What constitutes plagiarism?

Parents Forum
61

<p>Glido says, “Cite everything that is not your original thought. Students should learns how to cite and then cite often. It is that simple. The name of the game is to cite everything, not to cite as little as possible.”</p>

<p>I think what we are learning is that actually, no, citation is not good enough. If you cite a writer but use their structure even if you totally rephrase (and even for some readers, clarify the text), this is plagiarism according to the Princeton example on paraphrasing.</p>

<p>Or am I missing something?</p>

<p>I absolutely think many of us parents who were earnest, intelligent, hard working kids trying to learn complex material while stretching in writing style, tone and content to match our learned mentors would be kicked out today for plagiarism. I’m not sure this is a correct understanding, but the tales I’ve heard make me raise an eyebrow. </p>

<p>I get one of those fear punches in the gut for kids who might be treated oddly harshly. That story about the senior about to graduate with a great job getting dumped (in this thread above) throws me. </p>

<p>I hear the teachers reporting in this thread. I get that with the internet out there there’s a huge shift going on in how kids pull material together. It’s a very very interesting topic - how to pull from the internet and cite properly and paraphrase properly. I guess the bottom line is you have to structure your piece originally - you have to draw sources together and weave in your own ideas.</p>

<p>I think it is possible that this concept of having to weave in your own ideas is either particular to the top top tippy top schools which expect you to prove your unique brilliance, particular to writing based subjects (e.g., Philosophy, English Lit, CS?), or particular to this new age of googling.</p>

<p>I strongly believe that many of us would have been kicked out in the 70’s and 80’s if we had emailed our papers to our prof’s who would google the whole thing to find phrases lifted or <em>horrors</em> paraphrasing with citation but no change in structure.</p>

62

<p>Interesting, Psych! Tales from the trenches are highly instructive.</p>

<p>And what, may I ask, is wrong with republishing 40 percent of your work in another journal? Presumably that other journal is targeting a different group of people, at least in part, no? Or is it that the marble game of who gots the mostest publishings is the winner in the prestige department hence how dare you attempt to actually communicate? /sarcasm off/</p>

<p>It would seem valid to me to restate a basic idea in a new context - the second journal targeting a slightly different audience would need the info to be restated in the different context with additional info provided to clarify for that audience - to make the topic pertinent to that audience. Kind of like the Absweetmarie’s example </p>

<p>“I remember writing at least two, maybe more, papers about George Bernard Shaw’s Don Juan when I was an undergrad, for an English class, a philosophy class and maybe a history class. I can’t recall if I asked the profs if it was okay. For sure I modified my arguments and approach to suit the class in question and evolved my ideas on each go-round. I was a hard-working student who wasn’t trying to pull anything over anyone; it was more my way of finding themes that cut across different disciplines.”</p>

<p>How is this wrong?</p>

63

<p>Ok one more thing then I’ll s<em>u</em> for a while.</p>

<p>Analyze. This was the assignment in the Princeton example. Ok so that is a particular type of writing assignment.</p>

<p>I think it would be helpful to state explicitly for those of literal thinkers all the aspects of an assignment. “Analyze, using your own creative argument(s) and logic, this piece. You may use as reference material and other authors’ logic and examples up to but no more than 50 percent of your piece.” Some teachers would want to require that 50 percent; some teachers would want to encourage even less. It is my contention at this moment that without stating expectations explicitly, the instruction is unclear.</p>

<p>I honestly believe there would be some kids who, not intending to cheat in any way shape or form, would earnestly come across someone else’s argument, love it, find it pertinent and clear, and so would recreate that learned line of thinking in their own words. I honestly believe, that unless forthrightly stated in the wording of the actual assignment, there would be students stunned to find out they had been thought to be cheating. EspEcially if they had heard about or been involved with someone being accused of cheating because the Had an “uncharacterstically intelligent” idea in a prior assignment.</p>

<p>Analysis.</p>

<p>What about synthesis?</p>

64

<p>I am returning to our freshman writing program after being out for a couple years, and spent an hour yesterday with the director, going over how they’re approaching things these days. BAsically ( and this is a very surface level summary), in the first semester, they emphasize basic argument structure and analysis. So essays will generally be in response to a single source. Summary will also be taught, so students will show they understand what they read and can put it in their own words. Original thinking, then, would be how they analyze and respond to others’ thoughts, and structure this into an essay.</p>

