Self-serving survey?

Print Friendly
Share Button

When a company (or other group with vested interest) conducts its own research and publishes its own analysis of the results, it is usually worth investigating more deeply. Turnitin has long been a favourite source of disingenuous disinformation (see. for instance, my posts How much plagiarism?, Guilty: how do you plead?, A second look at SEER, and Not as I do, but… ).

Now my attention turns to RefME, the reference generator (unless it is a citation generator; there may be language differences here, as discussed in Language and labels).

RefME has just published a report Survey Reveals Unique Insights to US Students’ Attitudes Towards Plagiarism on two surveys which the company carried out in recent months. It seems a prime example of how not to analyse data, how not to write a report. That’s a brutal assessment, but I think the brutality is justified. Just be sure to get in quick in case the report is edited or deleted.

I think there are (at least) five or six ways in which the report can be considered flawed. Fuller explanation follows the list:

  1. the discussion of the surveys reads at times like an inadequate discussion of the surveys and at times like a press release produced by the RefME publicity bureau;
  2. the report manages to confuse and conflate incorrect or inconsistently formatted references with plagiarism and/or academic misconduct;
  3. the discussion grabs at different research and studies, and suggests (inter alia) that small-scale surveys can be regarded as universal truths;
  4. in grabbing at those different research reports and studies, the writer misreports some and fails to do the homework, to check on the source behind the source;
  5. the report, despite praising RefME for enabling correct and consistent referencing/ endnoting, manages to be incorrect, incomplete and/or inconsistent in at least 11 of its 13 references.
  6. a small matter of several, many, passages which reuse so much wording from source documents that it might be felt that quotation marks are required; some readers might even class these passages as plagiarism.

This is not to denigrate the RefME software itself. I have no opinion there. Until I bought a new computer a few months ago, I found the app hung up too often to enable a valid critique of its performance as a reference (or citation) generator. Now, I find it fast, usable, so perhaps a review will come in time.

Or maybe not. If the RefME writer was using RefME to generate the endnotes in the report, there is no need to review RefME. That job is already done, per this report, per point <5>.

This is a long post, a very long post. If you prefer to read it across a full screen or to print this out, you might wish to download this PDF version.

The concerns

1>        the discussion of the surveys reads, at times like an inadequate discussion of the surveys, and at times like a press release produced by the RefME publicity bureau.

Earlier this year, RefME “conducted two online surveys among 2,111 US students currently enrolled in higher education.”   We are not told what level of higher education these students were engaged in, whether they were undergraduate freshers or postgraduate students or somewhere in between. We are not given the actual questions asked, nor whether they were open-ended questions or responses to set (multiple-choice) answers. We are not told whether the two surveys were identical or different.

We are told that “Two groups were surveyed, students who currently use RefME and those that do not.” We are not told how the groups were identified or recruited, nor how representative they might be of general US higher education students.

We are told the purpose of the polls, to “find out if citing correctly is a genuine concern for students in the US, how knowledgeable they really are on the subject, and their general attitude towards plagiarism.” We are also told that the “two sets of findings have been amalgamated and at times, where statistically relevant, the findings have been used independently to showcase the disparity between RefME users and non-users.” That seems a wide range of purpose driving the surveys, not necessarily coherent. We are not told what is regarded as “statistically relevant,” which could be an important consideration, given that “the findings have been analysed and interpreted by RefME.” Not exactly the most impartial of analysts.

The lack of impartiality may be most readily discerned in the paragraph:

The results demonstrate the value of using a citation management tool by highlighting that those who do not use RefME are more susceptible to citing incorrectly than those who do. Whilst 61% of non-RefME users reported that they have lost points for citing incorrectly, the survey found that just 50% of non-RefME users have been marked down on their work for inaccurate citations. It is important to note that RefME users were asked if they had ever lost points, and were not asked to differentiate between before and after they started using RefME.

Is there a typo there?  Should this read “50% of RefME users…” rather than “50% of non-RefME users…”?  That would make sense. As it stands, the point made makes no sense.

If there is a typo, then the claim is that 61% of non-RefME users said they had lost marks for “citing incorrectly” (or do they mean “referencing incorrectly”?) while only 50% of RefME users have lost marks for “inaccurate citations.”  That is still a large number/proportion, which could be why the RefME writer goes on “to note that RefME users were asked if they had ever lost points, and were not asked to differentiate between before and after they started using RefME.”  Now, is that a cop-out or is that a cop-out? The reader can assume EITHER that those marks were lost before the present RefME users discovered RefME (and it changed their lives, or at least changed their academic writing) OR that RefME users have only a marginal advantage over non-RefME users, and that RefME isn’t that accurate or consistent.  It is not clear in the report. But maybe the latter line of thought is spot-on  – see point #5.

