reflection essay about avoiding plagiarism

Plagiarism and How to Avoid It Essay

Introduction, examples of plagiarism, reference list.

Plagiarism and other unfair practices are a problem for international students. This has resulted from increased use of other people’s inventions and ideas in learning institutions by lecturers without giving due credit to the sources of these ideas (Hall, 2004, para.1).

Plagiarism is described as a fraud in the sense that people obtain other people’s original ideas and cite them as their own inventions without crediting their source. Some students copy other people’s work directly from various sources such as books, articles or internet articles and present it as their own original work. Where an individual uses another person’s ideas and consequently fail to acknowledge the source of the information, such an act leads to plagiarism (Hall, 2004, para. 2).

Many people commit the act unconsciously. In a given case, one can find information which is relevant to the study or research being conducted thus copying it directly or does not give credit to the author. To avoid plagiarism, the researcher must ensure that the work being presented is legitimate.

Example of plagiarism- From 1945 onwards, there has been a fundamental hypothesis that poorer countries of the world are slowly developing towards the western model. In addition, there has been a view that the international aid policy should be geared to this end. Many Arab countries for example Japan-restructured under US guidance after 1945, believe in this hypothesis. The word bank categorizes countries either as high, middle and low income.

The low income countries are characterized by high levels of deceases, poverty, and are working hard with the help of high and middle countries to assist the improve their living standards by assuming western-style economic managements and institutions. This phrase is plagiarized and to some extent the original meaning intended by the author is changed.

Also, the source of the information is not reflected in the text. To avoid plagiarism, this phrase should have been presented as follows; since the World War II, countries which were poorly developed are believed to be adopting western style with examples of Japan (currently developed) in order to develop. This has created levels of development among the developed and developing countries (Buckley, 2004, p.7).

The second example of plagiarism is also illustrated as follows; a person can be a good conversationalist by being a good listener. When one is conversing with someone else, he / she should pay close attention to the words of the speaker and also looking at his or her face. One should show the interest by smiling and/or nodding.

In addition, one should not interrupt while the other is speaking: this is impolite. If one has a good story, he / she should wait until the speaker has finished. To add on this, one should watch the body language as can affect the communication whether one is the speaker or the listener. For instance, one should not sit slumped in a chair or make nervous hand and foot movements. One should be relaxed and bending the body slightly forward to show interest in the person and the conversation.

This phrase lacks the source of this information. Also, it is apparent that the information has been obtained from another source and changed to represent the third person.

To avoid plagiarism, this should have been presented as follows; conversation flows as expected and smoothly if the parties involved are paying attention to each other’s message, avoiding interruptions, showing positive responses and observing correct body languages. Ones behavior during conversation dictates much to the speaker of the kind of a listener a person is. Therefore, it is vital if one observes the necessary requirements during conversation (University of Portsmouth, 2008, p.27).

It is vital for writers to avoid plagiarism. This can only be attained if the sources used are properly documented and cited. Recognizing works of other people can be attained via use of footnotes, parenthetical references, or endnotes. In addition, at the end of the research paper, reference list or work cited page should be created Stanford University Libraries (2008, para.2).

Buckley, R. 2004. The Global village: challenges for a shrinking planet . USA: Garnet Publishing.

Hall, B. 2004. What is plagiarism and why it is important? Bloomington: Herman B Wells Library.

Stamford Universities Library.2008 . Plagiarism; how to avoid it . Stamford: Stamford Universities library.

University of Portsmouth. 2008. Academic Writing . Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, April 11). Plagiarism and How to Avoid It. https://ivypanda.com/essays/plagiarism-essay/

"Plagiarism and How to Avoid It." IvyPanda , 11 Apr. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/plagiarism-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Plagiarism and How to Avoid It'. 11 April.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Plagiarism and How to Avoid It." April 11, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/plagiarism-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Plagiarism and How to Avoid It." April 11, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/plagiarism-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Plagiarism and How to Avoid It." April 11, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/plagiarism-essay/.

• Plagiarism: What It Is and How to Avoid It
• Plagiarism: For and Against
• The Price of the Plagiarism
• Protection of Inventors Ideas
• What New Media Will Look Like in 2023: A Time Travel Into the Era When Innovations Clash With Ownership Issues
• Copyright Infringement
• Has the digital age rendered copyright obsolete?
• The control of intellectual property has played an important role in the development of media technologies

• Cambridge Libraries

Study Skills

Good academic practice and avoiding plagiarism.

• Introduction
• Taking good notes
• Managing your time
• Paraphrasing
• Summarising
• Common knowledge
• Referencing styles
• Referencing tools
• Understanding plagiarism
• Final thoughts

Welcome to this guide on good academic practice and avoiding plagiarism

This guide will develop your understanding of good academic practice and help you develop skills to present your work with academic integrity. It will also explain plagiarism, one of the consequences of academic misconduct, and what this means at Cambridge.

Academic work, at all levels, builds on the ideas, data and work of others. Good academic practice helps you critically engage with your subject and demonstrate your understanding in your work. This can be when you are reading around the subject, organising your ideas into a coherent argument, or giving credit each time you include an idea or an argument from your reading.  Effective use of source materials, whether you summarise the information, quote it directly or paraphrase it, can show credibility and authority in writing you produce, as well as providing opposing views against which you can comment. Expressing ideas in your own words will strongly support your argument and show your tutor how well you understand the original material. helps you develop your writing style. Absence of good academic practice is unethical, demonstrates poor scholarship and can lead to disciplinary procedures.

To develop good academic practice, work through this guide, concentrating on the areas you are unfamiliar with.

Williams, K. & Carroll, J. (2009) Referencing and Understanding Plagiarism . (Pocket Study Skills) Palgrave Macmillan

Williams, K. (2014) Getting Critical . 2nd ed. (Pocket Study Skills) Palgrave Macmillan

Pears, R. & Shields, G. (2013) Cite them Right: the Essential Referencing Guide. 9th ed. (Pocket Study Skills) Palgrave Macmillan

• Next: Taking good notes >>
• Last Updated: Sep 12, 2023 8:59 AM
• URL: https://libguides.cam.ac.uk/plagiarism

© Cambridge University Libraries | Accessibility | Privacy policy | Log into LibApps

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 30 June 2015

Responding to plagiarism using reflective means

• Nikunj Dalal 1  

International Journal for Educational Integrity volume  11 , Article number:  4 ( 2015 ) Cite this article

19k Accesses

14 Citations

11 Altmetric

Metrics details

Academic integrity violations have become widespread and pervasive in the university. The manner in which we respond to such violations is important. The prevalent approaches based on procedures, policies, appeals, and sanctions are seen as inadequate and may often be viewed as punitive or disciplinary. Even if they may bring about desired changes in behavior, it is not clear whether the behavioral changes are based on fear of punishment or due to transformative inner learning. Drawing upon reflective learning theories, this paper reports and reflects on the exploratory use of reflective means in two courses over four semesters to deal with students who had plagiarized on their class assignments. As there is little prior work in terms of methodology or research or practice addressing reflective approaches dealing with plagiarism, the goal of this study is to explore the feasibility and promise of integrally combining two reflective practices – an initial dialogue between instructor and student and a reflective essay subsequently written by the student. (Anti-plagiarism software was used to help detect plagiarism.) The main finding of this study is that such an approach is sensible, feasible, and promising. The reflective approach calls for mindfulness, empathy, and skillful dialogue on the part of the instructor and appears to encourage critical self-reflection in the student. Innovative reflective approaches warrant further research for inclusion as significant elements of a wise and holistic institutional response to academic integrity violations. Self-reflection may not only reduce the incidence of plagiarism and other academic integrity violations but may also be conducive to the growth of practical wisdom and inner change that spills over into other dimensions of integrity. Implications for institutional practices and further research are discussed.

Academic integrity violations such as plagiarism, copying, unauthorized collaboration, cheating on examinations, and unauthorized access to examinations have become widespread and pervasive in the modern university setting, aided undoubtedly by the easy availability and proliferation of various technologies (see e.g., McCabe, 2005 ; Park, 2003 ; Campbell, 2006 among many other studies). While there may be methodological issues in accurately measuring the rates of prevalence of plagiarism and other violations of academic integrity, discerning leaders of academia too have echoed such observations. For example, according to a 2011 Pew Research Center survey in association with the Chronicle of Higher Education of 1,055 presidents of colleges and universities (public and private) in the U.S., the majority of college presidents (55%) say plagiarism has increased in the past decade (of which 89% believe that computers and the internet have played a major role in this trend) and a large proportion (40%) believe that it has stayed the same over the past 10 years while a small minority of college presidents (2%) think that plagiarism has decreased over the past decade (Parker et.al 2011 ).

Although the standard institutional response by universities to cheating has been to articulate academic integrity policies that aim at behavior modification through information, procedures, and sanctions, there is growing recognition that holistic approaches that integrate policies, practices, information providing and learning strategies are needed to address the gamut and complexity of academic integrity issues including plagiarism (MacDonald and Carroll, 2006 ; Bretag et al. 2011 .) It is in this larger context that approaches focusing on empathy, reflection, dialogue, and understanding of the prevalent digital culture of young adults are likely to find a place.

There is increasing evidence from researchers that reflective learning and reflective practices play an important role in higher education (Brockbank & McGill, 2007 ). However, there has been little research or reporting on the use of reflection in responding to academic integrity violations in general and plagiarism in particular. A detailed search (carried out by the author) of handbooks of academic integrity at leading universities in the U.S. revealed little or no mention of keywords “reflection” and “dialogue”. Although some schools do offer an option of writing a reflection paper, it seems to be treated as a sanction along with probation and other disciplinary actions.

Drawing upon reflective learning theories, this paper reports and reflects on the exploratory use of reflective means by the author (who was the instructor) to deal with students who appeared to have plagiarized on their class assignments in two information systems courses taught during four semesters. Specifically, the study explores the feasibility and promise of combining two reflective practices: a dialogue between instructor and student and a subsequent reflective essay written by a plagiarizing student. Given that there has been little prior work in terms of methodology or research or practice addressing reflective approaches dealing with plagiarism, this study is probably among the first of its kind to explore the use of reflective dialogue in conjunction with reflective essay for this purpose.

This paper is organized as follows. The first section introduces reflection theories and reflective practices, which are then viewed in the context of academic integrity facilitation. The second section describes procedural details of the reflective approach used. The next section reports and reflects on the study’s findings, which is followed by a discussion of the implications of this approach for institutional practices and future research. The paper concludes with some final thoughts.

