Plagiarism tcw

573 views

Published on

Overview of some issues related to plagiarism and education.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
573
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
275
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Plagiarism tcw

  1. 1. UC Explanation of Academic Dishonesty http://www.uc.edu/conduct/Code_of_Conduct.html <ul><li>1. Academic integrity and honor pledge </li></ul><ul><li>In pursuit of its teaching, learning and research goals, the university of Cincinnati aspires for its students, faculty and administrators to attain the highest ethical standards defined by the center for academic integrity as “a commitment, even in the face of adversity, to five fundamental values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility.” ( www.academicintegrity.org / ). Although not all students are subject to a college honor code or pledge, every student is bound by the academic misconduct provisions of this code which are enforced, in part, to assure academic integrity. When dishonest students cheat to gain unfair competitive advantage over other students, they cheat themselves out of a decent education. </li></ul>
  2. 2. <ul><li>b. Some faculty members and academic units may require students before taking tests or when submitting assignments to sign a pledge. The pledge may contain language such as: “On my honor I pledge that this work of mine does not violate the University of Cincinnati Student Code of Conduct provisions on cheating and plagiarism.” Honor pledges serve primarily as a teaching tool; unless a college has a mandatory honor code, pledges are used at the discretion of the instructor without imposition of a disciplinary sanction for students who honestly do passing work but object to a signed affirmation. Alternative pledges as well as information about the Academic Integrity Campaign can be obtained from the OUJA and online at http://www.uc.edu/conduct . </li></ul>
  3. 3. UC Academic Misconduct Definitions <ul><li>a. Aiding and abetting academic misconduct </li></ul><ul><li>Knowingly helping, procuring or encouraging another person to engage in academic misconduct. </li></ul>
  4. 4. <ul><li>b. Cheating </li></ul><ul><li>Any dishonesty or deception in fulfilling an academic requirement such as: </li></ul><ul><li>i. Use or possession of unauthorized material or technological devices during an examination, an “examination” meaning any written or oral work submitted for evaluation or grade. </li></ul><ul><li>ii. Obtaining assistance with or answers to examination questions from another person with or without that person’s knowledge. </li></ul><ul><li>iii. Furnishing assistance with or answers to examination questions to another person. </li></ul><ul><li>iv. Possessing, using, distributing or selling unauthorized copies of an examination or computer program. </li></ul><ul><li>v. Representing as one’s own an examination taken by another person. </li></ul><ul><li>vi. Taking an examination in place of another person. </li></ul><ul><li>vii. Obtaining unauthorized access to the computer files of another person or agency or altering or destroying those files. </li></ul>
  5. 5. <ul><li>c. Fabrication </li></ul><ul><li>The falsification of any information, research statistics, lab data, or citation in an academic exercise. </li></ul>
  6. 6. <ul><li>d. Plagiarism </li></ul><ul><li>i. Submitting another’s published or unpublished work in whole, in part or in paraphrase, as one’s own without fully and properly crediting the author with footnotes, quotation marks, citations, or bibliographic references. </li></ul><ul><li>ii. Submitting as one’s own original work, material obtained from an individual, agency, or the internet without reference to the person, agency or webpage as the source of the material. </li></ul><ul><li>iii. Submitting as one’s own original work material that has been produced through unacknowledged collaboration with others without release in writing from collaborators </li></ul>
  7. 7. <ul><li>SafeAssign ™ is a plagiarism prevention service, offered by Blackboard to its Blackboard Learning System Enterprise, Vista Enterprise and CE Enterprise clients.  This service helps educators prevent plagiarism by detecting unoriginal content in student papers.  In addition to acting as a plagiarism deterrent, it also has features designed to aid in educating students about plagiarism and importance of proper attribution of any borrowed content.   </li></ul>
  8. 10. Some Plagiarism/Source Use Resource Sites <ul><li>Plagiarism.org </li></ul><ul><li>from Purdue OWL </li></ul><ul><li>UC library </li></ul><ul><li>Tutorial created by LION </li></ul><ul><li>Plagiarism by Common Craft </li></ul><ul><li>Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video </li></ul>