[We are not told, it is unclear, whether the surveys asked respondents – especially non-RefME users – if they used any other reference generator/s such as NoodleTools or EasyBib. this too could affect results and interpretation of the results.]

What is more, while discussing survey findings, or at least those which RefME wishes to share, the report manages to bring in irrelevant data – which is where it begins to sound like a press release or advertising. Take, for instance, the paragraphs

RefME enables students to generate accurate, fully-formatted citations in over 7,500 styles – including popular styles such as the MLA format, APA citation and Chicago style. Whether students want to cite their sources using a popular style or a more-specific style, like ASA, IEEE or AMA, they can cite like a pro with RefME’s multi-platform tool.

Students can generate accurate citations in any style with RefME for Chrome, the browser extension that allows you to instantly create and edit a citation for any online source, or the highly-rated iOS and Android apps which create citations in a flash with your smartphone camera. Even better, students can now cite as they write by upgrading their account to RefME Plus to access RefME for Word. Ultimately, RefME enhances the quality of students’ research by providing them with the learning resources to educate themselves about the citing process and the benefits of adopting great referencing standards.

or the later (unfounded?) claims

As well as citing students’ sources in a matter of seconds, RefME helps students understand the importance of accurately citing all source material, which is why 92.2% of RefME users know to cite online sources in their written work.

Using technology to automate citations allows students to keep their work free from plagiarism, leaving them more time to spend on broadening their research and strengthening their writing. Nevertheless, this does not remove the need to educate students in understanding why citing is important and how a citation is created.

It has also to be noted that the report’s headline tells us that “Survey Reveals Unique Insights to US Students’ Attitudes Towards Plagiarism.” Far from fulfilling this, most of the survey’s findings are supported by the findings of earlier studies and reports; the insights are not “unique”. One of the few unique findings is surely the one which apparently notes that 50% of RefME users have had marks deducted for incorrect citation (though as noted, we cannot even be sure of the details of this claim).

Confused thinking, confused writing.

[Back to the list of concerns]

 

2>        the report manages to confuse, conflate and confound incorrect or inconsistently formatted references with plagiarism and/or academic misconduct.

This blog has several times discussed the notion that plagiarism lies in failure to cite – at the point of use in the text – words or ideas which are not those of the writer; citations which are incorrectly formatted are not necessarily incorrect citations and are not necessarily instances of plagiarism. Similarly, incorrectly-formatted or inconsistent referencing is not plagiarism, and may be misconduct only if the reference actually is incorrect. (See Language and labels for my most recent post on this topic).

The report several times states that students have lost marks for incorrect references, using the wrong style and so on. There is a paragraph which details

The most prevalent mistakes made by those students surveyed who have lost points for citing incorrectly:

>   Formatting citations incorrectly 54%
>   Using the wrong citation style 44%
>   Not submitting a full works cited list/bibliography 19%
>   Failing to cite a quote or idea 12%
>   Citing the wrong source 12%
>   Paraphrasing another author’s work 9%
>   Self-Plagiarism (recycling your own work) 3%
>   Other 1%

Of these, only “Failing to cite a quote or idea” and “Self-Plagiarism” can immediately be classed as plagiarism (and with self-plagiarism it might be a matter of “it depends.”) Of the other mistakes, “Citing the wrong source” might or might not be a form of academic misconduct (but not plagiarism as there is no attempt to claim the summary or quotation as one’s own), while “Paraphrasing another author’s work” is misconduct, probably plagiarism, only if there is no in-text citation to indicate that this is someone else’s work – in which case, isn’t this “Failing to cite a quote or idea”?

The RefME writer’s confusion as to the differences between citation and reference may be echoed by students: if they are used interchangeably and as if meaning the same thing when they do not, then confusion seems bound to occur. If getting one or other wrong leads to severe consequences and the “rules” seem constantly to change, then fear seems inevitable.