Reflection theories and practices

Often likened to “looking at oneself into a mirror,” reflection has generally been considered an essential aspect of self-understanding, contemplation, and meditation in philosophies of life. However, reflection is also a common mental learning activity that we carry out when we try to make sense and meaning from daily life experiences. It involves implicitly testing assumptions, beliefs, and knowledge in the light of experiences, which may result in new learning as well as changed perspectives on life. Boud, Keogh and Walker’s 1985 model of reflection in learning (Boud et al. 2013 ) has two components: a) experience and b) reflection of the experience. They use the term experience as consisting of “the total response of a person to a situation or event: what he or she thinks, does, feels, and concludes at the time and immediately thereafter (p.18).” The subsequent reflective activity based upon the experience is when people attempt to recapture the experience, think about it, mull over it, and learn from it. Although we tend to reflect almost automatically, Boud et al. ( 2013 ) believe that conscious reflection enables us to bring unconscious thinking and feelings into the light of awareness, which enhances learning. In the context of education, reflection may be defined per Hatcher and Bringle ( 1997 ) as “the intentional consideration of an experience in light of particular learning objectives (p.153).”

The Transformative Learning Theory by Jack Mezirow of Columbia University focuses on perspective transformation that arises from reflection on the “Why” of an experience in contrast to instrumental learning, which focuses on the “What” and the “How” (Mezirow, 1991 ). Transformative learning attempts to purposively and rationally question and deconstruct the learner’s prior assumptions, values, beliefs, feelings, and biases in the interest of personal and intellectual growth of the learner (Cranton 1994 ). According to Mezirow ( 1991 ), transformative learning can be a life-changing experience that starts with a “disorienting dilemma” – a choice of two alternatives – which must be understood and resolved. The dilemma may be triggered by some life crisis or situation and one may have to decide on whether to continue in the existing worldview or paradigm or underlying belief system, or to reflect, deconstruct, learn, and transform to a different level of understanding. Mezirow ( 1991 ) theorized that the disorienting dilemma can lead to self-examination with accompanying feelings of shame or guilt, after which one may go through a series of stages involving self-knowledge acquisition, reflection, and exploration, and can end with a new perspective reintegrated into one’s life. Mezirow’s theory has transformed the field of adult learning and is finding applications in many other domains.

Reflection in practice is referred to as reflective practice, which is about “paying critical attention to the practical values and theories which inform everyday actions, by examining practice reflectively and reflexively. This leads to developmental insight (Bolton 2010 ).” Starting with the notion of Reflective Practice (Schön, 1983 ) by Donald Schön in his book “The Reflective Practitioner” in 1983 and followed up by numerous other theorists, reflective practice has now been widely accepted and used by individuals and organizations, particularly in the teaching and health professions. There are numerous forms of reflective practices all embodying the notion of reflection. Reflective essays and reflective dialogues are two key reflective practices introduced next.

A reflective essay is a form of writing in which the writer reflects and contemplates on his or her experiences. A reflective essay may be a personal record of thoughts, feelings and experiences, an evaluation of strengths and weaknesses, or a summary of meaningful learning from those experiences. While a reflective essay is often used as part of a writing or learning portfolio (e.g., Wade and Yarbrough, 1996 ), there appears to have been little research on its use as an academic integrity tool.

Another reflective practice is to engage in reflective dialogue. Simply defined as “thinking together” (Isaacs, 1999 ), a reflective dialogue is an objective inquiry in which self-awareness, intuition, reflection, and listening in a spirit of fellowship are key elements (Bohm, 1996 ). This notion of dialogue is clearly more than a discussion or a meaningful conversation or interchange of opinions between two or more persons; participants are also engaged in observing their own thought, preconceptions, assumptions, and beliefs during the dialogue. (The term dialogue will be used interchangeably with reflective dialogue henceforth with the understanding that what is meant is reflective dialogue.) This type of dialogue draws upon the inquiry traditions of philosophers such as Socrates (Kahn, 1998 ), Bohm ( 1996 ), and Krishnamurti ( 1996 ) and later theoretical underpinnings laid out by organizational management theorists such as Senge ( 1990 ) and Isaacs ( 1999 ), founder of the MIT Dialogue project, among others. A participant in such a dialogue learns to listen to the other without resistance; suspends or becomes aware of their assumptions, images and biases; is ready to explore underlying causes to get to deeper questions and issues; creatively envisions new possibilities; and creates a collective flow (Isaacs, 1999 ). There is no established formula or protocol for conducting a reflective dialogue and there appears to be a lot of scope for creativity and spontaneity. Why? “Because the nature of Dialogue is exploratory, its meaning and its methods continue to unfold. No firm rules can be laid down for conducting a Dialogue because its essence is learning - not as the result of consuming a body of information or doctrine imparted by an authority, nor as a means of examining or criticizing a particular theory or programme, but rather as part of an unfolding process of creative participation … (Bohm et al. 1991 )”

According to numerous case studies documented by Isaacs ( 1999 ), the dialogue process may generate new transformative insights and perspectives in the minds of participants. In the context of learning, Brockbank and McGill ( 2007 ) have observed how dialogues can generate perception shifts by challenging existing assumptions. In their words (p. 45), “For us dialogue that is reflective, and enables critically reflective learning, engages the person at the edge of their knowledge, their sense of self and the world as experienced by them. Thus their assumptions about knowledge, themselves and their world is challenged.”

In the context of plagiarism and other academic integrity violations, it would appear then that being caught in a plagiarism situation is a “disorienting dilemma” for a student. A dialogue between an instructor or counselor and the student may enable better listening of one another, perhaps in a less judgmental manner, throw more light on the situation, and along with writing a reflective essay, the whole process may help a student “learn” from their mistakes and transform to a different level of understanding of originality and authenticity. Can these reflective practices really help? The focus of this study was to explore three questions: Is it sensible and feasible to implement a reflective approach for dealing with plagiarism in a course? What does it entail? Can it show promise? The next section describes the use of a reflective approach.

Reflective approach

The author has used a reflective approach with minor variations for four consecutive long semesters starting Spring 2013 to deal with cases of plagiarism in two information systems courses. Both courses included five to seven homework assignments and a project. Plagiarism cases were detected with the help of plagiarism detection software from Turnitin ( http://turnitin.com ), which is integrated with the Desire2learn learning platform of the university.

This overall approach had the following components:

1. Building student awareness

The students are informed in the syllabus about integrity violations and sanctions, which is discussed during the first week of classes. The fact that plagiarism detection software is being used is reinforced as follows:

You are expected to be aware of all kinds of academic dishonesty. Please check with the instructor if you have any doubts or questions. In particular, any work found to be similar to that on existing websites or similar to work done by current or former students in the past will be considered for plagiarism. This will be checked by means of suitable software. Participating in a behavior that violates academic integrity (e.g., unauthorized collaboration, plagiarism, multiple submissions, cheating on examinations, fabricating information, helping another person cheat, unauthorized advance access to examinations, altering or destroying the work of others, fraudulently altering academic records, and similar behaviors) will result in a sanction. Sanctions include: lowering of a letter grade, receiving a failing grade on an assignment, examination or course, receiving a notation of a violation of academic integrity (F!) on your transcript, and being suspended from the University. You have the right to appeal the charge. (Contact details provided here).

Building such awareness in the student early in the semester is helpful and fair. It not only deters students from cheating behaviors but may also mitigate the sense of ignorance, indignation, or unfairness often displayed by students who are caught later in the semester in situations where they have not received prior explicit information on what constitutes academic integrity. The next step in this approach also has similar goals.

2. Providing learning and self-assessment materials

As part of the course content in the first week of the semester, students are pointed to various sources of materials on academic honesty and are expected to understand the meaning and different shades of plagiarism. This is particularly important as students may commit unintentional plagiarism. For example, it was found that some students considered it acceptable to modify a submission of a student from a previous semester to some degree and present it as their own work. Such misinterpretations were brought to light with the help of an open-book miniquiz, administered online at the end of the first week, which contained questions used to assess their understanding of plagiarism.

Students are further required to sign an integrity pledge (which was incorporated in Fall 2014) stating the following:

INTEGRITY PLEDGE: “All my work for this course will be original and independently done. Sentences copied and pasted from the Internet will be placed in quotes and appropriately cited. I understand that special software very sensitive in plagiarism detection (with respect to Internet sources and other student submissions from now and in the past) is used for this course, and if any instance of plagiarism or some other violation is detected, I will get an F* or an appropriately lowered grade on this course.”

3. Responding to plagiarism – the dialogue

Each case of suspected plagiarism detected by Turnitin is investigated by the instructor. (Sometimes, a high unoriginality score may appear due to causes other than plagiarism).

For every prima facie case of plagiarism suggested by the software, the student is given a blank score on their screen and a comment to meet the instructor the following week during office hours. During the meeting in the office, the instructor treats each student on a case-by-case basis as individuals. Most students deny they have “cheated” but every opportunity is provided to them during a difficult dialogue with the instructor to unfold and own up to their mistake. Instead of being branded as plagiarists, they get a chance to discover their own foibles in a relatively non-threatening space.

In the author’s experience, in many cases, the initial meeting would start with student denials, followed by acknowledgement and justification, but over time, for some students, it would take a critically reflective turn followed by what seemed to be tears of remorse and a sense of understanding. Each dialogue unfolded differently and spontaneously because each student and each interaction was different. Even the instructor’s frame of mind was not the same for every interaction. Some of the critical questions explored by the instructor with the student were: Why did you do what you did? What are the implications of taking someone’s work and presenting it as one’s own? How would you do it differently and why? Why are sanctions necessary and why they should be viewed as learning experiences? What is the importance of authenticity and originality in learning? How do such actions spill over into daily life?

Students are then informed about the sanction they will receive, which may be a zero on the assignment (or in some cases, a lowering of their grade) but are also given a choice on how to deal with their integrity violation: attend an integrity violation session facilitated by an integrity counselor or to write a reflective essay. The next step applies to students who opt for the reflective essay.

4. Responding to plagiarism – the reflective essay

The reflective essay is meant to encourage honesty and awareness of thinking. It read as follows:

Reflective essay

You have chosen to take up this reflective assignment, which has the potential to be life-changing if done with care, mindfulness, and attention.

Nobody is perfect and we all make mistakes. But can we truly learn from our mistakes? Write a short personalized essay (generally about a page but there is no max. length restriction) on being an authentic and original learner and what authenticity, originality, and integrity mean to you in academics and life going forward. You may also include your observations about your thinking processes while writing the essay. Be honest in your reflections and attempt to think and feel with a fresh mind. Do not worry about what this instructor will think or how he might respond because you will not be judged or evaluated even though your submission will be read attentively. I do not judge “you”; I look only at individual actions. We are all capable of right actions when we act from right understanding.

