Niall Hayes and Lucas Introna Centre for the Study of Technology and Organisation,

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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 • Some books and material was out of date.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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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