The confusion as to the differences between citation and reference and the consequences for failing to do one or the other is particularly evident in the section which starts:

72% of US students fear facing disciplinary action for plagiarism

The majority of both groups surveyed reported that they fear facing disciplinary action for plagiarism. Fortunately, this widespread concern can be easily avoided by simply learning to cite correctly. Using an accurate citation tool helps to reduce this fear by generating citations in line with the formatting of the style in use, giving students confidence that they will not lose points for their bibliographies.

Moreover, the fact that 28% of students do not worry about the potential consequences of plagiarism highlights the importance of providing enough resources and education on the topic of correctly handling and crediting others’ work.

Yes, fears of being charged with plagiarism “can be easily avoided by simply learning to cite correctly,” if by “cite correctly” we mean citation in the text – but using a software application “to reduce this fear (of committing plagiarism) by generating citations in line with the formatting of the style in use, giving students confidence that they will not lose points for their bibliographies” will not do the trick. Mistakes, most especially formatting mistakes, in bibliography are NOT forms of plagiarism.

[Back to the list of concerns]

 

3>        the discussion grabs at different research and studies, and suggests (inter alia) that small-scale surveys can be regarded as universal truths.

The discussion throughout the RefME report is not a good model of report-writing. The discussion flits from point to point, at times with unclear lines of argument.

We have already seen that concern regarding consequences of plagiarism “can be easily avoided by simply learning to cite correctly.”  But this notion of simplicity is overturned later when we read that

Citing is a complicated process that takes time to master, so it is a real cause for concern that 60% of students were either unsure or revealed that they had not been provided with enough information on how to cite accurately.

Simple or complicated? Citation in the text is (relatively) simple – it is referencing which can be complicated, taking time – and practice, methinks – to master.

Then there is the statement

It is widely known that there is a lack of understanding around the rudimentary requirements for crediting sources in written academic work. A 2015 study found that students who are new to university lacked even a basic understanding of how to cite sources. Interestingly, those same students claimed that they were very confident they understood what both citing and plagiarism are. 3.

The opening sentence of this paragraph may be questioned. The 2015 study cited here was a small study – 622 respondents  – in one UK university. There is nothing to show that the finding applies to all UK universities, or universities outside the UK. It may be the case – there are plenty of other studies which might support these statements – but surely some of them need to be brought in here?

Similarly, the discussion of ghostwriting services:

Although 82% of students are aware that outsourcing ghostwriters is a major issue, universities are still experiencing a troubling plagiarism epidemic. 7. Reports found that California, New York and Texas are the most popular regions for commissioning ghost writers, whilst the most sought-after types of content are essays, research papers, and MA theses. 8

The 82% of students who are aware that the use of ghostwriters or custom essay writing services is problematic are respondents to the RefME surveys, 82% of them. The statement “universities are still experiencing a troubling plagiarism epidemic” is attributed to an article in the UK Independent newspaper which bears the headline, “UK universities in ‘plagiarism epidemic’ as almost 50,000 students caught cheating over last 3 years.” That article probably chose the term “plagiarism epidemic” because it is also used in the Times article on which the Independent’s report is based. The Times headline is “Universities face student cheating crisis,”  but while their story talks of a “plagiarism epidemic” (so perhaps fair use by the Independent journalist), there are no figures, no data, to suggest why the term “epidemic” is used in relation to other types of academic misconduct – and many of these are investigated as well.

Perhaps more of a problem in this study of the RefME report is the flow of argument

Although 82% of students are aware that outsourcing ghostwriters is a major issue, universities are still experiencing a troubling plagiarism epidemic. 7. Reports found that California, New York and Texas are the most popular regions for commissioning ghost writers…

taking us from the RefME study to a (questionable) statement about UK universities and from there directly to California, New York and Texas, with no explanation or comparison, based on the loose connection of “ghostwriting.”

Generalisations surely need to be based on more than a single survey, and connections do need to be explicit.

Not too far removed from the discussion here is the misleading headline and paragraph:

3 out of 4 US students are concerned about citing correctly

Of the RefME users surveyed, over 60% agreed when asked if they are concerned about accurately citing their work. In comparison, a whopping 75% of students who do not use RefME reported that they were worried about citing correctly. Today students have access to automated citation tools that help them cite correctly and avoid the risk of plagiarism.

Can both the first two sentences here AND the section heading be true? Shouldn’t the heading read

3 out of 4 US non-RefME users are concerned about citing correctly

Why, one might wonder, are so many RefME students concerned about citing correctly? Is it because, despite using the tool, they are given confusing, confused and conflicted information and misinformation about citation and referencing?