(Upload your submission to the special submissions box calling it “Reflective Essay” anytime from now on but before the last day of classes and send me an email when you have done so. After submitting the essay, you can modify it as many times as you wish until semester-end, and upload multiple versions. I will read your final version at semester-end.)

5. Reading the reflective essays and reflecting on the process

The instructor at this stage reads the reflective essays, gets a sense of the spirit of learning they embody, reflects on the entire process, and assesses the effectiveness of this reflective approach, making changes as needed for the future.

Given that it is difficult to find reflective models suggested by prior research or practice in dealing with cases of plagiarism in a university environment, the goal of this study was to explore the feasibility and promise of a reflective approach. The main finding is that the reflective approach described in the previous section makes sense, is feasible to implement, and has the potential for numerous learning benefits. A limitation of this study is that with the small sample sizes involved, and the changes made in the dialogue process and reflective essay specifications each semester resulting from new learning during each trial, the study should be considered exploratory; it would have been premature to conduct studies looking for hard effectiveness data without first experientially exploring and understanding reflective processes for this new use. Nevertheless, several observations can be made from this study that can point to future research and practice directions.

The number of students detected to have deliberately plagiarized relative to the total number of students enrolled were 16 in 149, 4 in 133, 3 in 140, and 3 in 92 in Spring 2013, Fall 2013, Spring 2014, and Fall 2014 respectively for a total of 26 in 514. So the detected plagiarism rate was slightly over 10% in Spring 2013 and dropped off to the 2 to 3% range in subsequent semesters. Though the detection mechanism (Turnitin) and the assignments largely remained the same, it is not clear what factors caused a drop-off in plagiarism rates. (Three cases of inadvertent plagiarism were let off with a cautionary note and were not included in this report).

During the dialogue, all 26 students admitted to plagiarism (some later than others). Given the nature of the assignments, it was clear (and supported by software results) that the copying was from prior student submissions, where inadvertent plagiarism (e.g., from poor academic writing skills) is unlikely or impossible. All 26 students received zeroes on the assignment in question and four students also received a lower overall grade in the course for the severity and egregiousness of their plagiarism. All of them opted to write a reflective essay instead of attending an integrity violation resolution meeting that would have gone on their academic record in the university. Other than one student who copied textbook definitions of plagiarism and integrity from an Internet source without attribution (!), the other students had low Turnitin scores (<10%) of similarity with other sources on their reflective essays, suggestive of original writing.

The initial dialogue with the student was seen as very important in setting the tone for the student’s subsequent reflection. Being confronted by a disorienting dilemma, consistent with the research of Park ( 2003 ), many students would start by denying they had plagiarized at all and later, when they knew they were discovered, would rationalize or make light of their actions until experiencing feelings of grief or shame. Getting them to focus on their “wrong” actions that brought them to this situation without being perceived as accusatory and judgmental of the entire person required mindfulness on the part of the instructor. It was important for the instructor to be able to engage in reflective dialogue listening to each student as a unique person facing a unique situation and to respond spontaneously without following a patterned procedure. The importance of the dialogue interaction is suggested in comments such as the following, made by students in their essays.

I felt very ashamed and at the same time scared while standing outside your room, waiting for my turn to speak with you. But you made that horrible experience very pleasant by speaking in a very positive way and patiently listening to my explanation. That interaction with you has completely changed a part of me in a positive way and made me look at things in a new perspective. (Student 4, SAD, Spring 2013).

There were instances when I … chose a shortcut to success. After my interaction with you I realized the gravity of the mistake I did and had regretted (sic) for it. (Student 8, SAD, Spring 2013).

Many students pointed out the importance of authenticity and original work. This type of acknowledgement is reflected in comments such as the following.

Honesty, being authentic and original is one of the must-have virtues. (Student 21, ERP, Spring 2014).

The primary objective is learning and more importantly being original. … Primarily, what many of them and even I failed to understand is that you are not cheating the instructor you are cheating yourself. The instructor has nothing to lose, you will be the loser. (Student 10, SAD, Spring 2013).

Many students expressed a sense of regret about their action and a sense of learning from the experience. This was coupled in several cases with a sense of gratefulness at being provided this opportunity. Some suggestive comments follow.

I am not proud of this, but ashamed and humbled by this and something that I might never forget in my entire life. (Student 12, SAD, Spring 2013).

I felt guilty and had (sic) decided never to get into any such situation where my integrity comes into question. (Student 8, SAD, Spring 2013).

I have positively taught myself to treat this situation as ‘The First and The Last’. (Student 25, Fall 2014).

First I would like to thank the course instructor for being considerate about my mistake, giving me this opportunity to rectify myself and learn from the mistake. (Student 22, ERP, Spring 2014).

Many students attempted to justify their behavior in some sense before acknowledging their mistakes. Students from other countries brought cultural differences (Sutherland-Smith, 2008 ) and other factors in their understanding of academic integrity, suggested in the following comments.

I am not sure if it is the pressures of being in the campus away from family, coping with the coursework, age, cultural or language barriers that caused it but I always felt I wasn’t welcome. And it’s definitely not that I did not try. (Student 21, ERP, Spring 2014).

I was short of time in submitting the assignment, and I referred [to] my friend’s assignment. (Student 26, ERP, Fall 2014).

Now considering that, I am from (another country) and since my childhood I have being seeing lots of people, who are corrupt and now everyone thinks like it is a part and parcel of life. And this very thing has a deep effect on me because I have seen lots of corrupt people (Politicians, Police, Government employees, even people in my Father’s Office) making huge profits and having no regrets whatsoever. (Student 17, ERP, Fall 2013).

That day I thought it was just an assignment, and who would care about an assignment (because back in my home country, assignments were not a big thing, only exams were the prominent grading factors). (Student 12, SAD, Spring 2013).

For some students, the learning extended to observing other facets of themselves and also going beyond academic integrity to fairness and doing the right thing in life. Observations reflecting this sense include the following.

All of this has made me a better person now and has made me put in thought in the smallest of activities I perform. (Student 15, SAD, Spring 2013).

During my undergraduate studies I had been never serious about learning new things or doing something innovative or out of the box. …I started realizing the importance of gaining knowledge instead of just gaining a degree. (Student 6, SAD, Spring 2013).

One of the best takeaways of this semester would be that I would always take the path that is right no matter how difficult or hard it might be. (Student 8, SAD, Spring 2013).

I have always tried to abide and inculcate these virtues in my life and I expect to keep them with me for the rest of my life as well. (Student 21, ERP, Spring 2014).

The approach discussed in this paper provides an opportunity for a student caught cheating to acknowledge and face their action and to reflect and learn from it. It can also be a significant learning experience for the instructor or counselor in terms of learning to listen and observe human nature. The major finding of this study is that this novel approach based on combining reflective dialogue and a reflective essay to deal with a student who has indulged in deliberate plagiarism is feasible, promising, and befitting of future research. The use of appropriate anti-plagiarism software is very helpful as it leaves the instructor with little doubt that they are dealing with a definite case of plagiarism. A typical academic sanction for academic plagiarism may be necessary but is, in the opinion of this author, generally perceived by students as punitive and disciplinary. However, as an element of a holistic approach that encourages self-reflection, the sanction itself may be seen as a transformative learning experience -- a process conducive to the growth of practical wisdom that may create lasting change that spills over into other domains. The dialogic process by which self-reflection is encouraged and allowed to grow is as (if not more) important than a specific outcome in a given situation as it can be the seed for future transformative learning.

The instructor or integrity counselor’s understanding of this process is critical for the reflective approach to work. It calls for mindfulness, empathy, and skillful dialogue on the part of the instructor and encourages critical self-reflection in the student. The reflective approach places greater demands of time, attention, and effort on the part on the instructor or counselor. It calls for critical reflection on the part of the instructors, the counselors, and the university administrators on their own preconceived assumptions, beliefs, and standards.

This study has several implications for future research and practice. First, there is a diversity of definitions and frameworks for reflection and reflective practice but there is no single right way to implement a reflective practice (Hickson, 2011 ) and hence there is scope for creativity, innovation, and experimentation in determining best reflective practices for dealing with plagiarism. Second, research is needed to systematically examine the conditions under which such reflective approaches as described in this paper are effective and how they may foster honesty (McCabe and Pavela, 2004 ). A few of many questions that can be posed: What is an appropriate protocol for conducting a dialogue, if a formalized protocol is needed in the first place? (Given the spontaneous unfolding in a dialogue, a protocol if any may have to be loosely structured and flexible.) Will it be helpful to have a second subsequent dialogue after the submission of the reflective essay? Can the directions for writing the reflective essay be improved and expanded to include other emotions? An important question is how to measure and assess the effectiveness of any reflective approach for this purpose. Transformative learning theory (Mezirow 2000 ) suggests that the process of perspective transformation has three dimensions: psychological (changes in understanding of the self), convictional (revision of belief systems), and behavioral (changes in lifestyle). It may be useful to subsequently survey or investigate students to look for psychological, convictional, and behavioral changes as a result of having experienced a reflective approach due to their plagiarism.

At the institutional level, it will be useful to examine the role of such approaches in a more holistic context of academic integrity violation. Academic integrity counselors or facilitators are meant to help a student realize the consequences of their decisions and have been trained in university procedures. As commendable as such efforts are, surveys in multiple countries have found that the efficacy of such policies are still not clear and student support and understanding of the policies is low (e.g., Glendinning, 2014 ). Should dealing with plagiarism be the role of a course instructor or an academic integrity counselor? Should the proposed approach (or a modified version of it) be used as a replacement for or in conjunction with standard procedural approaches of dealing with academic integrity violations? How can instructors or counselors be trained in holding dialogues with a student to encourage reflection? To address such questions, we need more experimentation and research with reflective means for academic integrity issues.

Academic integrity violations have become widespread and pervasive in the university. The manner in which we respond to such violations is important. The prevalent approaches based on sanctions may often be viewed as punitive and while they may bring about desired changes in behavior, it is not clear whether the behavioral changes are based on fear of punishment or transformative inner learning. If change arises from fear of detection and fear of punishment, a person may cheat again in situations where they perceive they are unlikely to be caught or punished. However, if change arises from within, the student is unlikely to fall into the trap of quick illegitimate short-cuts. Reflective practices by a student or an instructor working with a student on their act of plagiarism have the potential to produce inner change that leads to original work by a student and other changes in outward behavior that are long lasting and harmonious.

As educators and administrators, we must critically reflect on the effectiveness of current approaches in dealing with academic integrity from the perspectives of: teaching versus preaching (Pfatteicher, 2001 ), creative experimentation and innovation versus application of institutionalized policies and procedures, and the use of character development and critical thinking strategies versus behavior modification strategies (Roberts-Cady 2008 ). Clearly, none of the choices mentioned earlier are binary; rather plagiarism as recognized by many academics (see e.g., Macdonald and Carroll, 2006 ) is a complex multi-faceted phenomenon that requires a holistic approach, beyond just a policy of information, deterrence, and sanctions.

