education (critics will see it as the bane) is that multiple paths exist to truth. Each discipline may be different in its approach to understanding (and even defining) the problem. Within each discipline there exist myriad models to address the targeted concept. Academe is, by its very nature, diverse and, yes, sometimes divisive. Differences of opinion are expected and encouraged in a climate of open dialog. Some of my colleagues may agree with much of what I have said, some will accept parts, and others may reject my arguments wholly. And that’s OK—conclusions should be challenged… it is the stuff that shapes academe; it should be one of the constants in the sea of change.