[Back to the list of concerns]

 

4>        in grabbing at those different research reports and studies, the writer misreports some and fails to do the homework, to check on the source behind the source.

We have noted that the quotation from The Independent is based on an investigation by and report in The Times. The RefME writer appears not to have gone to The Times to check the article and gain information from the source.

Similarly the discussion of students who “inadvertently plagiarise” when they have not set out to cheat:

With a large number of students being marked down for academic misconduct, one might assume that students’ academic integrity should be questioned. However, many students are worried about citing because it is so easy to inadvertently plagiarise. Perry’s (2010) two-dimensional model of academic misconduct suggests that only those students who understand the rules yet fail to adhere to them are classified as cheats. 2.

The notion of Perry’s (2010) model is based on a series of slides in a presentation by English and Ireland (attributed in the endnotes and indicated by that subscript 2). Nearer to the point of Perry’s model is the suggestion that “only those students who understand the rules yet fail to adhere to them should be classified as cheats” – “should be classified as cheats” is different to saying “are classified as cheats.”

Also troubling is the RefME writer’s discussion of possible consequences:

The repercussions of student plagiarism can be extremely serious. In most cases, it will result in a failing grade for the assignment or possible failure of the course. In extreme cases, such as repeat offending, students can face the loss of academic scholarships or outright expulsion. If their work is published, they may face legal action from the original author. 6.

The notions expressed in the first three sentences are fairly well-known and may even be classed as “common knowledge” (a topic covered in a later passage in the RefME report). While plagiarism is illegal in a few countries, it is not universally a crime. Copyright infringement is another matter, of course, but we are not talking copyright infringement here. More urgently, that last sentence, the notion that “If their work is published, they may face legal action from the original author” is NOT included in the article footnoted by the subscript 6. Charlton’s article makes no mention at all of legal issues. This is added by the RefME writer, it does not come from the paper cited.

Curiously, Perry’s 2010 paper makes the point that “bogus referencing” may be more widespread than we realise. The RefME writer’s statement regarding legal issues may fall under this heading. Another serious shortcoming?

[Back to the list of concerns]

 

5>        the report, despite praising RefME for enabling correct and consistent referencing/ endnoting, manages to be incorrect, incomplete and/or inconsistent in at least 11 of its 13 references/ endnotes.

Given that the RefME report is built around the notion that incorrect and/or incorrectly-formatted referencing leads to loss of marks (and possibly to charges of academic misconduct) and how use of RefME enables students to reference correctly, one might think that the RefME writer would be at pains to ensure the correctness of the references used in this report.

If only.

It is not stated which referencing style (or citation style if this is the preferred term) is used here. Whatever style it is, the references are inconsistent and many are incomplete. In my understanding, that classes many of them as, at the least, incorrectly-formatted.

Here we go:

Footnotes

1.   Tami Strang, “Are College Students Concerned about Plagiarism?,” Learning Outcomes, September 7, 2015, http://blog.cengage.com/are-college-students-concerned-about-plagiarism/.

Where does the “Learning Outcomes” come from? The breadcrumbs trail is Cengage Learning > Engaging Minds > Achievement and Outcomes > Learning Outcomes > Are College Students Concerned About Plagiarism.

The heading on the page notes that this is posted in Achievement and Outcomes,  Learning Outcomes, so either both headings should be used in the endnote – or neither? Should Cengage Learning be credited as well, or Engaging Minds? That may depend on the referencing style in use, and we don’t know which it is. Not a good start, though.

2.    John English and Chris Ireland, Plagiarism: Let’s Start as We Don’t Mean to Go on, (n.p., 2015), http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/10515/1/IrelandPlagiarismpdf.pdf.

The link given here leads to a slide presentation in PDF format, fronted by a cover page from the University of Huddersfield Repository.

Although the first slide following the cover page lists John English and Chris Ireland in that order, the cover page itself notes that the preferred citation/reference lists Ireland before English. A small matter, perhaps.

Of more import, the cover page notes the year of presentation/publication as 2011, not 2015 as recorded by the RefME writer.

3.    Philip Newton, “Academic Integrity: A Quantitative Study of Confidence and Understanding in Students at the Start of Their Higher Education,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, March 27, 2015, doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1024199.

Newton’s paper was published online on March 27, 2015, and it might have been helpful to note that – if indeed the full day and month of publication or the online note are needed in the referencing system in use.  The RefME writer gives us the DOI which, in some referencing systems, means that the full and actual date of online publication is unnecessary.