It appears that the standard institutional approach emphasizes behavior modification through information, policies, procedures, processes and external sanctions (typically punitive or disciplinary), but lacks an adequate focus on reflection, inner understanding, and dialogue in an integrated manner. Hence, consistent with the call for wisdom in understanding the importance of academic integrity and ethics to higher education (Bretag et al. 2011 ), policies and practices that emphasize reflection, mindfulness, and transformative learning deserve a place in a holistic institutional framework of academic integrity.

Bohm D (1996) On Dialogue. Routledge, New York

Book   Google Scholar  

Bohm, D., Factor, D., & Garrett, P. (1991). Dialogue: A proposal. The informal education archives. Online on Internet: URL: http://www.infed.org [Stand: November 2004].

Bolton G (2010) Reflective Practice, Writing and Professional Development, 3rd edn. SAGE publications, California, ISBN 1-84860-212-X. p. xix

Google Scholar  

Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (2013). Promoting reflection in learning: A model. Boundaries of adult learning, 1:32.

Bretag, T., Mahmud, S., Wallace, M., Walker, R., James, C., Green, M., & Patridge, L. (2011). Core elements of exemplary academic integrity policy in Australian higher education. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 7(2):3–12.

Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (2007). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education (2nd ed.). Maidenhead, England: McGraw Hill/Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Campbell D (2006) The plagiarism plague. National Crosstalk 14(1):1

Cranton P (1994) Understanding and Promoting Transformative Learning: A Guide for Educators of Adults. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. Jossey-Bass, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94104-1310

Glendinning, I. (2014). Responses to student plagiarism in higher education across Europe. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 10(1):4–20.

Hatcher JA, Bringle RG (1997) Reflection: Bridging the gap between service and learning. College Teach 45(4):153–8

Article   Google Scholar  

Hickson H (2011) Critical reflection: reflecting on learning to be reflective. Reflective Pract 12(6):829–39

Isaacs W (1999) Dialogue: The art of thinking together. Crown Business, New York

Kahn, C. (1998). Plato and the Socratic dialogue: The philosophical use of a literary form. Cambridge: University press

Krishnamurti J (1996) Questioning Krishnamurti: J. Krishnamurti in Dialogue, HarperThorsons

Macdonald R, Carroll J (2006) Plagiarism—a complex issue requiring a holistic institutional approach. Assessment Evaluation Higher Educ 31(2):233–45

McCabe, D. L. (2005). Cheating among college and university students: A North American perspective. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 1(1):1–11.

McCabe DL, Pavela G (2004) Ten (updated) principles of academic integrity: How faculty can foster student honesty. Change Magazine Higher Learning 36(3):10–5

Mezirow J (1991) Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

Mezirow J (2000) Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. Jossey-Bass Publishers, 350 Sansome Way, San Francisco, CA 94104

Park C (2003) In other (people’s) words: Plagiarism by university students–literature and lessons. Assessment Evaluation Higher Educ 28(5):471–88

Parker K, Lenhart A, Moore K (2011) The Digital Revolution and Higher Education: College Presidents, Public Differ on Value of Online. Learning, Pew Internet & American Life Project

Pfatteicher SK (2001) Teaching vs. preaching: EC2000 and the engineering ethics dilemma. J Engineering Educ 90(1):137–42

Roberts-Cady, S. (2008). The role of critical thinking in academic dishonesty policies. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 4(2):60–66.

Schön D (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. Basic Books, How Professionals Think In Action

Senge PM (1990) The Fifth Discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization. Random House, London

Sutherland-Smith, W. (2008). Plagiarism, the internet and student learning: Improving academic integrity. New York: Routledge.

Wade RC, Yarbrough DB (1996) Portfolios: A tool for reflective thinking in teacher education? Teaching Teacher Educ 12(1):63–79

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and the editor for their helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA

Nikunj Dalal

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikunj Dalal .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The author declares that he has no competing interests.

Authors’ information

Nikunj Dalal is Professor of Management Science and Information Systems in the Spears School of Business at Oklahoma State University, USA. His doctorate is in the area of information systems and his current research is in the areas of practical wisdom and mindfulness in relationship to technology, learning, and philosophical issues in information systems. He has presented and published research on dialogues, wisdom computing, and online learning.

Rights and permissions

Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Dalal, N. Responding to plagiarism using reflective means. Int J Educ Integr 11 , 4 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-015-0002-6

Download citation

Received : 24 June 2014

Accepted : 13 March 2015

Published : 30 June 2015

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-015-0002-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Reflective dialogue
• Self-reflection
• Academic integrity
• Mindfulness
• Practical wisdom
• Transformative learning
• Reflective learning
• Reflective writing

International Journal for Educational Integrity

ISSN: 1833-2595

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.7: Learn how to avoid plagiarism

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 15671

• Heather Ringo & Athena Kashyap
• City College of San Francisco via ASCCC Open Educational Resources Initiative

(600 words)

What is Plagiarism? 

Plagiarism is using another writer's words or ideas without giving them credit. In most literature essays, this means you use someone else's words or ideas without citing them. Other examples of plagiarism include:

• Submitting an essay written by someone else, in whole or in part
• Copying and pasting from another source
• Attempting to cite sources, but doing so incorrectly or in a way where it is unclear which ideas came from your mind and which came from other sources
• Correctly citing all sources, but most of your essay is made up of the words and ideas of others with very little of your own ideas
• Re-using an essay you wrote in a previous class without instructor permission

What are the Consequences of Plagiarism? 

Most academics consider plagiarism a serious violation of academic honesty. Basically, by plagiarizing, you are betraying the trust of your instructor, peers, and institution. Consequences for plagiarism can include:

• Having to rewrite an assignment
• Receiving a 0 on the assignment
• Receiving an F in the class
• Being kicked out of the class
• Being kicked out of school
• Having a permanent mark on your transcript
• Being stripped of your degree
• Public admonishment
• Being sued for copyright infringement, which, in extreme cases, can cost millions of dollars (!!!). For example,  Marvin Gaye's family was able to win over 5 million dollars when singers Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke plagiarized one of Marvin Gaye's songs!

In most cases, copyright holders will not go after students because students tend not to have a lot of money laying around. That being said, plagiarism can still have serious consequences. Students should avoid plagiarism at all costs.

The consequences of plagiarism depend on many factors, including:

• The severity of the plagiarism
• Repeated plagiarism behavior
• Your instructor
• The course syllabus, which often describes the class policies and consequences for plagiarism
• Your college
• Your college's student handbook, which often describes the campus policies and consequences for plagiarism

Be sure to consult with your instructor and college about their policies on plagiarism.

What is Ethical Attribution? 

Ethical attribution is giving credit to those whose words and ideas you use in your essays. In literature essays, ethical attribution has three parts: attributive tags, in-text parenthetical citations, and a Works Cited page to give credit. 

Attributive Tags  signal to the reader that material from a source is about to appear in the essay.

Example:   According to literary critic Harold Bloom....

In-Text Parenthetical Citations tell the reader that the words or ideas from the source have ended. It also tells the reader where to find the original source information on the Works Cited page so they can see the original source themselves

Example: According to the literary critic Harold Bloom, "we are certain from the start that he is indeed King Hamlet's spirit," and not a demon as Horatio seems to suggest (Bloom 4).

Works Cited page 

The Works Cited page gives more in-depth bibliographical information so that readers can find the original source. It appears at the end of the essay, on the last page. It should include all sources referenced in the essay.

Works Cited

Bloom, Harold.  Hamlet: Poem Unlimited.  New York: Riverhead, 2003.

Why Use Ethical Attribution? 

There are several reasons to use ethical attribution

• Helps You Avoid Plagiarism.  By citing sources correctly, you avoid plagiarism and its consequences.
• Helps You Refine Your Own Ideas.   By clearly defining which ideas are your original ideas and which belong to other authors, you are better able to refine your ideas.
• Builds Ethos.  By citing sources, you build credibility and trust with your audience. You also improve your essay's scholarly tone by using the formal conventions used by literary scholars, which include in-text and Works Cited citations.

Activity: Check Your Understanding of Plagiarism 

Quiz from Excelsior OWL

1.3 GETTING STARTED: Avoiding Plagiarism

Plagiarism is using someone else’s words or ideas without giving them credit. In some cultures around the world, this may not be a big deal. However, it is unacceptable in U.S. colleges. It is considered the same as stealing. (Of course, some things are “common knowledge” such as  the U.S. is in North America , and you don’t have to cite a source of information for that.)

If you plagiarize, then you will probably get a 0 on the assignment — and you will still have to rewrite it! Now you have twice as much work to do, and nobody wants that! Plus, if you plagiarize repeatedly, your instructor will need to report you to the Dean and you may fail the course. In some schools, students who plagiarize repeatedly are even asked to leave the school — it’s that serious!

Fortunately, this class will teach you how to avoid plagiarism by:

• using your own ideas
• using data (such as facts and statistics) — and citing the source (telling your reader where you got the information)
• paraphrasing the ideas of others (expressing the idea in your own words) — and citing the source (telling your reader where you got the information)
• quoting the words of others (repeating the exact words of the author inside “quotation marks”) — and citing the source (telling your reader where you got the information)

Do you see a pattern in the list above? That’s right — it’s all about knowing when and how to cite your sources. And that is something we will study in this course.

To get started, please watch this short video to learn more about what plagiarism is and how to avoid it:

Now practice with this exercise; it is not graded, and you may repeat it as many times as you wish:

Video: Modern Librarian Memoirs. “How to Avoid Plagiarism in 5 Easy Steps.” www.youtube.com, 5 Apr. 2018, www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV2-cmi19sg&t=1s.  Accessed 30 Dec. 2021.

Synthesis Copyright © 2022 by Timothy Krause is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Education Blog

Avoiding unintentional plagiarism: common pitfalls and how to escape them.

Source: https://unsplash.com/photos/person-sitting-front-of-laptop-mfB1B1s4sMc

Plagiarism, the act of using someone else’s work or ideas without proper acknowledgment, is a serious offense in the academic world. It can tarnish a student’s reputation, result in failing grades, and even lead to disciplinary action. While most students understand the importance of avoiding deliberate plagiarism, unintentional plagiarism can be a trickier beast. 

It often sneaks up on students unaware of the nuances of academic integrity or how to cite sources properly. Understanding what constitutes unintentional plagiarism and how to avoid it is crucial for anyone in secondary education, pursuing a master’s, or navigating the complexities of college.