  9. 11. From Kenneth Goldsmith’s “ It ’ s Not Plagiarism. In the Digital Age, it ’ s ‘ Repurposing ’” <ul><li>“ [W]riters are exploring ways of writing that have been thought, traditionally, to be outside the scope of literary practice: word processing, databasing, recycling, appropriation, intentional plagiarism, identity ciphering, and intensive programming, to name just a few.” </li></ul>
  10. 12. <ul><li>“ Lethem's provocation [in “The Ecstacy of Influence: A Plagiarism” (2007)] belies a trend among younger writers who take his exercise one step further by boldly appropriating the work of others without citation, disposing of the artful and seamless integration of Lethem's patchwriting. For them, the act of writing is literally moving language from one place to another, proclaiming that context is the new content. While pastiche and collage have long been part and parcel of writing, with the rise of the Internet plagiaristic intensity has been raised to extreme levels.” </li></ul>
  11. 13. <ul><li>“ There's been an explosion of writers employing strategies of copying and appropriation over the past few years, with the computer encouraging writers to mimic its workings. When cutting and pasting are integral to the writing process, it would be mad to imagine that writers wouldn't exploit these functions in extreme ways that weren't intended by their creators.” </li></ul>
  12. 14. from “Plagiarism, Originality, Assemblage” by Johndan Johnson-Eilola & Stuart Selber, Computers and Composition 24 (2007): 375-403. <ul><li>“ What we want to suggest here is that the whole issue of plagiarism is still tied to the idea of the lone, creative genius. In other words, at least one set of social forces suggests to students that using citations and quotations from source materials will be valued less than their own original text, a situation that may encourage them to conceal their sources. We also want to suggest something else: If we take either a problem-solving or problem-posing approach, as a great number of people in composition claim to do, then so-called unique texts have little inherent value. Instead, teachers should be encouraging students to learn ways to use existing information to solve real, concrete issues.” </li></ul>
  13. 15. Cont. <ul><li>“ When all is said and done, teachers seem to ask students the question: After you have read all the background material and assembled your evidence, what did you, just you, produce? Show us your words; let the words of others fade into the background.” </li></ul>
  14. 16. Cont. <ul><li>“ What happens, however, if we tell students that their goal is not to create new, unique texts but to filter and remix other texts in ways that solve concrete problems or enact real social action? What if we expect and encourage them to copy other texts? Plagiarism, in these situations, becomes much less of an issue, for students are encouraged to make explicit their borrowings and appropriations. What counts, in this new context, is the ability of students to remix texts in ways that address specific issues, readers, and situations.” </li></ul>
  15. 17. Cont. <ul><li>“ We want to change the goal of writing from performance to action or effect in context. That is, we want to lend some weight to a movement that shifts the terrain of the assignment by shifting our approach to writing instruction and assessment: What if the “final” product a student produces—a text—is not concerned with original words or images on a page or screen but concerned primarily with assemblages of parts? Importantly, in this reconception, the assemblages do not distinguish primarily between which parts are supposed to be original and which have been found and gathered from someplace else; assemblages are interested in what works, what has social effects. 1” </li></ul>
  16. 18. Cont. <ul><li>“ Because students still recognize the primary value placed on original text, they sometimes hide their borrowings and appropriations. But what happens if we downplay the value of originality? What if we put the emphasis on problem-solving, originality be damned?” </li></ul>
  17. 19. and finally… <ul><li>“ For our purposes here, assemblages are texts built primarily and explicitly from existing texts in order to solve a writing or communication problem in a new context. Under our definition, ‘assemblage’ is itself constructed from the conceptual, linguistic, and sociopolitical forces active in several different locations.” </li></ul>
  18. 20. <ul><li>English Downfall Video </li></ul>

×