On the other hand, it might also be worth noting that the print version of the paper was published in print in Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Volume 41 Issue 3, 2016.

4.   “Are College Students Concerned about Plagiarism?”

This is Tami Strang’s post, per footnote #1.  Is it usual to record second and subsequent uses of a source by the title rather than by the author?

5.   Katie Malcolm, “Plagiarism and Inclusive Teaching: A Perfect Union?,” January 20, 2015, http://www.washington.edu/teaching/2015/01/20/plagiarism/.

Given that the reference for footnote #1 includes elements of a breadcrumb trail, shouldn’t this reference have one as well: Center for Teaching and Learning >> At the Center >>  Plagiarism and Inclusive Teaching: A Perfect Union?

In the text, Katie Malcolm is introduced as “CTL Consultant.” It could be useful to know that CTL stands (presumably) for Center for Teaching and Learning, and that this group and/or The University of Washington should be included in the reference?

6.    “Consequences of Plagiarism in College | the Classroom,” 2001, accessed May 3, 2016, http://classroom.synonym.com/consequences-plagiarism-college-1338.html.

This piece is by Debra Charlton, though her name is not mentioned in the RefME reference.

The site (?) is mentioned as “The Classroom” but this part of the breadcrumb trail is different to the part used in that first endnote (Strang: Learning Outcomes).”  Why the pipe, the vertical bar which separates “the Classroom” from the title – and with both inside the inverted commas, it looks as if “the Classroom” is a subtitle, not the name of the page/s.

There is no mention of Synonym; should there be in this referencing system?

The page carries no date, so where did the “2001” come from? It is not conclusive evidence, but the Internet Archive’s first record of this page is in July 2013.

Note too the date of access; this is the first endnote to include a date of access. It isn’t the last, endnotes  date #9, 10, 11 and 12 have access dates as well, but none of the other online sources include an access date.

7.   Aftab Ali, “UK Universities in ‘plagiarism epidemic’ as Almost 50, 000 Students Caught Cheating over Last 3 Years,” The Independent – News (Independent), January 4, 2016, http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/uk-universities-in-plagiarism-epidemic-as-almost-50000-students-caught-cheating-over-last-3-years-a6796021.html.

All other endnotes are Title Case – all the important words have an initial Upper Case letter even when the title of the source uses Sentence case, with only the first word using an initial Upper case letter.  For consistency, shouldn’t “plagiarism epidemic” be recorded here as “Plagiarism Epidemic”?

8.    Nancy Laws, “The Shocking Truth about Essay Writing Services,” Huffington Post, April 14, 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-laws/the-shocking-truth-about-_5_b_7041934.html.

This could be the only consistent reference/endnote on the page – if a reference can be consistent with itself. It includes an author, the title of the article, the publishing organisation, the date of publication, and the URL. If one wanted to quibble, then perhaps a note that the page was updated on June 10, 2015 might be in order, but let’s not (quibble).

9.    “Detecting and Deterring Ghostwritten Papers: A Guide to Best Practices,” 2011, accessed May 5, 2016, http://www.thebestschools.org/resources/detecting-deterring-ghostwritten-papers-best-practices/.

Again, the author’s name is omitted though it is stated clearly in the original : David A. Tomar  Once again we are given a publication date – 2011 – although there is nothing on the page to support this assertion.

More alarmingly, the earliest record in the Internet Archive is November 2014 with a clear publication date of November 6, 2014. Given that Tomar’s paper includes references to materials published in 2012, 2013 and 2014, RefME’s 2011 date may seem a trifle bogus?

10.  “Local 6 Confronts Man Helping Students Cheat for Cash,” Click Orlando, May 6, 2014, accessed May 17, 2016, http://www.clickorlando.com/news/local-6-confronts-man-helping-students-cheat-for-cash.

And yet again, the author’s name is omitted though stated clearly in the original : Sean Lavin. Should the sub-title be included? I haven’t been checking these as much perhaps as I should have, but this one stands out loud.

11.   “What Is Common Knowledge,” accessed May 5, 2016, https://integrity.mit.edu/handbook/citing-your-sources/what-common-knowledge.

This is an extract from Academic Integrity at MIT: A Handbook for Students. Isn’t that worth a mention in the reference?