The Essay Writer’s Role

The role of an essay writer , be it a student crafting a college essay or a professional offering guidance, is not just to produce text but to weave in the ideas, data, and voices of others in a way that respects the principles of academic integrity. 

This includes understanding how to navigate the Apple education store for apps that can help manage citations or looking at essay examples to see how seasoned essay writers incorporate and credit sources. The goal is to build upon what has been done before without falling into the trap of unintentionally claiming it as one’s own.

What Is Unintentional Plagiarism and When Does It Occur?

Unintentional plagiarism typically occurs when students fail to paraphrase, quote, or cite their sources properly. This can happen for several reasons, such as misunderstanding the rules of citation, poor note-taking, or simply not realizing that a specific idea requires attribution. 

For students transitioning from secondary education to the demands of a college of education or any higher education institution, the expectations around academic writing and integrity significantly increase. The shift requires a deeper understanding of engaging with and referencing existing knowledge within one’s work.

Source: https://unsplash.com/photos/person-using-laptop-computer-Hcfwew744z4

Common Pitfalls in Avoiding Unintentional Plagiarism

• Poor Paraphrasing: Simply changing a few words from a source does not constitute proper paraphrasing. Effective paraphrasing involves completely rewriting the source material in your own words while fully understanding and conveying the original meaning.
• Overlooking Citations: Whether it’s a direct quote, paraphrase, or summary, failing to cite your source is a path to unintentional plagiarism. Each educational institution, whether it’s a secondary school or college, typically adheres to specific citation styles (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.) that guide how to properly credit sources.
• Mismanaged Notes: During research, it’s easy to mix up your ideas with those you’ve read about. Keeping detailed notes and clearly marking where ideas are sourced can help prevent this mix-up.
• Over-reliance on Sources: While research is foundational to academic writing, leaning too heavily on the ideas of others without providing your analysis or synthesis can lead to a paper that lacks original thought and inadvertently plagiarizes.

Strategies for Escaping These Pitfalls

• Educate Yourself: Familiarize yourself with what constitutes plagiarism and the specific citation rules for your field of study. Many colleges offer resources and workshops on academic writing and integrity.
• Use Technology Wisely: Leverage tools available through the app store or other platforms that can help you organize your research, manage citations, and check your work for potential plagiarism.
• Practice Paraphrasing: Regularly practice rewriting sentences and paragraphs in your own words. This not only helps avoid plagiarism but also strengthens your overall writing skills.
• Seek Feedback: Don’t hesitate to ask for advice or feedback. Whether it’s from peers, tutors, or professional essay writers, getting a second opinion can help you spot and correct unintentional plagiarism before submission.

Embracing Originality in Your Work

The journey from what is secondary education to higher levels, like a college of education or a master’s program, is filled with opportunities to develop and express your original thoughts. Embracing originality isn’t just about avoiding plagiarism; it’s about pushing the boundaries of your knowledge and contributing new ideas to your field. 

Start by engaging deeply with your subjects, asking questions, and allowing your curiosity to guide your research. This approach not only enriches your learning experience but also naturally steers you away from unintentionally mimicking others’ work.

Building Confidence in Citation

Many students fear the citation process, worrying that a mistake could lead to accusations of plagiarism. However, citation is simply a skill, and like all skills, it improves with practice. Begin by exploring resources offered by your institution, such as the college essay examples provided by many colleges, which can serve as practical guides for proper citation. 

Additionally, consider using citation management tools recommended by your institution’s library. These tools can simplify the process, ensuring that you give credit where it’s due accurately and consistently.

Developing a Research Strategy

A solid research strategy is your best defense against unintentional plagiarism. This involves more than just gathering sources; it requires a systematic approach to note-taking, organizing your thoughts, and distinguishing between your ideas and those you’ve read about. 

Techniques such as color-coding notes or maintaining separate digital folders for different projects can help organize your research. Moreover, regularly reviewing your notes and sources can reinforce your understanding of the material, reducing the likelihood of unintentional plagiarism.

Seeking Support When Needed

There’s no shame in seeking support when you’re struggling with academic writing. Whether it’s a tutor, a mentor, or an essay writer service, getting help when you need it is a sign of responsibility, not weakness. 

For instance, if you’re grappling with how to integrate sources into your paper without plagiarizing, a session with a writing tutor can provide clarity and build your skills. 

Similarly, if you’re overwhelmed with coursework and concerned about meeting deadlines without compromising integrity, exploring services that offer guidance on structuring and developing essays can be invaluable.

Final Thoughts

Unintentional plagiarism is a common hurdle for students at all levels of education, from those completing their secondary education to even those enrolled in a master’s of education program. However, it is entirely avoidable with awareness, diligence, and the right strategies. 

By educating yourself on the rules of academic integrity, meticulously managing your research and citations, and seeking out resources and support, you can ensure your academic work is ethical and original. Remember, the aim of academic writing is not just to showcase what you’ve learned from others but to contribute your own voice to the ongoing academic conversation.

Reflections on Plagiarism, Part 1: A Guide for the Perplexed

Peter Charles Hoffer | Feb 1, 2004

William J. Cronon, vice president of the AHA's Professional Division, writes: The AHA's Professional Division is commissioning a series of essays and advisory documents about common challenges historians face in their work. Although these essays will be reviewed and edited by members of the Professional Division, and although they will appear in Perspectives and on the AHA web site, they should not be regarded as official statements of either the Professional Division or the AHA. Instead, their goal is to offer wise counsel by thoughtful members of our guild in an effort to promote wide-ranging conversations among historians about our professional practice. Because plagiarism has generated so much public comment and controversy in recent years, we have focused some of our earliest efforts on this critical issue. We are most grateful to Peter Hoffer, an eminent legal historian at the University of Georgia and a member of the Professional Division, for producing the following "Reflections on Plagiarism" (the concluding part, " The Object of Trials ," can be found in the March 2004 issue of Perspectives ).

There are seven causes of inconsistencies and contradictions to be met with in a literary work. The first cause arises from the fact that the author collects the opinions of various men, each differing from the other, but neglects to mention the name of the author of any particular opinion. 1 —Maimonides, A Guide for the Perplexed

For writers, readers, and teachers of history, as for Maimonides long ago, plagiarism is rightly both a mortifying and perplexing form of professional misconduct. It is mortifying because it is a species of crime—the theft of another person's contribution to knowledge—that educated, respectable people commit. It is perplexing, because, despite the public shame that invariably accompanies revelations of plagiarism, it continues to occur at every level of the profession, from prizewinning historians to students just beginning their careers. While many of these infractions have come to light because readers and writers of history are keen-eyed and implacable critics of the offense, additional cases may be avoided if authors and reviewers knew more about the offense. That is the purpose of this essay, the first installment of two on the subject of plagiarism.

Plagiarism is commonly defined as the appropriation of another's work as one's own. 2 Some definitions add the purposive element of gaining an advantage of some kind. 3 Others include the codicil, "with the intent to deceive." 4 The historical profession has adopted a broad and stern definition of plagiarism, based upon ethical rather than purely legal conceptions. Its definition of plagiarism is the "expropriation of another author's text, and the presentation of it as one's own." 5 It does not require that the act be intentional, nor that the offender gain some advantage from it. 6 Nor for historians is the ultimate sanction against the offense a legal one, but instead the public infamy that accompanies egregious misconduct. As historians, we know, in the words of Lord Acton, the "undying penalty which history has the power to inflict on wrong." 7

Plagiarism may include copyright violations, but the two are conceptually independent. Massive plagiarism may not involve a single instance of copyright infringement. Copyright is a property right defined by statute. In general, copyrighted materials can only be reproduced with permission of the copyright holder, but the "fair use exception" in the law permits quotation from most scholarly works. Plagiarism is first and foremost an ethical matter, and whether or not permission is required or obtained for use of another's work, the rules for source references and against impermissible copying or borrowing apply whether or not the source is under copyright protection.

The Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct prepared by the AHA reminds us that plagiarism "takes many forms." These may include "the limited borrowing, without attribution, of another person's distinctive and significant research findings . . . or an extended borrowing even with attribution." 8 The bottom line is: work presented as original must be original; phrasings and research findings derived from others must be credited to others or the entire scholarly enterprise is undermined.

Historians adhere to these standards with the full knowledge that not everyone has the same attitude toward plagiarism as the historical profession. Some observers have noted that plagiarism may not only be common in painting, architecture, music, literature, and other forms of fine artistic expression; it is often regarded as a form of compliment. Uncredited borrowing occurs in popular art forms with disconcerting regularity. One best selling mystery-adventure novel based on a supposed code in the work of Leonardo Da Vinci relies upon and repeats the discoveries of many art historians, but neither mentions nor cites any of them. 9 Folk music artists routinely rewrite and rearrange their predecessor's tunes in what Pete Seeger has called, according to Arlo Guthrie, "'the folk process.'" 10 Legal writing is more accommodating to plagiarism than historians are. According to one leading legal scholar, "an individual act of plagiarism usually does little or no harm," 11 a perspective perhaps influenced by the fact that appellate judges' legal opinions are supposed to be derivative, based on lines of precedent elucidated in earlier judicial decisions.

At the same time, any realistic treatment of this highly complex and long-lived issue within the historical profession must include descriptive as well as prescriptive language. That is to say, one should not ignore the existence of long accepted usages, conventions, and occupationally mandated variations, nor the evolution of our standards in this area of professional ethics. 12

I. Avoiding Plagiarism

The first line of defense against plagiarism is the author. Even the most original historical scholarship rests in part upon earlier (secondary) studies. Historians should always give credit to those whose work they have consulted and to those who render assistance in the course of our work. Whether the form of circulation of historians' work is an article, book, museum exhibit, or other kind of publication, historians recognize scholarly debts in three ways: exact quotation, paraphrase, and general citations to works consulted. By their care and integrity in crediting these sources and by limiting the extent and monitoring the form of their copying or borrowing from these sources historians both avert the suspicion of plagiarism and avoid its commission.

All exact reproductions of another's words (direct quotations) should appear within quotation marks, or if in a block quotation, set off at the margins. All missing material from within the quotation must be indicated by ellipses. No words may be added except in square brackets. The order of the passages in the original may be altered by the author of the new work for literary or argumentative purposes, so long as the reference notes indicate the order of the passages in the original. The source of every direct quotation must either be cited in the text and fully described in a "works cited" section at the end of the piece (MLA style), or referenced with foot or end notes ( Chicago Manual of Style ). Publications without in-text reference apparatus (most textbooks, for example) should report all secondary sources in the text or a bibliographical essay. Failure to put the borrowing of exact words in quotation marks; failure to cite the source of the quotation in the reference notes with sufficient precision for a reader to check the quotation; and changing a few words in a nearly exact replication of another's text and then not giving any reference, whether inadvertently, through negligence, or intentionally, may be read as plagiarism. But even with full and correct references to the source, historians must take care not to borrow or copy excessively from any one source or group of sources.

