CCR 720: Ercegovac and Richardson (2004) "Academic Dishonesty...in the Digital Age"

Ercegovac, Zorana, and John V. Richardson, Jr. "Academic Dishonesty, Plagiarism Included, in the Digital Age: A Literature Review." College and Research Libraries 65.4 (July 2004): 301-318.

Summary:

Ercegovac and Richardson provide a review of five years of literature (1997-2002) on the scholarship published about plagiarism occurring through copying/pasting from internet sources. The authors provide some useful search instructions for studies on plagiarism, including definitions, databases, and websites. They highlight (a) how theorists have defined academic dishonesty (304), (b) how researchers have suggested teachers cope with issues of plagiarism (306), and (c) how the literature is lacking ways to predict academic dishonesty through investigations of moral reasoning (310).

Notes:

· Although the authors attempt to give only a review of literature, there are instances where they make claims regarding what should be taught as well as who are the most important contributors to the scholarship.

· They highlight a few studies that consider students’ individual characteristics as predictors to plagiarism. They suggest that socioeconomic status, age, and sex are indicators (so if you’re an impoverished male under 18, you’re more likely to cheat). This makes me uncomfortable. I don’t see the relevancy in garnering suspicion of certain demographics in instructors. Seems dangerous.

· “Collaboration” is treated negatively and frowned upon. The authors cite collaborative working habits as being influential to plagiarism (311).

· It’s understandable that the authors could not develop discussions of every text they cite, seeing how so many authors are mentioned in their review. Still, noticing how Howard and Pennycook are not fully represented lead me question whether the authors give the most accurate accounts of the literature they cite. Howard, for example, is only mentioned as being responsible for the term “patchwriting” and for suggesting that lots of students do this. Pennycook is mentioned as asking that plagiarism be understood more complexly. Both of these are true. However, both of their major arguments and calls for reimagining our definitions of authorship are missing.

CCR 720: McCabe (2005) "It Takes a Village"

McCabe, Donald L. "It Takes a Village: Academic Dishonesty and Educational Opportunity." Liberal Education (Summer/Fall 2005). 2 Dec. 2005. < http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-sufa05/le-sufa05feature2.cfm>

Summary:

McCabe argues that what makes a difference in academic integrity in schools is their commitment to creating a culture that values academic integrity by “making academic integrity a clear campus priority and placing much of the responsibility for student integrity on the students themselves” (2). He uses surveys of students to argue that there is a large amount of cheating occurring in universities and suggests that it is because faculty and administrators are not actively educating students and are not reassessing their own policies regarding academic integrity. He calls for treating academic dishonesty as educational opportunities where students can learn about the policies and practices for academic integrity.

Methods:

· Data: 1990 survey of student in 31competetive colleges (47% of students in school with no honor code admit to cheating; 24% of students with honor code admit to cheating; comparison to Bowers (1964) survey; 2001 survey on-line (21% admit to cheating on an exam; 51% admit to plagiarism; 4 of 5 plagiarists copy/paste from online). NO methodology is outlined.

· Anecdotal: even though the author calls on his conducted surveys, the data collection and analysis is not described and therefore often seems anecdotal. He also uses anecdotal evidence of his own experiences and the experience of an anonymous person in the intro and conclusion.

Notable Notes:

· McCabe does not provide details of his methods or methodologies. It’s difficult to assess his interpretations seeing how we don’t learn his modes of analysis.

· It’s interesting that he cites a study of his completed with co-author Trevino, yet he takes sole authorship of the survey: “In 1993 (McCabe and Trevino 1996), I surveyed nine medium to large universities” (2). Note the use of first person.

· Since he advocates that in order to help make our students more responsible regarding academic integrity faculty must set standards and consider academic integrity to be an institutional value, he is assuming that teachers don’t already.

· While his data collection and interpretation is unclear, and while it’s challenging to uphold his claims he makes from this data, I find some merit in his argument that we should use plagiarism as educational opportunities since students often do so out of ignorance and time/stress constraints (5). Still, it is hard to blindly accept his arguments that “strong rules” might help foster idealistic values later.