<p>Second semester will emphasize synthesis–reading, understanding, and analyzing several sources and presenting one’s own idea on a subject based on these tasks, culminating with writing a research paper.</p>

<p>To address another point:

Hugcheck–this may be true, but it represents a real failure in that student’s comprehension. How, on any level, is presenting someone else’s analysis the same thing as analyzing yourself, no matter how much you like, understand, and agree with the analysis you present?</p>

<p>As far as GFG’s problem with original idea–that does not coincide with any experience I had in several good universities and colleges, either as a student, teacher, parent or colleague. There’s something odd about that story–either the prof was just nuts, or we’re not getting some piece of information.</p>

<p>Students are supposed to think originally; as I said above, I much prefered doing my own analysis, and was generally rewarded for original thinking. I don’t know why I student would be quesetioned for this. I don’t think it’s something the average student needs to be wary of.</p>

65

<p>

</p>

<p>This, to me, would clearly fall under common knowledge. </p>

<p>For a clear review of what is and isn’t plagiarism, take a look at Purdue’s On-line Writing Lab. It addresses many of the things that puzzle students. </p>

<p><a href=“Purdue OWL® - Purdue OWL® - Purdue University”>Purdue OWL® - Purdue OWL® - Purdue University;

66

<p>

</p>

<p>I’d be more comfortable with “students are supposed to learn to think independently.”</p>

<p>I have one daughter who is truly original and creative. Professors frequently ask to be able to use her stuff in their next class. </p>

<p>I have another who is truly independent, but not quite as creative. Never has she been asked to leave her work for a teacher to use as an example.</p>

<p>I believe each are doing equally valid schoolwork. The number of truly unique and original thinkers in any classroom is likely to be 0-1. But, everyone can learn how to think independently. Or, mostly everyone.</p>

<p>emphasis on originality before grad school is a diservice to the student, who may or may not ever arrive at a single novel idea in his/her life.</p>

67

<p>I agree with your wording, poetgrl. What I meant by “originally” is originally for the student. IOW, they come up with it themselves. So I agree that “independently” is better wording. This still means, of course, not resting on an analysis reproduced (even in own words and cited) from the work of someone else.</p>

68

<p>I agree with Hugcheck’s assessment that back in the old days, we students were supposed to first learn what those experts who had studied the material for years had to say. As undergrads, we were not considered learned enough to be expected to make our own analyses with any reliability. That’s why we did RESEARCH papers–we found out what other people had already discovered, proven, or theorized and reported it back, albeit with our own assessment of which arguments we preferred and why we thought they best fit.</p>

<p>Garland, it did indeed happen as I reported, and for the reason stated above. We were supposed to study the existing literary criticism and learn from it. We were not supposed to be critics yet ourselves, though we were permitted to agree or disagree with a critic, or synthesize existing ideas. A truly original idea was suspect, because supposedly smarter people than I had studied the work and never thought of the idea I did, hence it must have some flaw even if the prof couldn’t find it off the top of her head.</p>

69

<p>When it comes to plagiarism it’s always better to be too safe. And if you’re ever unsure you need to go to the professor and ask before handing anything in.</p>

70

<p>GFG–I don’t assume it didn’t happen as you say, but that fits one of my hypothesi–your prof was a nut. It is not the norm.</p>

71

<p>Emphatically agreeing with GFG above in post #68. His prof was not a nut nor an out of the norm!!!</p>

<p>These days in our high schools our kids are taught to write Themes (short essays with a point of view and an argument from their own thinking process about an issue or piece they have read). THIS IS ONLY ONE NARROW KIND OF WRITING.</p>

<p>TheGFG says, “That’s why we did RESEARCH papers–we found out what other people had already discovered, proven, or theorized and reported it back, albeit with our own assessment of which arguments we preferred and why we thought they best fit.” I feel the energy in this sentence - it seems like the writing taught these days has ditched research papers. Do high schools even require them anymore? Why the heavy emphasis on the short essay? On analysis instead of synthesis?</p>

<p>So now we have the supposed newscasters on TV (*cough O’reilly etc. *cough) spouting Theses. And there’s a real lack of RESEARCH and factual information in the news. No wonder more people get their news from John Stewart. He does research. He provides lots and lots of information. The snarky commentary is only the icing on a rich cake.</p>