A special case arises when an author quotes from a primary source quoted in part or fully in a secondary source. If the author relies on the secondary source for a portion or the entire text of the primary source, citation of the latter should take something like the form "A [the primary source], quoted in B [the secondary source]." This alerts the reader that the author has borrowed the quotation from the secondary source and has not consulted the original source. The author should not simply cite the primary source. If the author, however, guided by a secondary source, finds the entire primary source in the original, reads it, and then uses some portion of it, there is no need to cite the secondary source in which it was initially encountered. The purpose of scholarly citation of primary sources is to enable other readers to find and examine them for themselves. By contrast, in no case whatsoever should an author simply reproduce another author's documentary evidence with or without that author's reference notes, without fully crediting the author, giving the impression that the borrower had done the research. This is another form of plagiarism.

The second common form of indebtedness to another work is the paraphrase, the rephrasing of another's arguments or findings in one's own language. When in doubt, one should always prefer quotations to paraphrases, but there are reasons for preferring paraphrase to quotation including the inelegance of the prose in the original, the author's desire to avoid stringing together a series of long quotations, and the need to blend into a single paragraph the arguments of many secondary sources. Authors must paraphrase with great care if they are to avoid falling into plagiarism, for paraphrasing lends itself to a wide range of errors. In particular, a paraphrase, particularly after some time has passed in the course of research, may be mistaken by the author for his or her own idea or language and reappear in the author's piece without any attribution. Mosaic paraphrases patching together quotations from a variety of secondary sources, and close paraphrases, wherein the author changes a word or two and reuses a passage from another author without quotation marks, also constitute plagiarism.

In print, all paraphrases, no matter how long or how many works are paraphrased, must be followed by citations to the sources that are as clear and precise as those provided for a direct quotation. The citation should refer to the exact page(s) from which the material was taken, rather than a block of pages or a list of pages containing the material somewhere. If the material comes from a web site (for example another teacher's original lecture notes on an open web site), citation should include the entire web address and the date that it was accessed.

The third common manner of giving credit for a scholarly debt is the general citation to work in the field. Sometimes this will follow the author's summary of arguments or evidence from a number of works. In textbooks, a single paragraph may encapsulate three or four prior publications on the topic. All works an author consults should be either cited in the reference apparatus or in the bibliography. If particular pages were consulted, these should appear in references. By contrast, works not consulted by the author, even though they may be relevant to the topic, should not be cited. Such a citation would give the false impression that the author had used the work. By the same token, when an author makes a general citation to a work that contradicts the author's findings or conclusions, that fact should be noted in the citation.

If an author employs research assistants, their errors—for example the omission of quotation marks around a direct quotation or the omission of a reference at the end of a paraphrase—become the author's responsibility. The general rule that the supervisor is responsible for the acts of the employee applies here. What is more, the author had the chance, before publication, to review the entire text, and with that last clear chance goes the onus for all errors.

II. Conventions and Usages

Often it is hard to determine where plagiarism has occurred. Readers may disagree whether and how often an author has crossed the line between the permissible and the impermissible. Another way to formulate this general issue is that historians' use of others' work lies along a spectrum, a "continuum of intellectual indebtedness" in the words of William Cronon, in which possible misconduct in each work must be weighed on its own merits.

I would add to this another dimension ruled along an axis of long-established usages and conventions. As the AHA Statement on Standards reminds us, "historical knowledge is cumulative, and thus in some contexts—such as textbooks, encyclopedia articles, or broad syntheses—the form of attribution, and the permissible extent of dependence on prior scholarship, citation, and other forms of attribution, will differ from what is expected in more limited monographs." 13

The advice on avoiding plagiarism in part I of the essay and the suggestions on dealing with plagiarism in part II apply with particular force to those works whose authors promulgate them as original contributions to scholarship, offering new findings, interpretations, and approaches. 14 Conversely, personal letters, working documents, or in-house memos thus rarely exhibit the formalities of citation. Victoria Harden of the AHA Task Force on Public History suggests that this is particularly true when they are prepared as précis or summaries of existing scholarship by subordinates for their superiors, often on short notice. If at some time the author presents these reports or statements as original contributions to knowledge, or offers them as credentials for hiring, promotion, employment benefits, fellowships, or prizes, they must give credit to all sources consulted.

Certain kinds of historical writing or oral presentation of historical materials for general public consumption also commonly omit reference notes. Such materials may include guidebooks, captions at museum exhibitions, pamphlets distributed at historical sites, and talks or performances by re-enactors or historical interpreters. In the context in which these works are used or performed, their utility might be impaired if their authors or presenters were required to credit their scholarly debts. At the same time, it would be ideal if print or electronic versions of these materials include recognition, in some form, of the contributions of individuals to them and the scholarly sources on which they relied.

Lectures by history teachers to their classes and speeches at public meetings rarely include explicit references to the secondary sources on which the lecturer relies, particularly if the lecture is not presented as an original work of independent scholarship and the materials borrowed from others constitute only a small portion of the whole. The debt that teachers of history owe to their own teachers is pervasive and often results in lectures that borrow structure and theme from those mentors. While acknowledgment of this debt will never go out of fashion, it is commonly omitted.

Textbooks, like lectures to classes, are assumed to be cumulative and synthetic. In fact authors of textbooks rarely quote or cite precisely each secondary source they have used, and the topical structure and rhetorical formulae of new textbooks bear a remarkable similarity to older ones. It would be best if textbook authors limited their borrowing from any one secondary source and cited in a bibliography all the sources used. It is mandatory that any direct quotation from another work (excluding of course prior editions of the same textbook) be correctly identified.

What is generally termed popular history—journalistic accounts, memoirs and autobiographies, and articles by professional historians in general or popular journals of opinion, for example—rarely conforms to the same standards of citation as scholarly monographs and interpretive essays. Many popular histories, for example, have only a short list of works consulted. But wholesale borrowing from another work, even with attribution, is unacceptable. Ideas themselves cannot be plagiarized, but authors may not claim as their own the full-dress presentation, according to the AHA Statement on Standards , of "another person's distinctive and significant research findings, hypotheses, theories, rhetorical strategies, or interpretations." 15

A particular case of book-length scholarship without footnotes or endnotes arises in some noteworthy series of books—for example, the Library of American Biography from Penguin/Viking, and the Landmark Law Cases and American Society from the University Press of Kansas. These are original contributions to knowledge by leading scholars designed primarily for classroom use. Series authors and editors are nevertheless very careful to observe the rules against plagiarism in these books to avert even the suspicion of surreptitious borrowing or copying from other works.

Common understandings, widely shared ideas, dates, names, places, and events in history do not need to be referenced, even if they were obtained from a particular source in print. For example, one does not need to cite a source to say that Washington was a Virginian, or that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776. Similarly, catch phrases, "conventional wisdom" (itself a phrase coined by the prizewinning economist, John Kenneth Galbraith), and even longer quotations borrowed from sources in common currency, like Shakespeare, the Bible, and Monty Python can be repeated without references. 16 But if an argument or thesis is unique to a secondary source, and not a matter of general currency, the source should be cited.

The foregoing paragraphs in section II refer to secondary or scholarly sources. The appropriate use and citation of primary sources raises slightly different questions. It is plagiarism to take as one's own work portions of primary sources without citation, or through excessive borrowing even with citation; but when these are clearly indicated as the work of another, formal citation of the place where the author found the primary source (a printed documentary edition or the archive, for instance) is sometimes omitted. I believe that historians should treat primary sources with the same scholarly care as they apply to secondary sources, indicating exactly where they found a primary source (so that those who follow them can find it as well). Failure to fully credit a primary source (failing, for example, to give the title of the docket book or the file paper collection as well as the courthouse when citing a legal document) may not only lead to confusion among readers and suspicions of research misconduct, it lends itself to plagiarism.

A final, somewhat special case involves work for hire. If an author hires research assistants or "ghost writers," and by the terms of their contracts the latter agree that their names will not appear on the work as its author, they cannot argue that the final product plagiarizes their work. As Linda Shopes of the Task Force on Public History suggests, it is always good practice, however, for any supervisor who uses in his or her own work the research or writing of an employee to credit that employee by name. When an author relies upon the research of others not hired for that purpose—students in the author's class or individuals whose graduate studies the author is directing, for example—and those researchers' own language (as opposed to the documents or other evidence they find) is adopted or adapted by the author, it is unethical not to give credit to the researcher. This may be done in the acknowledgments section of the publication, in a note or notes, or in the text. If the author has depended upon the researcher to write up the results of the research and then uses these reports verbatim, the researcher should be given co-authorship. 17

III. Detecting Plagiarism

Both academic and lay readers rely on the integrity of scholars. Authors owe it to their audiences as well as to themselves to avoid even a hint of plagiarism and are the best detectors of inadvertent mistakes in attribution or excessive copying even with references. This is true from the inception of the research to the closing stages of preparation of manuscripts for publication. Before any piece of scholarly research is presented orally, circulated, or submitted to a publisher, the author should review it carefully for plagiarism. Returning to the research notes and laying them against the text may reveal errors. The author should look for omissions and commissions that might have slipped into the successive drafts over time.

All scholarly journals and academic presses will send the work out to readers ("referees") to advise on publication, but referees cannot catch every instance of questionable use of secondary sources; nor should referees be held responsible if plagiarism slips past them. In particular, citation checking is not ordinarily part of their job. If the publisher (as is true of most trade houses) does not employ outside readers, the author has to be doubly careful. Book reviewers (or referees asked to help with hiring or tenure and promotion decisions) may uncover instances of plagiarism, but because that is not the primary reason for which they are reading the author's work, one cannot expect them to catch plagiarists in the act.

Despite all the reasons for which authors should and can avoid plagiarism, it occurs. The suspicion that a work contains plagiarism and its subsequent exposure are not pleasant occasions. Historical scholarship depends upon trust. Readers and publishers both rely on authors' claims of originality (indeed, book publishing contracts require authors to "warranty" that they have not plagiarized any other work).

