Cheating + Plagiarism

Cheating and plagiarism policies rarely consider the beliefs and practices that might influence a student’s decision to plagiarize.

But if we understand why students might cheat, we can better design assignments and learning activities that deter it.

In his 2013 book Cheating Lessons, James Lang identifies four key elements that increase the likelihood of cheating.

1) significant pressure loaded onto a single performance: when students only have one or two major assignments through which to demonstrate their achievement, those assignments become “make it or break it” performances.

2) an outcome that is “high stakes”: if doing well in a course determines scholarships, entrance to a program, future opportunities, then getting the grade becomes more important than doing the work.

3) extrinsic rather than intrinsic motivation to complete a task: if students see no value in doing a difficult task apart from jumping through a hoop, they will be more likely to cheat.

4) low self-efficacy: when students believe they lack the skill to successfully complete an assignment without help–that is, when what is being asked of them is perceived as impossible (for example, expecting an intermediate English language learner to write writing a paper entirely free of grammatical errors) —then they may (correctly) perceive that their only chance of success is to cheat

There may be other barriers to students’ success at Emily Carr, including work and family obligations, different cultural understandings of authorship and individual ownership, and their personal investment in a particular course.

In May 2017, Emily Carr adopted a new policy that governs cheating and plagiarism. Policy 4.17 (and its accompanying procedures document 4.17.1) . The text below is a brief introduction to the main definitions and categories of academic misconduct in the policy

At Emily Carr, academic integrity means acknowledging the influence and contributions of other people in our work according to established conventions. It means honestly representing the relationship between the work we create for courses and programs and the work of those who have influenced or participated in its making.

We understand:

• that different disciplines have different expectations about how the work of others is acknowledged or referenced ;

• that learning the citation practices of a discipline is a skill that requires time and practice;

• that different cultures have different conceptions of ownership, particularly in the area of intellectual property;

• that all scholarly, educational, and creative work must comply with Canadian copyright law.

Having a shared understanding of academic integrity and academic misconduct is the first, and arguably most important step, in helping us create a learning environment that is fair to everyone.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the intentional misrepresentation of someone else’s work as one’s own.

In some contexts, plagiarism is restricted to the domain of writing—using the words or texts of others without giving proper credit to the source. In an art, media and design context, however, we expand this definition to include knowingly using another person’s unique ideas, images, objects, designs, research, inventions, arguments, etc. as one’s own, without credit or acknowledgement.

Cheating

Cheating defines a range of activities that are intended to give someone credit for work that they did not do or for knowledge that they did not learn.

Unauthorized Reuse of Work

Students are expected to create new work in response to each course assignment unless instructors or assignments explicitly state otherwise. Submitting any work, in whole or in part, that has already been graded (or submitted for a grade) in another class is academic misconduct.

Unacknowledged Collaboration

For some assignments, instructors may be looking for individual work without the input of others. Before working with other students, tutors, translators, etc. students need to determine from their instructor or assignment instructions whether collaboration is expected or acceptable. Working with on-campus tutors through the Writing Centre does not constitute collaboration.

Our Academic Integrity Policy outlines a three-step process for dealing with cases of academic misconduct.

Considerations

In determining whether a student’s actions on course assignments constitute academic misconduct, instructors may consider the following factors:

• a student’s level of study: developing citation skills requires regular opportunities for practice over an extended period;

• a student’s linguistic, cultural or contextual knowledge of North American concepts of ownership, intellectual property and citation practices;

• whether a student may have misapplied previously learned conventions for documenting sources in a new course or learning context;

• whether there has been a demonstrable misunderstanding of the requirements of an assignment;

• whether a lack of clear guidelines, instruction or resources directly contributed to the student’s actions.

The presence of any of the above factors does not absolve students of responsibility for any academic misconduct , but they may suggest remedial learning activities as the preferred form of sanction.

The Process

Step 1. Meet with the student to discuss your concerns.

You can have a colleague attend this meeting with you if you are concerned about how the student might respond to your suspicions.

Step 2. Determine your response.

1) no misconduct, which means no further action (yay!);

2) minor misconduct (see below), which will require, mainly, remedial learning activities and/or a grade penalty;

3) major misconduct (see below), which will require escalating the case to the Dean’s office.

NOTE: If you are still convinced academic misconduct has occurred after your meeting, you should email your Dean to inquire whether the student has any previous record of academic misconduct.

Step 3. Record any incident of misconduct, major or minor, in the Progress Alert System using the Academic Check-in option.

There are two levels of minor misconduct:

Level 1 misconduct is not extensive, may stem from misunderstanding assignment requirements or citation convention, and affects only a small portion (less than 10%) of the work submitted. Level 1 sanctions are typically re-submission of the assignment or completion of a new assignment. Grade reductions may or may not apply.

Level 2 misconduct is more extensive (but still no more than 25% of the work submitted), may involve unauthorized re-use of work in more than one class, or unacknowledged collaboration with paid tutors, translators, etc. Typical Level 2 sanctions would be a significant grade reduction or failing grade on the assignment or in the course.

There are two levels of major misconduct:

Level 3 misconduct affects a major or essential portion of the work, and shows deliberate intention to cheat, such as purchasing a work, plagiarizing major portions of a work (more than 25%), passing off someone else’s work as one’s own, etc. The normal sanction for Level 3 misconduct is a one-semester suspension from the university.

Level 4 misconduct is the most serious breach of academic integrity that involves criminal activity (theft, forgery, etc.) or impersonating a student for the purposes of cheating. The typical sanction for Level 4 misconduct is permanent expulsion.

The Council of Writing Program Administrators has produced Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism: The WPA Statement on Best Practice that can be helpful in both designing plagiarism-proof assignments and teaching about plagiarism in the classroom.

The Citation Project is a multi-institutional research project that evaluates students’ use of sources in writing. Their work has produced numerous articles to date, as well as several useful definitions.

The Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL) has multiple handouts on plagiarism for both students and faculty.

The University of Toronto has produced a useful handout for faculty on Deterring Plagiarism.

Top Ten Suggestions for Teaching in the Era of AI