12.   “6.4 Plagiarism,” accessed May 5, 2016, http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/info_literacy/modules/module6/6_4.htm.

This is from a page headed “Information Literacy, module 6: Sharing,” published on the University of Idaho web site and based on a book by Radford, Barnes, and Barr.  Shouldn’t at least some of that be included in the reference?

13.   Kuwcnews, “Exploring and Preventing Plagiarism in a Digital Age,” September 23, 2015, https://kuwcnews.wordpress.com/2015/09/23/exploring-and-preventing-plagiarism-in-a-digital-age/.

The author is NOT Kuwcnews. The author is Amy Sexton, a KUWC tutor. The page is from the Academic Support Center Faculty Blog. Worth a mention?

There may be other inaccuracies, omissions, insertions and inconsistencies that I have not noted. Not to worry – I think the point is made? By RefME’s apparent definitions of plagiarism and academic misconduct, this list of sources is heavily flawed, a prime piece of plagiarism. By my own definitions of plagiarism and acacedemic misconduct, I wouldn’t  class this as plagiarism, most of this list and the essay itself is just poor writing and poor scholarship. But, just as I was concerned earlier by the apparent invention of a statement attributed to source #6, I am here concerned about the apparent invention of dates in endnotes #6 and #9.  These again strike as bogus, as possible attempts to mislead the reader. I would feel happier if the RefME writer could explain or demonstrate the source of these dates, else I might be more positive in that assertion.

But I won’t condemn the writer for these faults. Yet.

[Back to the list of concerns]

 

6>        a small matter of several, many, passages which reuse so much wording from source documents that it might be felt that quotation marks are required; some readers might even class these passages as plagiarism.

On the other hand, this small matter is of great concern.

I have not submitted the paper to Turnitin or any other text-matching software/service. In looking up the RefME’s writer’s use of source material, I have noticed in passing similarities between passages in the RefME report and the sources cited, and these are what I report on here.

The similarities are small, but they make me feel uncomfortable. What do others think? What do you think?

Source #1: Tami Strang, “Are College Students Concerned about Plagiarism?,” Learning Outcomes, September 7, 2015, http://blog.cengage.com/are-college-students-concerned-about-plagiarism/.

From Strang:  On the other hand, a slightly larger percentage (45% total) indicated that their peers demonstrate at least some concern about plagiarism: 25% arevery concerned,” and 20% are “somewhat concerned.” Though these students may, on occasion, accidentally cite a source incorrectly, they’re striving to follow good academic practices.

Significantly more concern is warranted among the 6% of students say their peers are “not at all concerned” about plagiarism and the 5% who only care about it to the extent that they don’t get caught doing it. “

From the RefME report:

In 2015, a survey conducted by Student Engagement Insights found that 25% of students said their peers are very concerned when it comes to plagiarism, and 45% of students indicated that their peers demonstrate at least some concern about plagiarism. However, the real cause for worry is that only 6% of students reported that their peers are “not at all concerned” about plagiarism, and that 5% reported that they only care about it to the extent that they don’t get caught. 1.

and source #4, also Strang:

it’s also uncomfortable to hear that many students don’t seem to care about it at all. These students need a fundamental introduction to the importance of correctly handling and crediting others’ work, conducted in a manner that thoroughly conveys the seriousness of the matter.

and RefME:

Moreover, the fact that 28% of students do not worry about the potential consequences of plagiarism highlights the importance of providing enough resources and education on the topic of correctly handling and crediting others’ work. This should be conducted in a manner that thoroughly conveys the seriousness of the matter. 4.

Source #6:   Debra Charlton, “Consequences of Plagiarism in College,” Synonym: The Classroom, (2013?), http://classroom.synonym.com/consequences-plagiarism-college-1338.html.

From Charlton:  Penalties might include loss of academic scholarships, failure to receive credit for the course or outright expulsion.

From RefME:

In most cases, it will result in a failing grade for the assignment or possible failure of the course. In extreme cases, such as repeat offending, students can face the loss of academic scholarships or outright expulsion. If their work is published, they may face legal action from the original author. 6.

Source #9:  David A. Tomar,   “Detecting and Deterring Ghostwritten Papers: A Guide to Best Practices,” 2014, http://www.thebestschools.org/resources/detecting-deterring-ghostwritten-papers-best-practices/.