<p>I wonder if some of the kids being accused of plagiarism are simply repeating a style of research writing and synthesis that has been taught in their school systems. What I have noticed is that schools tend to teach a certain style of writing as “correct” without fully teaching about the various types of writing. You can do an essay pitching your point of view. You can do a research paper that reports what others have learned. If you are doing a research paper then you will, I contend, HAVE to repeat content and structure with citation or you will be doing a lousy research paper. </p>

<p>How clear are freshmen prof’s about this distinction? How many kids mess up by doing a research paper format when their prof is looking for a thesis type essay?</p>

<p>How to draw in from the internet correctly for each of these types of papers?</p>

<p>How to recognize that some kids are best at/have been taught and are more practiced in the analysis part and are great creative thinkers while other kids are best at/have more practice in research type papers? Imagine if you have been trained for eight years from fourth grade to 12th to do research papers and a teacher in your LAC frosh English tells you to write a piece with no citations at all. So you research and find what some others have said, and you paraphrase their work into a logically consistent and nicely written three page essay. Then you’re kicked out for plagiarism. Instead of reoriented (taught) about writing styles. This happens! Worst case IMO you should be given a low mark on your piece and asked to visit the prof for clarification of expectations.</p>

72

<p>Here’s my two cents about the motivation of college freshmen and it needs to be noted once again that I teach transitional (read: remedial) courses. In our local high schools, teachers have large student loads–between 175 and 225. There are not enough hours in the week to grade any kind of meaningful writing assingments of any length, so kids arrive in college with very little writing experience. Additionally, if these teachers do assign papers, they do not have the time to do much checking to find plagiarism. The HS papers are often evaluating and comparing literature (and may involve student opinion) rather than researching a new topic and writing something that is more factual in nature.</p>

<p>In our comp 101 classes, plagiarism is covered quite thoroughly. We even have a little tutorial on our college Web site that is required for many classes. However, what I find is that students somehow think that they are so clever that their professors will not catch them if they plagiarize. As I stated before, they do not realize that we get to know how they write, and while we are thrilled when they make progress, they will not go from transitional to professional in one semester. Many of the students I have caught plagiarizing have copied a strange idiom or other phrase that an 18-year-old would not typically use.</p>

73

<p>Hugcheck–I just don’t agree, in any form, that it’s the norm for a student to be graded down for original thinking, unless the assignment was specifically asking for something else–for instance–a review and critique of a group of lit theories, not a presentation of one’s own new one. I have attended several schools, taught at several more, sent my kids to several more–and nowhere did I see anyone being graded down because they had a new thought. I’ve seen grades lowered because the said new thought was outside the assignment, or not well-developed/coherent/germaine, or not actually new, but borrowed uncited. But as described here, no, none of us in my family have encountered that. Could be that the ten or so schools i’ve had personal interaction with are outliers, but I find that theory unpersuasive.</p>

<p>Given the facts as stated (she had a new idea, the prof downgraded solely on the basis that she “couldn’t” really have had it), the prof is a nut (or at least an idiot.)</p>

74

<p>Hugcheck–student composition courses typically move from essay to research paper, often passing summary, reaction/response writings, annotated bibliography, etc., along the way. I don’t think they are typically just sitting around the LAC being told to write with no citations. I think writing classes explain assignments, and students who are unclear need to question, rather than freelancing (“well, she said no citations, so that means I just don’t name my sources.”) Any good student who’s gotten into a decent school ought to be past that kind of self-dissembling.</p>

<p>(Of course, it’s also unlikely that students have not written essays in high school, since these days they’re ubiquitous in standardized testing–albeit taught badly because they still emphasize the hoary 5-paragraph–thesis, 3 example, conclusion-- format.) So that the idea that this is a foreign skill is suspect from the start.</p>

<p>I also think you’re conflating all paper writing into an artificial conception of what a “research paper” is. In the Princeton example, the student is writing a paper on Hamlet, using research as support, not simply reviewing or even synthesizing scholarly takes on Hamlet (which would be a lit review).</p>

<p>This kind of paper is what I spent most of my college/grad school efforts on. I’d have a general subject (maybe an aspect of a Keats poem, or a motif in Dickens’ novels, or a comparison of some theme in several Shakespeare plays or 18th century novels, etc etc).</p>