In all cases of suspected plagiarism, the single most effective method of detection is the meticulous, side-by-side comparison of texts. This parallel reading of source (original) text and target (new) text will not absolutely prove plagiarism except in the most egregious cases, but it can raise or allay the level of suspicion. A reader comparing texts should not just look for similar words or phrases (for example, groups of three or four words) as these may in fact come from more than one author using the same primary sources or from the argot of a specific field. Instead, the reader should concentrate on unusual phrasing, for example uncommon verbs and unique combinations of modifiers. An example of parallel text comparison appears on the AHA web site. 18

If the reader of parallel texts finds a few examples of questionable practices in a long work, they may, with the profession's accustomed charity, be attributed to mere coincidence. In the uncovering of plagiarism, as in all misconduct, one presumes innocence. But discovery of plagiarism throughout a manuscript or plagiarism in a series of publications suggests wanton and cynical disregard of ethical and professional standards, and will not be forgiven. The discovery may take years, but plagiarism is an offense that cannot be hidden forever.

—Peter Hoffer, Distinguished Research Professor at the University of Georgia, is a member of the Professional Division of the AHA.

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to Maureen Murphy Nutting, Susan Mosher Stuard, and Denise Youngblood, members of the AHA's Professional Division, and William Cronon, its vice president; Arnita Jones, executive director of the AHA; Stanley N. Katz, chair of the AHA Task Force on Intellectual Property, and its members Michael Les Benedict and Michael Grossberg; the AHA Task Force on Public History, its chair, Linda Shopes, and its members Victoria A. Harden and Jamil Zainaldin; James Grossman, vice president for research and education at the Newberry Library; Nan McMurry, history and social science acquisitions librarian, University of Georgia Libraries; Lewis Bateman, senior acquisitions editor, Cambridge University Press; Fred Woodward, director, and Michael Briggs, editor in chief at the University Press of Kansas; Charles Grench, assistant director, and Amanda McMillan, assistant editor, University of North Carolina Press; Ashley Dodge, senior editor, Longman Publishing, College Division; Robert Brugger, senior editor, Johns Hopkins University Press; Williamjames Hoffer, Seton Hall University; and the members of the University of Georgia history colloquium for assistance in the preparation of this document.

Part 2 of this essay will be published in the March 2004 issue of Perspectives .

1. Maimonides [Moses Ben Maimon], "Introductory Remarks on Method," The Guide for the Perplexed trans. M. Friedlander 2nd rev. ed. ([1904] reprinted New York: Dover, 1956), 9.

2. Black's Law Dictionary , 7th ed., Bryan A. Garner, ed., 1170.

3. Joseph Gibaldi, MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, 6th ed. (New York, 2003), 66.

4. Black's Law Dictionary, 1170, quoting Paul Goldstein, Copyright's Highway, 12.

5. The Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct (Washington, D.C.: American Historical Association, 2003), 10.

6. In this we are in accord with the Modern Language Association; see Gibaldi, MLA Handbook , 66.

7. John Edward Emerich Acton, A Lecture on the Study of History, Delivered at Cambridge , June 11, 1895 (London: Macmillan, 1895), 63.

8. Statement on Standards , 10. See below for examples of these.

9. Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code: A Novel (New York: Doubleday, 2003). The book's "Acknowledgments" (n.p.) has only this: "My thanks also to Water Street Book Store for tracking down so many of my research books" and does not mention the individual titles and authors.

10. Arlo Guthrie quoted in Jon Pareles, "Critic's Notebook: Honoring Alan Lomax, Folk Music Crusader," the New York Times April 14, 2003, E3.

11. Richard A. Posner, "The Truth About Plagiarism," Newsday , May 18, 2003, reprinted at www.law.uchicago.edu/news/ posner-r-plagiarism.html (accessed May 1, 2003).

12. See, for example, Anthony Grafton, The Footnote: A Curious History (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997), 190–91.

13. AHA, Statement on Standards , 10. Older usages and conventions of citation were often not as precise or complete as those for citation in use today. For example, Oscar Handlin's Pulitzer Prize-winning The Uprooted (Boston: Little, Brown, 1937), Daniel Boorstin's Bancroft Prize-winning The Americans: The Colonial Experience (New York: Knopf, 1958) and his Parkman Prize-winning The Americans: The National Experience (New York: Knopf, 1965) did not have any notes. Neither did Perry Miller's much admired The New England Mind: From Colony to Province (Boston: Beacon, 1954). They merely had detailed bibliographies without page references to the quotations in the text.

14. This essay does not consider the question of falsification of research findings. A good survey of the issues raised in these cases appears in Ellen Altman and Peter Hernon, eds., Research Misconduct: Issues, Implications, and Strategies (Greenwich, Ct., 1997).

15. Statement on Standards, 10.

16. Maurice Isserman, "Plagiarism: A Lie of the Mind," The Chronicle Review: Chronicle of Higher Education , May 2, 2003, B12–B13. "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition."

17. In the area of electronic publishing, editors are taking an increasingly active role in areas that traditionally were categorized as "authorship." See Kate Wittenberg, "Scholarly Editing in the Digital Age," Chronicle of Higher Education , June 20, 2003, B12. It is not clear to what extent this development will continue, nor whether it will raise questions of proprietorship of electronically published scholarship.

18. See Susan Mosher Stuard and William Cronon, "How to Detect and Demonstrate Plagiarism."

Tags: Viewpoints

The American Historical Association welcomes comments in the discussion area below, at AHA Communities , and in letters to the editor . Please read our commenting and letters policy before submitting.

Please read our commenting and letters policy before submitting.

Exploring the gray area: Understanding paraphrasing as a potential path to plagiarism

Five reasons that paraphrasing skills are the superheroes of strong literacy curriculum.

The Paraphrasing Pack consists of resources that are ready to be implemented in the 6th - 12th-grade classroom.

A resource to guide educators in reviewing/revising existing academic integrity policies to address threats from AI.

By completing this form, you agree to Turnitin's Privacy Policy . Turnitin uses the information you provide to contact you with relevant information. You may unsubscribe from these communications at any time.

In the labyrinthine world of academic writing, paraphrasing walks a thin line between being a useful tool and a potential pitfall, leading to plagiarism.

Often referred to as "patchwriting" or " mosaic plagiarism," the act of paraphrasing raises a fundamental question: What makes writing truly original in an era saturated with accessible information? Mark Twain's assertion that all ideas are merely reconfigurations of existing ones challenges us to consider the essence of originality. This blog ventures into the complex dynamics of paraphrasing, disentangling its legitimate use from its problematic misuse. We'll delve into what constitutes effective paraphrasing that respects academic integrity and when it veers into the territory of plagiarism.

Unpacking the art of paraphrasing

Paraphrasing serves as a bridge, translating complex or specialized topics into accessible and simplified language. It is also a way for a student or researcher to synthesize what they have read, putting text into their own words to A) better understand the topic at hand and B) support their writing with a sound, meaningfully reworded example from an outside source. The Office of Research Integrity within the US Department of Health & Human Services offers a compelling example, transforming a dense scientific explanation into a concise, digestible format. Below is the original content: “Because the intracellular concentration of potassium ions is relatively high, potassium ions tend to diffuse out of the cell. This movement is driven by the concentration gradient for potassium ions. Similarly, the concentration gradient for sodium ions tends to promote their movement into the cell. However, the cell membrane is significantly more permeable to potassium ions than to sodium ions. As a result, potassium ions diffuse out of the cell faster than sodium ions enter the cytoplasm. The cell therefore experiences a net loss of positive charges, and as a result the interior of the cell membrane contains an excess of negative charges, primarily from negatively charged proteins” (Martini & Bartholomew, 1997, p. 204).

Here is an appropriate paraphrase of the above material:

“A textbook of anatomy and physiology (Martini & Bartholomew, 1997, p. 204) reports that the concentration of potassium ions inside of the cell is relatively high and, consequently, some potassium tends to escape out of the cell. Just the opposite occurs with sodium ions.”

The Office of Research Integrity also gives an example of an inappropriate version of paraphrasing from the original text: “...This movement is triggered by the concentration gradient for potassium ions. Similarly, the concentration gradient for sodium ions tends to promote their movement into the cell. However, the cell membrane is much more permeable to potassium ions than it is to sodium ions. As a result, potassium ions diffuse out of the cell more rapidly than sodium ions enter the cytoplasm…” (Martini & Bartholomew, 1997, p. 204). You’ll note that the above “rewritten” example is basically a copy of the original, save for a few superficial alterations, including word deletions, synonym swaps, and additions.

Because most of the words and structure of the original paragraph remain the same, this paragraph would technically be considered plagiarism, despite the writer crediting the original authors. As the Office of Research Integrity puts it: “[M]aking only cosmetic modifications to others’ writing misleads the reader as to who the true author of the original writing really is." In this scenario, a student could instead ask for support in learning how to more accurately paraphrase the information or alternatively, use a direct quote with a correctly cited source to make it clear that this is not their content. Effective paraphrasing isn't just about avoiding plagiarism; it's about enhancing comprehension and adding value to the discourse.

The original thought conundrum

In the realm of academic discourse, Bloom's Taxonomy emerges as a crucial framework, offering a layered understanding of cognitive development. This taxonomy, a hierarchy starting from basic knowledge recall to the creation of new ideas, challenges us to consider the concept of 'original thought' in education. As we go from 'Remembering' and 'Understanding' through to 'Applying', 'Analyzing', and 'Evaluating', we reach the peak - 'Creating'. This final stage is where originality is presumed to flourish. However, this presents a conundrum: in an age where information is ubiquitous and influences are numerous, can any thought claim absolute originality? This paradox is especially relevant in a digital era saturated with ideas, where the difference between inspiration and replication becomes increasingly blurred. Bloom’s Taxonomy, therefore, not only maps out cognitive skills but also invites a deeper reflection on the nature and possibility of truly original thought in our modern knowledge ecosystem.

What’s the difference between plagiarism and paraphrasing?

Plagiarism and paraphrasing, while seemingly similar, diverge significantly in intent and execution. Plagiarism is the act of passing off someone else's work or ideas as one's own while paraphrasing, in contrast, aims to rearticulate ideas for clarity while maintaining the essence of the original work. Paraphrasing becomes problematic when it strays into the realm of plagiarism, often manifested in the failure to properly attribute sources, bring new insights to the table, or to uphold academic integrity. To wholly uphold academic integrity is to commit to honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage. It is a holistic concept that must be backed up by institutional policies, curriculum, teaching interventions, assessment design, and feedback loops that strengthen a student’s bond to learning. In an earlier post, we explored the ways in which paraphrasing may become problematic. The following three examples are situations that may cause challenges around paraphrasing expectations:

• When a student does not understand the purpose behind paraphrasing, they may not see the importance of attributing what they've paraphrased and therefore overlook doing so . Educators must take great care in building a culture of academic integrity and explaining to students how cited, well-paraphrased passages not only enhance their writing (and also provide variety in an essay that would otherwise be all quotations), they uphold integrity by recognizing an author’s original work.
• When a student does not have the foundational literacy skills to paraphrase, it may lead them to unintentionally plagiarize. In a suspected case of academic misconduct, an educator must ascertain if it is a skill deficit or deliberate plagiarism. From there, strengthening a student’s literary comprehension skills and basic academic writing skills can help bolster their confidence and ability to paraphrase. Turnitin’s Draft Coach can also be used to help students write accurate citations in Microsoft® Word for the web and Google Docs™.
• When a student knowingly and purposely uses short-cut solutions in place of their own skills, it’s a sign that action must be taken. Paraphrasing tools, also known as word spinners, alter existing text with the purpose of evading plagiarism detection software. This deeply impacts learning because they prevent students from understanding how to truly paraphrase.

