I wanted to add a thought to this, though I am now blessedly free of the problem as a retired professor. I think policing for plagiarism is far from foolproof even with computer programs to do it, and the ease of plagiarism furthermore exposes the essential vapidity of the usual term paper assignment concept.This is doubly true in a google world where information is raining down us and disciplined critical thought becomes ever more important. I believe that when we have to fall back on elaborate policing or punitive processes, we have received a signal that there is something basically wrong with the way we are teaching.
I concluded well before the internet-bound problem that the standard term paper in large classes was largely a waste of time for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to plagiarism. Thus, in classes of more than a dozen or so, the papers I assigned required a unique problem definiton such that the paper could not be stolen from elsewhere, (although some usually easy to spot paragraphs or sentences might be). The paper assignment would be based on specific material studied through a large part of the semester and would be very closely tied to it, again, in a way unique both to the course and to the way the assignment was worded. More than sharply reducing plagiarism, this led to a better learning experience because in the traditional term paper assignment, even when students attempted original work, without a process of thinking through the nature of the question they addressed in a context of critical thought and interchange with others, only the very best of students (and not always they) could produce a well-focused, thoughtful piece of work given the limited time of a semester and the other pressures on them. So, for example, I would not ask them to do a paper on the effects of a structural adjustment package on environmental problems in country X. Rather, I would ask them to apply the perspective of several authors whom we had read and discussed to the effects of a structural adjustment package on a country selected to highlight the differences in the perspectives. In a more ambition version, the student might have to contrast his or her analysis with a paper done on another country by another student, with the two discussing the preparation of the separate analyses as they developed their paper, and having to refer to the other's paper's conclusions and methods. This may sound overly-elaborate, but it need not be if one thinks through from the time one prepares the syllabus how the assigned material can be used as the foundation for collaborative research projects. It can also be done without as much emphasis on the collaborative part if that is too difficult for the size or nature of the class. Students, often being shocked by the assignment, when guided through the process are often delighted with both the process and the product, proud of what they have accomplished in a way that is usually not very familiar to them. For smaller classes, or where well-qualified teadching assistants can do some of the grading and commentary, plagiarism can be practically eliminated by requiring, and rigidly sticking to the requirement, that the paper be prepared in a series of five to ten steps, each to be turned in on a strict schedule for feedback from the instructor, such as: list of tentative topics with short justifications; short list of topic ideas with longer justifications and brief bibliographies; selection and refinement of a particular topic, with longer bibliography; an outline; an improved outline based on instructors comments and possibly feedback from the rest of the class; a rough draft; a final draft. This only works in my experience if there is a heavy penalty for failure to turn in the intermediate steps. Among other built in penalties, I made the grade on the final draft only fifty percent of the grade for the project as a whole--a well-written paper without the intermediates steps earned an F for the project. Equally important is the instructor's committment to turn back the intermediate assignments with useful commentary in a timely fashion specified on the syllabus (e.g., the outline is due Oct. 13 and will be returned to you with my comments by Oct. 20.) This process works wonders and pretty much eliminates plagiarism. Yes, a bright student could theoretically reverse engineer a paper, but they do not seem to think of it, and doing so would be almost as much work or more than simply doing it right. If you are suspicious, a few questions along the lines of "why are you choosing to go about it this way?" can usually reveal what is happening. All that said, I still had some plagiarism cases in both large and small classes, but they were few and far between (I think) and were relatively minor. The just plain downloaded or otherwise stolen or purchased paper pretty much disappeared. And think about the real world--how often does one prepare a serious piece of research without consultation and feedback from others through the process? The real-world requirements of consultation and feedback through the research process needs to be incorporated into the assignment as part of the learning experience. This point is made in a more general way by both employers and graduate programs who are distressed by the lack of collaborative experience from college graduates. In an interdisciplinary field such as ours, this is even more important. I would be interested in hearing what others think of this. Angus Angus Wright Professor Emeritus of Environmental Studies California State University, Sacramento ________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of William CG Burns [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 2:46 PM To: GEP-Ed List Subject: [gep-ed] Plagiarism Unfortunately, the submission of term papers at the end of the year in our program has come with a spate of plagiarism. While we have a small section on what constitutes plagiarism in our academic handbook, it’s my belief that we need to develop a more detailed document that more clearly outlines what constitutes plagiarism, including examples. If any of our list members in academia have developed materials of this nature, or know of good sources that I can consult in constructing this document, I would be most appreciative if you could contact me. Thanks, and happy holidays to everyone. wil Dr. Wil Burns, Associate Director Master of Science - Energy Policy & Climate Program Johns Hopkins University 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Room 104J Washington, DC 20036 202.663.5976 (Office phone) 650.281.9126 (Mobile) [email protected] http://energy.jhu.edu SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348 Skype ID: Wil.Burns Teaching Climate/Energy Law & Policy Blog: http://www.teachingclimatelaw.org<http://www.teachingclimatelaw.org/>