From Tomar: 2.2 Pricing and Structure
Most companies operate using a similar pricing spectrum, charging between $10 and $50 per page depending on proximity of the deadline.

and shortly after

2.2.2 Bidding:
A writer-manager will send instructions to a select number of staff writers, often based on a writer’s area of expertise. Based on the deadline, length, and anticipated difficulty of an assignment, writers will quote prices for prospective assignments.

while from RefME:

A ghost writing service usually charges somewhere between $10 and $50 per page – the price being dependent on factors such as the proximity of the deadline, length, and anticipated difficulty of an assignment. 9.

Source #11:  “What Is Common Knowledge,” Academic Integrity at MIT: A Handbook for Students, nd., https://integrity.mit.edu/handbook/citing-your-sources/what-common-knowledge.
and
Source #12: “6.4 Plagiarism,” Information Literacy module 6: Sharing, http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/info_literacy/modules/module6/6_4.htm.

These two come together in a single paragraph in the RefME post:

From “Common Knowledge”
Information that most people know, such as that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit or that Barack Obama was the first American of mixed race to be elected president.

and from “6.4 Plagiarism”
c: When you use phrases that have become part of everyday speech: you don’t need to remind your reader where “all the world’s a stage” or “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” first appeared, or even to put such phrases in quotation marks.

and from RefME:

Common knowledge is information that the average person would typically accept as a reliable, proven fact. For instance, most people know that ‘Barack Obama is the first American of mixed race to be elected president’ so it is unnecessary to credit it in your work. 11. Likewise, when you use phrases that have become part of everyday speech, such as “all the world’s a stage” or “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, you do not need to cite them or even to put them in quotation marks. 12.

In this case, the RefME writer has cited the sources, so the copied words – even if common knowledge in themselves – surely DO need to be enclosed in quotation marks (or, in the second copy, double sets of quotation marks) or else better paraphrased?

In sum

All in all, this report adds nothing to the academic conversation except, perhaps, even more confusion. It is a poor model of an academic paper, and a poor example of survey and data analysis and argument. As a piece extolling the uses of RefME, it is not exactly encouraging.

As an example of self-promotion, it serves to confirm my notion that studies aiming to show how effective a product is are ineffective – and rich for investigation – when produced by the company producing the product.

 

 

 

 

Language and labels

Print Friendly
Share Button

Different people have different understandings of the terms “citation” and “reference.” This can – and does – cause confusion. In my classes and workshops, I usually start discussion of use of other people’s work by stating how I use and will be using these terms, following the International Baccalaureate (IB)’s use of them. In brief:

  • citations are the short notes which go in the text, as part of the text or in parentheses;
  • references are the full bibliographic information which goes in the list at the end.

If we all have the same understanding of the terms, we are nearer being sure that we are talking about the same things.

There is much to suggest that many students go through secondary school and enter university believing that they understand how to document their use of source material correctly and appropriately, when all they have learned and practised is making an alphabetical list of sources at the end of their work. When told they need to cite their sources, Continue reading

Copy, paste, EDIT

Print Friendly
Share Button

Following on in this mini-series of common errors in extended essays: one of the ways in which IBDP extended essay candidates drop marks for  Criterion I: Formal Presentation (Criterion D: Presentation from 2018) is inconsistency in the formatting of references.

IB examiners are instructed that consistency and completeness of references is more important than notions of accuracy, which is good. Given that students are free to use any referencing style that they wish, it is not possible for an examiner to declare that this or that reference is recorded inaccurately, not according to style guide.

But the criterion requires that references are consistently formatted within the list itself. If the reference list is something like this: Continue reading

Back to basics – MLA8 revisited

Print Friendly
Share Button

I have to admit, I am excited by the latest edition of the MLA Handbook. Gulp! Does that make me some kind of uber-nerd?

I am breaking into my mini-series on common documentation errors in IB extended essays to share my excitement. MLA8 gives us a new way of looking at citation and referencing, very different to the approach taken in the previous edition. What’s more, the hopes I expressed for this new edition (well before it was actually published – see the post MLA8 – new edition of MLA Handbook) are incorporated in the new approach.

The special delight is because, in basing its new approach on the principles and the purposes of citation and referencing, MLA8 provides us with principles which can be applied to any referencing style or style guide. What you might call a WHYs move, perhaps. Continue reading

Orders are orders

Print Friendly
Share Button

In my last post, What’s in a name, I discussed the need for clear linkage between the name/s used in an in-text citation and the name/s used to start the entry in the list of References. If the citation reads,

“According to Michaels and Brown, ……”

or

“‘……’ (Singh 2014)”

then it is helpful to the reader if the entries in the References list start

Michaels, J., & P. Brown….

or

Singh, V. (2014).