Steering clear of paraphrasing pitfalls

Avoiding paraphrasing plagiarism is a nuanced skill, requiring a blend of accurate citation, original sentence structuring, and a deep understanding of the source material. There are many ways to avoid paraphrasing plagiarism while still paraphrasing to summarize work and communicate topics more clearly and holistically. Ways to avoid plagiarizing include:

• Correct citation of sources
• Quoting and summarizing texts accurately
• Writing with your own sentence structures
• Understanding text and content clearly before paraphrasing

There is also a helpful paraphrasing strategy called the 4R’s: Read, Restate, Recheck, and Repair.

• Read: Did you understand the passage?
• Restate: Did you restate important points in your own words?
• Recheck: Did you include all of the important details?
• Repair: Did you correct any misinformation?

In addition to the above, the following sections delve into key elements to keep in mind and practical strategies to master this skill, ensuring that paraphrasing enriches, rather than diminishes, academic integrity.

The role of text spinners in paraphrasing plagiarism

Text spinners, or article spinners, present a new hurdle in the realm of paraphrasing plagiarism. These tools, designed to disguise copied content as original, exacerbate the issue by blurring the lines between legitimate paraphrasing and deceptive rewriting. “Simply put,” says Christine Lee, “when students use word spinners, they aren’t producing their own original work. Original work means that even when paraphrasing, students regenerate the ideas of another person into their own words and voice to express their own understanding of concepts.” Educators need to understand the emerging trends in misconduct and academic integrity so that they can build awareness around them, educate students on their misuse, and mitigate any threats to an institution's reputation to ensure authentic student learning.

How to effectively teach paraphrasing

Educators bear the responsibility of guiding students through the maze of paraphrasing. This entails instilling respect for academic integrity, teaching proper citation techniques, and encouraging the development of independent thought. To start, it is imperative to highlight examples of accurate paraphrasing and how it differs from quotations and summarizing. As quoted in an earlier Turnitin post, according to the Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL):

• Quotations must be identical to the original, using a narrow segment of the source. They must match the source document word for word and must be attributed to the original author.
• Paraphrasing involves rewording a passage from source material into your own words. A paraphrase must also be attributed to the original source because there is no creation of new ideas. Paraphrased material is usually shorter than the original passage, taking a somewhat broader segment of the source and condensing it slightly.
• Summarizing involves putting the main idea(s) into your own words, including only the main point(s). Once again, it is necessary to attribute summarized ideas to the original source because no new ideas have been introduced. Summaries are significantly shorter than the original and take a broad overview of the source material.

And while there are myriad ways for educators to approach and teach this highly important skill, the following are a few resources that can support thoughtful plagiarism education and practice:

• Explain the course’s or institution’s policy on academic integrity clearly and early in the semester. Outline course and assignment expectations explicitly, including appropriate use and misuse of AI tools. By building a culture of integrity that is clearly defined, students can more deeply understand the value of accurate paraphrasing and citations, as well as understand the consequences of misconduct.
• Dive into Turnitin’s Paraphrasing Pack , eleven out-of-the-box resources developed by veteran educators that are ready to be implemented in the classroom. It features everything from research strategies and student checklists for paraphrasing to lesson presentations and printable graphic organizers.
• Explore all of the resources that support academic integrity in the age of AI , including valuable assets that help students to better understand how and when to use AI tools ethically.
• Conduct a candid conversation with a student if their work appears to have similarities to other texts without proper paraphrasing or citation, or if inappropriate usage of AI tools is suspected. These dialogues often transform a moment of misconduct into an opportunity for learning by determining if there is a skill deficit that can be readily addressed. The data housed in the Similarity Report, including instances of synonym swapping, as well as Turnitin’s AI writing detection tool, can both serve as jumping off points for these essential conversations.

Maintaining academic integrity while paraphrasing

While building that culture of academic integrity and teaching skills is the first step, educators know that oftentimes it’s necessary to take another step, one that will confirm or refute that the student’s work is solely their own. It may be as simple as a remarkably sophisticated sentence structure or vocabulary choice, but educators tend to recognize when a student misrepresents something that is not their work, as their own. That next step is as simple as reviewing Turnitin’s newly enhanced Similarity Report, which has a streamlined workflow to show both the Similarity Score and the AI writing score. While AI continues to evolve, so too does the students’ use of AI tools. Turnitin’s AI writing score may indicate the use of AI paraphrasing tools to modify AI-generated content. Educators have no “extra clicks” as AI paraphrasing detection is built seamlessly into the existing workflow that educators already use and trust. As before, this score is to inform the educator of the likelihood that the student tried to use AI paraphrasing tools as a shortcut; whether intentional plagiarism or not is determined by the educator and the student during formative discussions surrounding their work. Then, next steps to help a student to revise can be taken. Check out this infographic that defines the key differences between human- powered paraphrasing and AI paraphrasing tools, as well as the role an AI paraphrasing detector can play in this process.

In sum: How to skillfully paraphrase and avoid plagiarism

The skill of paraphrasing is foundational in academic writing, serving as a safeguard against the pitfalls of plagiarism and academic misconduct. When a student fails to master this skill, they risk inadvertently crossing the line from legitimate use of sources to plagiarism, a serious breach of academic integrity. Effective paraphrasing involves more than just altering a few words; it requires a deep understanding of the original text and the ability to express its essence in a new, original form while maintaining the core message. This process must be coupled with accurate citations and the appropriate use of quotes to credit the original authors. Without these critical components, a student's work can easily fall into the realm of academic dishonesty. Thus, learning to paraphrase correctly is not just about avoiding plagiarism; it's about respecting the intellectual labor of others, upholding the values of academic integrity, and contributing genuinely to the scholarly conversation.

CIPPET Study Support: How to avoid plagiarism

• University jargon-buster
• 2. Library resources
• 3. Literature searching
• University policy and penalties
• How to avoid plagiarism
• Using EndNote
• Developing your ideas and argument
• Structuring your work and paragraphing
• Writing at level 7
• Writing at level 6
• Reflective models and language
• 8. Understanding feedback
• 9. Preparing for exams and OSCEs
• 10. Presentations

Tips on avoiding plagiarism

Here are a few tips but if this is a matter where you are still confused or uncertain please talk to the course director or one of your module teaching staff. When preparing an essay or dissertation, it is best to read a book or article page by page or section by section and then to write notes on it in your own words , unless you come across a particularly important passage or a phrase where the author seems to put a point in a very effective way, in which cases you may want to copy out the exact wording into your notes. You might also want to copy out sections of a primary source in case you wish to refer to it in an essay or dissertation. But make sure that you indicate to yourself, by a foolproof method that you will always remember, such as by using inverted commas or a different coloured pen, where you have copied out passages or expressions from any source. Always note the details of the source including page number where the material you have copied occurs in case you wish to cite it as a quotation in your essay or dissertation. An essay or dissertation is expected to be in your own words entirely, save where you are using direct quotations from primary or secondary sources. If you use material from a book or article, you must always acknowledge the source . If it is a phrase, sentence or longer passage, then it should appear as a quotation between inverted commas and there should be a footnote giving full bibliographic details. You must also reference any electronic material where you have used the Web as a source. If you are using someone else's ideas but not their words you should employ phrases such as 'Jones argues…', again giving the source of your information. Works quoted or cited should always appear in the bibliography, as should any other books or articles which you have used in the writing of your essay. You should never take material from a book or article and merely change the wording a little, passing it off as your own work . Adding a reference at the end of a paragraph (particularly when this is repeated for several paragraphs) is an indication that the student has not really analysed the material fully. Never indulge in the practice, which is sometimes tolerated at school, where you put together an essay in a kind of cut-and-paste fashion by stringing together phrases or sentences from a series of works. Do not use lengthy quotations from other sources , and never write essays which are no more than a series of quotations strung together, even if they are acknowledged. This is just bad style and does not show your analysis. Never employ anyone to write an essay for you. Never download essays from any website. If you use material from the Web you should acknowledge it as in the case of material drawn from books. Finally remember the last part of the definition for plagiarism given earlier: ‘ .. the representation of them as one's own original work.’ When submitting coursework you are required to sign a declaration that it is your own work. Only sign and submit the work if this is true!  

Avoiding unintentional plagiarism

• Avoiding unintentional plagiarism video guide
• Avoiding unintentional plagiarism guide

If you are unable to view this video on YouTube it is also available on YuJa - view the Avoiding Unintentional Plagiarism video on YuJa (University username and password required)

• Avoiding Unintentional Plagiarism transcript Read the transcript
• Avoiding unintentional plagiarism What we mean by plagiarism and how to avoid it.

Getting the most out of Turnitin

If you are unable to view this video on YouTube it is also available on YuJa - view the Getting the most out of Turnitin video on YuJa (University username and password required)

• Getting the most out of Turnitin transcript Read the transcript
• << Previous: University policy and penalties
• Next: 5. Citing references >>
• Last Updated: May 8, 2024 2:50 PM
• URL: https://libguides.reading.ac.uk/cippet

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Welcome to the Purdue Online Writing Lab

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The Online Writing Lab at Purdue University houses writing resources and instructional material, and we provide these as a free service of the Writing Lab at Purdue. Students, members of the community, and users worldwide will find information to assist with many writing projects. Teachers and trainers may use this material for in-class and out-of-class instruction.

The Purdue On-Campus Writing Lab and Purdue Online Writing Lab assist clients in their development as writers—no matter what their skill level—with on-campus consultations, online participation, and community engagement. The Purdue Writing Lab serves the Purdue, West Lafayette, campus and coordinates with local literacy initiatives. The Purdue OWL offers global support through online reference materials and services.

A Message From the Assistant Director of Content Development 

The Purdue OWL® is committed to supporting  students, instructors, and writers by offering a wide range of resources that are developed and revised with them in mind. To do this, the OWL team is always exploring possibilties for a better design, allowing accessibility and user experience to guide our process. As the OWL undergoes some changes, we welcome your feedback and suggestions by email at any time.

Please don't hesitate to contact us via our contact page  if you have any questions or comments.

All the best,

Social Media

Facebook twitter.