<p>I would read the work(s), think on it, develop ideas. Then i would research scholarly work in that area–what do others say on that topic? Then i’d use those stances as foils, commentary, support, alternate directions, jumping off points, etc, in my paper. If I needed to outline another author’s argument, I could paraphrase it in such a way that made it clear that it’s a summary of someone else’s thoughts; I wouldn’t be claiming the structure as mine, and since it’s summary, the structure of sentence pattern would not be the same as the original.</p>

<p>Overall, I think that, while well-intentioned, your comments are really red herrings, finding ambiguity through somewhat misunderstanding how writing classes and writing in general works in colleges. But your repeated assertion, that a student could make the error of presenting others’ work for her own because she is afraid/unwlling/unclear/unable to formulate her own thoughts, and think it’s okay, is troubling to me. I simply don’t find it defensible, and I definitely don’t think that the average thoughtful student is making that error and encountering charges of plagiarism on account of it.</p>

75

<p>garland, way back in the 70’s I had a History prof who dinged me for an “original thought”. When I called her on it (Gee. Imagine that. ;)), I was told that I was an undergraduate and that I wasn’t supposed to have original thoughts as I didn’t have the original research from the source documents to back it up. The takeaway point was : she was the boss and I…was not. The rest of the semester went smoothly as I just fed her the party line. Later in my college career we had a speaker who posited the same thought. She pronounced it “brilliant”. I called her on that, too. (Gee. Imagine that. ;)) Her response? “Aaah. But he could back it up with his original research. You couldn’t.”</p>

<p>Edited: Admittedly, the assignment was not asking for original thought. I had it, so I wrote it. ;)</p>

76

<p>I think that it is a good idea for most kids to take the intro writing courses colleges have even if the kids test out of it due to AP English or dual enrollment classes or IB. This where a lot of the ground rules specific to a college are laid out and it lowers the chances of any misunderstanding when this is done.</p>

77

<p>Garland,</p>

<p>I have attended schools in NJ, MI, CA, CT and IL and have experienced through my kids MA and VT.</p>

<p>In my schooling I never wrote any paper other than a research (“term paper”) or synthesis style piece. [Edit - except in my Master’s Thesis.] My kids never wrote term papers and always wrote themes.</p>

<p>In my research papers after quoting and restating and citing, I am certain there would have been a paragraph or two or three or four in my own voice using idioms or phrasing I had picked up (you could say lifted, I prefer the term, learned) from what I had read.</p>

<p>I see that Cur also was informed that he should not pitch his own idea. He says, “in the 70’s I had a History prof who dinged me for an “original thought”.”</p>

<p>This is not as unusual as some of you suggest. I like what Poetgirl said:</p>

<p>"I’d be more comfortable with “students are supposed to learn to think independently.”</p>

78

<p>I spent my academic career aiming for original thought, and never got dinged for it. I realize that’s a data point of one, but it actually encompasses scores of profs. And I am pretty sure that my nearest and dearest would say the same. </p>

<p>When I teach first year writing, if I had to sum up what I’m trying to teach in three words, it would be “thinking on paper.” </p>

<p>I do wonder if some of the profs referenced here are not coherently communicating what they are looking for and why these assignments were questioned. I will readily agree that quite a few professors do not communicate their expectations and reactions well. (and of course there are some who are simply bad teachers, but I don’t think the rules of plagiarism cause this.)</p>

79

<p>Hmm–when i was in school, I never heard the term “research paper” or “term paper” or “theme.” We wrote “papers.” I wonder if the over-labeling has become more common (or maybe I just wasn’t paying attention.) </p>

<p>Perhaps in Lit, there was more of an emphasis on original thought than some other majors. After all, we are reacting to the thing in front of us. I could imagine having an “original theory” on why some event occured as it did in History, for example, and getting dinged because background information would show why it was erroneous (say, your basic Holocaust denier, to use an extreme example–which I am NOT accusing anyone of!).</p>

80

<p>I can’t figure out how one could get through high school without writing a research paper. My kids didn’t write them in English, but they wrote at least one and usually more every year in their history classes. They were generally required to have primary as well as secondary sources. That turned out to be quite a challenge the year my youngest chose to write about Gustavus Adolphus’ role in the Thirty Years War.</p>