This article is a companion piece to Adam Robert Guha's The Internet, Research, and Plagiarism. I
won't say it's a rebuttal, because I agree with many of the the things
he said.
My comments come from the other side of the fence, the teacher's
side, and I want to make a couple of points he didn't. If you haven't
read his excellent article, please do so.
As a teacher, I am concerned that some of my colleagues are missing
the point when they assign research projects either in the library or
on the Internet. The library can be intimidating to users unfamiliar
with book indexing, and the Internet can be similarly overwhelming to
users unable to filter out the large amounts of useless information
that often accompany a search.
I think that assignments which simply say, "go do research and write
a report," are a primary source of the problem of plagiarism in
schools. Unfortunately, teachers who have that one computer sitting in
the corner often make that kind of error because they haven't been
trained on how to use a computer effectively - and are even more
intimidated by a computer lab or library computer workroom. This leads,
in my view, to plagiarism, both the subtle and borderline kind and the
blatant and clumsy kind.
I've seen every kind of plagiarism there is.
One student tried to turn in a publisher's website description for a
book report. "In this exciting novel, part of the Known Space series,
Larry Niven creates yet another whole new world to stimulate your
imagination...."
Another foolishly reviewed a science fiction movie instead of the
book it was based on (these are rarely identical - thanks, Hollywood!).
Other students simply copy paragraphs from websites and paste them
together without transition or much organization. Those are easy to
spot because the voice is in the wrong person and the vocabulary is
inconsistent and at too high a level. "Bob Dole doesn't do commercials
without a humorous aspect."
For oral reports, widespread plagiarism is obvious when students
cannot read aloud what they supposedly have written. People do not
usually use words in their writing that they do not know how to
pronounce. "Albedo (Al-Bee-Doh, not All-biddo) is a measurement of the
reflectivity of a planet." Now, one example is forgivable, but six or
seven per paragraph means you probably don't understand what you're
reading and certainly don't know what it means - and it's a good bet
you didn't write it, either.
Sometimes students copy and paste from CD-ROM encyclopedias,
including the hyperlinks (and the hyperlinks' formatting). When I asked
one young man why he had underlined the term "aphelion" in a report, he
shrugged. When I informed him of the real reason, a chorus of
"busss-ted" sounded around the room.
Students also need to be taught how to cite references even when
they have good intentions. This year, we did reports about the planets
using PowerPoint, and citation of sources was required. My rubric
included a two point drop (out of 5) for stating that the source was
"www.google.com" or "Encarta" without the entry's name. That happened
about 4 or 5 times in each class.
There is even plagiarism of other students' work. At the beginning
of the year, I have many students who do not really understand cut and
paste, or the difference between Windows and Office, or whether or not
they have a spreadsheet program on their computer at home. By the end
of the year, I have to watch carefully for students simply duplicating
reports of other students and changing the name. I've awarded four
zeroes for students stealing others' work this year. As they become
more competent, they think they are "inventing" new schemes for
copying.
The sad part is, many of my students are incapable of cheating
effectively; they don't have the skills necessary to pretend to be a
teacher and anticipate possible barriers to their cheating. This
inability to reason is almost more worrisome than the ethical lapse
that causes the cheating in the first place. "American Students Too
Stupid To Cheat" would be a nice headline for the BBC's website, don't
you think?
Lest you think I am a crotchety old teacher wanting to sit in the
teacher's workroom ("lounge" is not a Unionifically correct term) and
complain about my lazy or incompetent students, let me assure you that
I have two things working in my favor to keep my hopes up. First, I
have a great many students who are talented and intelligent and produce
original work with great creativity and imagination. Some of the stuff
I have seen from 9th graders is simply amazing - if you ask them to do
it, many of them will. Some will not do anything, simple or advanced;
but the majority rise to the occasion when presented with a
challenge.
Second, I try to give assignments where the main part of the credit
is generated by the student's input or spin on the matter. There is an
emphasis on the invention of processes, such as writing the procedure
for the lab report, which counts for more than simply getting the
answer. Book reports should have a point beyond a recitation of the
plot. I'm not always successful at this; it's difficult to create such
assignments and time consuming to grade them. But I'm aware of it, and
I try.
With regards to the Internet as a research tool, it does make
assembling a plagiarized work more convenient. If the assignment is
cleverly designed, there will likely not be a readily available source
for copying. For example, if the assignment was "do a report on Mars,"
then there is a cornucopia of papers, websites, NASA summaries, and
school reports waiting to be found. The student can say nearly anything
and be on target with such a vague assignment.
On the other hand, if the assignment is "design a mission to Mars,
starting with the launch date, trip time, arrival time, length of stay,
return date, ship design, crew selection, and including the selection
of a landing site based on research findings about the location of
water on the surface and considerations of weather," then suddenly the
student has to wade through a couple orders of magnitude of false leads
and multiple sources because just one website is not as likely to have
everything.
And if there is one website with everything, odds are it'll be
easier for me to locate - and even possible that I've seen it already.
Furthermore, there's no right answer to any of the components, so if
everyone reaches the same conclusion it's pretty obvious they
cheated.
Here's some advice for students seeking to make a transition from
"Copy and Print" to "Think for Yourself":
- Don't use words you don't understand.
- Read what you've "written" out loud to your mother. If she doesn't
"get it," try restating it until she does. Write that down.
- Try drawing your own diagram for a change.
- A reference should lead you back exactly to the same place you got
the information so you can learn more.
- If you can't answer this question, then you're just babbling:
"What's the point?"
The computer is a wonderful resource, and the Internet amplifies
that tremendously. But like the characters unable to comprehend the
notion of doing original research in Isaac Asimov's novel Foundation,
inexperienced students need to learn that the point of every assignment
is to make a statement for yourself and then support it, not write
unending analyses of other people's research. If students and teachers
both understood that, the frequency and seriousness of plagiarism would
be greatly reduced.
Now go forth and Google!
is a longtime Mac user. He was using digital sensors on Apple II computers in the 1980's and has networked computers in his classroom since before the internet existed. In 2006 he was selected at the California Computer Using Educator's teacher of the year. His students have used NASA space probes and regularly participate in piloting new materials for NASA. He is the author of two books and numerous articles and scientific papers. He currently teaches astronomy and physics in California, where he lives with his twin sons, Jony and Ben.< And there's still a Mac G3 in his classroom which finds occasional use.
