Transcript Plagiarism, Detection and Intentionality: On the (un

Systems for the Production of
Plagiarists: Developing countries and
use of plagiarism detection systems in
UK universities
Niall Hayes and Lucas Introna
Centre for the Study of Technology and Organisation,
Lancaster University Management School
IFIP 9.4 2005
Cultural Values - On Borrowing Words
Chinese students have no understanding of plagiarism & reference poorly (Shi,2004)
Authoritarian culture in classroom (Turner, 2000)
Copying a text is an act of respect for authority figures, as Turner (2000) confirms:
“Students are unlikely to have encountered essay-writing to any extent… Nor will
they have any experience of using references or multiple sources of information
to inform their written work or their thinking…. The teaching method emphasises
the correct memorisation and reproduction of teacher's notes or text book
information.”
A ‘beautiful patchwork’ is unproblematic in many Asian universities (Dryden,
1999:80):
“Students aren’t asked for original ideas or opinions. They are simply asked to show
a beautiful patchwork… you can present the ideas from the books as if they were
yours, especially if your patchwork is beautiful.”
Patch-writing - “copying from a source text and then deleting some words, altering
grammatical structures, or plugging in one-for-one synonym-substitutes” (Howard,
1995:213).
IFIP 9.4 2005
PDSs & Context
On Detecting Copies
PDSs make a digital fingerprint of a document (a small and compact
representation of its content) which it uses to compare documents against
each other (or parts of them).
PDSs do not detect plagiarism, they only detect copies (or part copies) of
documents.
EMPIRICAL CONTEXT
Three MSc Prograsmmes at Lancaster University
Survey and focus groups
Based on experiences of previous institution
Part of a much larger study.
IFIP 9.4 2005
Academic Integrity in Coursework (i)
Little experience of coursework during their UG
education (1 essay & several reports)
Most courses only require students to consult one
textbook and seldom reference
Emphasis on memorisation, which some students
viewed as being meaningless.
Some books and material was out of date.
Marks important so as to study overseas & find a
good job
Resulted in students being output (marks) rather
than process (learning) orientated.
High % view copying significant amounts or a few
sentences as not trivial or serious
Collaboutate extensively throughout course and in
assessments
Alienation resulted in a strong degree of collegiality
among students.
IFIP 9.4 2005
Asian
Chinese
Not or trivial
cheating
40%
30%
Somewhat
or
very
serious
60%
70%
Copying significant material (W4W) &
turning it in as your own work
Asian
Chinese
Not or trivial 100%
60%
cheating
Somewhat
0%
40%
or
very
serious
Copying a few sentences of material
without referencing them.
Asian
Chinese
Not or trivial
cheating
75%
50%
Somewhat
or
very
serious
25%
50%
Receiving substantial, unpermitted
help on an assignment.
Discussion (i)
Detecting Copying Not Plagiarism
Chinese and other Asian students are culturally predisposed to copying words.
Why?
Authors and teachers are viewed as being an authority on a subject
Students are ignorant to the conventions for academic referencing.
Memorising and repeating texts verbatim in assessments is expected.
Students mimick the writing of academics so as to develop their academic
writing skills.
Patch-writing is central to learning when students are unsure of their
understanding of the material or language
Why then would we not expect beginners to use exemplary sentences
and paragraphs as a first attempt at ‘speaking’ academically?
Such students are likely to be detected by PDSs – even if not deliberate
IFIP 9.4 2005
Discussion (ii)
Emphasising Detection at the Expense of Education
•
Even when students become aware of the different expectations, it will be difficult for
them to quickly develop the skills required
•
PDSs may detect students who are in the process of adjusting to the UK HE system
•
PDSs limit the opportunities and time that students have to learn how to write an
opinion piece in the subject specific, educational context (Lave and Wenger, 1991).
For learners to develop the abilities of experienced participants—they must be provided
with the time to observe and participate in the practices of that community.
On intensive one year postgraduate courses—students neither have the time to learn
how to write in the appropriate way, or if ‘detected’ have insufficient to learn and
ensure that it does not happen again.
IFIP 9.4 2005
Discussion (iii)
Discriminatory Detection Systems
As essays are typically batch submitted to PDSs, low thresholds are set (70%)
Chinese and Asian students are more likely to borrow large strings of words so
as to ‘retain the master’s voice,’ or due to their lack of skills in formulating
opinions and referencing
UK students may consciously paraphrase the arguments of others (without refs)
and remain undetected by the software’s algorithm
This further ensures that non-native students are detected.
As PDSs detect copies not plagiarism they may disproportionately penalise the
non-native speaker.
If plagiarism detection is delegated to algorithms then this creates the
conditions for constructing international students as plagiarists.
IFIP 9.4 2005
Conclusion
In this context plagiarism detection systems may unwittingly serve as a
mechanism to construct them as ‘plagiarists’ since:
PDSs make inappropriate assumptions about plagiarism, i.e. copy =
plagiarism
Implemented with the intention to ‘catch’ not support new
members in a community
non-native students become disproportionately identified and
scrutinised.
This disproportionate scrutiny may increase these students’ sense
of alienation leading them to turn to plagiarist practices.
PDSs are developed from a western mindset, and as such may
unfairly discriminate against those from non-western backgrounds.
IFIP 9.4 2005
References
Angelil-Carter S, (2000), Stolen Language? Plagiarism in Writing, Pearson Education
Limited, UK
Angelova, Maria, and Anastasia Riazantseva. (1999). “If You Don't Tell Me, How Can I
Know?': A Case Study of Four International Students Learning to Write the U.S. Way.”
Writtem Communication, 16 (4), pp. 491-525.
Biggs J, (1994), “Asian learners through Western eyes: an astigmatic paradox”, Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Vocational Educational Research, 2 (2), pp.40-63
Carroll J, (2002), Suggestions for Teaching International Students more effectively,
Learning and Teaching Briefing Papers Series, Oxford Brookes University
www.brookesac.uk/services/ocsd
Dryden, L. (1999). A distant mirror or through the looking glass? Plagiarism and
intellectual property in Japanese education. In L. Buranen & A. Roy (Eds.), Perspectives on
plagiarism and intellectual property in a postmodern world Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press, pp. 75-85.
Errey L (2002), Plagiarism: Something Fishy? …Or Just a Fish out of Water?, OCSLD
Howard, Rebecca (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty.
College English, 57 (1), pp. 788-805
Turner, Y (2000) “Chinese Students: Teaching, Learning and Equality in UK Higher
Education”, Higher Education Equal Opportunities Network, National Network Newsletter
for Equal Opportunities Practitioners, Spring 2000, Issue 13,
http://www.worc.ac.uk/services/equalopps/HEEON/newsonline.htm#Yvonne%27s )
IFIP 9.4 2005
Normative guidelines
Understand the learning environment from which our international
students come so as to assist their transition to the UK HE system.
Accept that patch-writing may be a legitimate interim step to the
development of independent writing skills.
PDSs can act as a mechanism to help students and lecturers to become
aware and monitor this transition to independence.
The formulation of institutional plagiarism frameworks should be based
on above.
We need to develop a much better understanding of how plagiarism
detection systems work, the assumptions the make, and how they
favour some forms of plagiarism and not others?
IFIP 9.4 2005