“Case Thirty-Six: Sheepskin or Fleece?— Plagiarism in University Classrooms”

“Case Thirty-Six: Sheepskin or Fleece?—Plagiarism in University Classrooms” Ethics in Action: A Case-Based Approach by Connolly, Cox-White, Keller, & Leever, 2009A case study discussion facilitated by Deb Gentry and Betty Pilchard

What types of behavior can be considered plagiaristic? • Downloading entire existing papers from Internet. • Submitting papers as one’s own that were written by friends /acquaintances as well as by persons not previously known (e.g., frat “paper bank”). • Cutting segments of text/content from other sources (online, print, other media) and incorporating them into one’s own paper without giving credit. Often referred to as patchwriting. • Massaging in some way the words/wording of another writer or speaker (using synonyms, rearranging, changing from passive to active or vice versa…) without giving credit. • ???? Pgs. 465 & 477

Three common characteristics • The ideas originated outside the mind of the student. • The student fails to acknowledge these external contributions. • The student’s presentation of these ideas leads others (e.g., instructors) to view these ideas as the student’s own original intellectual output. pg. 465

Case situation • U.S. west coast state university of 20,000 students. • Dr. Mary Green’s “Intro to Social Ethics” course. • Enrolled students are from diverse backgrounds, including country of origin are asked to analyze and reflect on various “moral conundrums arising in multiple social contexts” (pg. 464). • Dr. Green has done the following: • Put campus web address with academic integrity policies in syllabus and on white board in classroom. • Shown written examples of plagiarized work and discussed how and why they are unacceptable during class time. • Clearly stated the consequence for anyone who plagiarizes in her course in the course syllabus.

Statement in Dr. Green’s syllabus reads as follows: • “Any student caught plagiarizing any assignment will fail the course and be turned over to the student affairs office with a recommendation that the incident be permanently noted on the student’s academic transcript.” Pg. 465

Case situation • Every two weeks students submit a written paper in which they justify a particular resolution to a given moral dilemma. • Regarding one paper, Dr. Green has identified five students she believes have plagiarized. • Samuel and Jeff have submitted papers that are extremely similar in content and organization. • Georgia has submitted a paper that did not follow assignment directions and was instead a review of general ethical issues related to topic at hand. • Sui-fong Ma and Pik-wah Li each have submitted a paper that incorporate verbatim sections of Dr. Green’s lecture note handouts.

Five-step method for analyzing Dr. Green’s dilemma • Gather information about implications, psychological factors, socio-cultural factors, law/policy factors, and historical trends. • Employ creative problem-solving. In this case, could the value of fairness serve as a helpful yardstick? • Listing pros and cons of identical or differential punishment. • Analyze situations based on factual and value assumptions. • Make a decision and be ready to justify it. Pgs. 470-472

Georgia • Dr. Green’s use of “Turnitin” software revealed that Georgia submitted an entire paper written by a student at another university and posted online on a class website. • Upon meeting privately with Georgia, Dr. Green learns Georgia…. • Hates the course in general and believes its content will not ever be useful to her. • Believes the work load for the course is too hard for a course that isn’t in her major. • Read syllabus and understands plagiarism related policies. • Perceives lots of students plagiarize and she hoped she wouldn’t get caught. Figures the Student Affairs Office will not note this incident on her transcript. Pg. 466

Samuel • Dr. Green’s use of “Turnitin” software reveals parts of Sam’s paper come from several different articles written by other authors, yet without citations. • Upon meeting with Sam, Dr. Green learns he… • Hasn’t taken a philosophy course before. • Has struggled with the content, but is becoming more confident in his understanding….just not enough to express this understanding in his own words. • He feels proud of his ability to make his own unique transitional comments and formulate some implications all on his own in the paper. • He did allow Jeff to see his paper, but for purposes of giving him guidance in how to undertake his own paper. He is surprised to learn that Jeff took the liberties he did with it.

Jeff • Upon conferencing with Jeff, Dr. Green learns… • He missed class for two weeks early in the semester due to mononucleosis and, thus, has always felt behind. • His band had an opportunity to perform at a regional jazz festival and the practice time to get ready has been demanding. • Though his initial intentions were honorable, when Sam let him look at his paper, Jeff couldn’t resist the temptation to save time and energy by lifting much of Sam’s ideas and paper structure. He doesn’t want Sam to be punished.

Sui-fong and Pik-wah • Upon meeting with each young woman separately, Dr. Green learned… • Both perceive they are struggling with use of English as a second language. They find it hard to keep up with the pace at which lectures and class discussions take place. • Their cultural background suggests that Dr. Green is an expert and, as students, they could not even attempt to express ideas any better than she does. Additionally, learning is comprised of understanding and committing to memory the ideas of well-qualified others.

Key question for Dr. Green to answer is: What action(s) should she take in response to her observations and information gathering efforts?For example, should these students be given identical or differing consequences for their plagiaristic behaviors/actions?

Approach #1: All students should be identically punished. • All had equal exposure to information about academic integrity: policies, expectations, examples, warnings, etc. All students had the same syllabus, assignment, time limitations, and exposure to classroom activities, course readings, etc. The virtue of equality requires all be to be treated alike with regard to consequences. • All made autonomous choices to plagiarize. No one was forced to cheat. • Virtues of fidelity and honesty require Dr. Green to abide by what she stated in her syllabus. Pg. 468

Approach #2: Sui-fong and Pik-wah should not be punished, but the other three students should be identically punished. • Course failure and possible expulsion, should Student Affairs Office deem that suitable, could lead to harsher outcomes for these two women: deportation, lack of American education, poorer job opportunities, shame, etc. • The virtue of cultural sensitivity suggests that Dr. Green should have investigated the degree to which Sui-fong and Pik-wah were likely to abide by Asian cultural beliefs regarding use of others’ ideas/works and provided extra instruction for them relative to American expectations. She could have encouraged them to utilize ESL staff as mentors and tutors regarding this issue. Pg. 469

Approach #3: Only Georgia and Jeff should be punished according to statement in the course syllabus. • Sui-fong, Pik-wah and Sam reasonably believed they were each completing the assignment in an acceptable manner. They did not willfully choose to cheat. • Georgia and Jeff did opt to use “others’ work deceptively and in full knowledge of the wrongness of their acts.” Pg. 469

Approach #4, #5…. What other approaches could be taken and with what justifications?

Discussion time • Personal experiences • Implications for HCC settings • Added insight • Questions • Resources • Connolly, P., Cox-White, B., Keller, D. R., & Leever, M.G. (2009). Ethics in Action: A Case-Based Approach. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. • Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions http://ethics.iit.edu/ • Opportunities for HCC students • Ethics Bowl http://ethics.iit.edu/index1.php/Programs/Ethics%20Bowl

“Case Thirty-Six: Sheepskin or Fleece?— Plagiarism in University Classrooms”