Many students, however, seem unable to make the link. A number of extended essay examples posted by the International Baccalaureate show instances where students manage to mismatch names – detailed in that last post. Two of the instances I listed were essays in which students had used Continue reading

What’s in a name?

Print Friendly
Share Button

In my last post, Credit where it is due, I discussed IB’s approach to referencing, with special regard to the new Extended essay guide. The guide affects students starting their two-year diploma programme in September this year, for first examination in May 2018.

In an attempt to ensure standard understanding of citation and referencing, IB is instructing examiners to refer to the Awards Committee all cases of inaccurate or inconsistent citation and referencing. This will be, I hope, for the good, for the benefit of students. I fear, however, that the committee will be inundated with such cases.

I have another concern here: the comment (on many commentary forms printed alongside sample essays) reads, “Under the new requirements this essay must be referred as a possible case of academic misconduct due to incorrect and inconsistent citing and referencing.” My concern is that examiners may be wrongly influenced in their overall assessment of the essay by any “incorrect” or inconsistent citation or referencing; they may be prejudiced as they read, and award lower marks than if the student had used “correct” and consistent citation and referencing – even when there is no misconduct, just mistakes. This is a big concern, but I will reserve discussion of this aspect for another post.

For the moment, I want to ignore notions of misconduct and concentrate on consistency, possibly with a view to reducing the number of essays submitted for further consideration.

So, in that last post I discussed the notion of accurate referencing, which could be seen to contradict other IB advice to the effect that “Students are not expected to show faultless expertise in referencing…”. I argued that the notions can be reconciled if “accurate” referencing is taken not to mean accuracy of formatting of the references but instead used to mean that the right authors are cited (as against just any names randomly plucked from a hat). Now, accuracy makes sense.

The right authors, the right names

Some of the comments on the sample essays suggest that essays are referred to the Awards Committee because Continue reading

Credit where it is due

Print Friendly
Share Button

I have to admit, I’ve long been puzzled by seemingly contradictory statements from the International Baccalaureate. They are highlighted once more in the new Extended Essay Guide (for first examination in May 2018).

On the one hand, we have the statement:

“Students are not expected to show faultless expertise in referencing, but are expected to demonstrate that all sources have been acknowledged” (p. 33 of the pdf guide),

and on the other:

“Producing accurate references and a bibliography is a skill that students should be seeking to refine as part of the extended essay writing process … Failure to comply with this requirement will be viewed as academic misconduct and will, therefore, be treated as a potential breach of IB regulations” (p. 88).

Can we reconcile the suggestion that “faultless expertise” is not required while at the same time requiring “accurate references” – especially given that “correctness” is impossible to judge, given that IB allows use of any recognised style guide. Continue reading

Tangled trail

Print Friendly
Share Button

In the course of this blog, I have engaged in the occasional tortuous tangled trail.

I doubt if any of my trails – or trials – is as complicated as one recently followed by Debora Weber-Wulff. In her latest blog post, A Confusing Pakistani Plagiarism Case, she relates how she tried following up a report in the Pakistani Express Tribune, Confession: Ex-HEC head apologises for plagiarism.

Her difficulties involved trying to find the original paper which the former chair of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) might or might not have co-authored and which might or might not have been included in this writer’s CV and which might or might not have appeared in an academic journal; the paper might or might not have included plagiarised material. This last doubt arises because any plagiarism in the paper might not be considered plagiarism on the (questionable) grounds that the paper was published before Pakistan had legislated any policies regarding plagiarism.

Weber-Wulff sums up her investigation and the issues Continue reading

MLA8 – new edition of MLA Handbook

Print Friendly
Share Button

Heads up: MLA – the Modern Language Association – is about to release the 8th edition of the MLA Handbook.

The MLA site says it will be available some time in April, but warns that the online version of the 7th edition will not be available after 31 March. Amazon.com, the American warehouse, gives a release date of March 14, 2016 (four days ago at time of writing) – but also states “This title has not yet been released.” Amazon.co.uk, the British warehouse, gives a release date of 30 April 2016.

Two things catch the eye immediately, the subtitle and the price.

The Amazon US site carries no sub-title at all.

 

 

The Amazon UK site gives the title as “MLA Handbook: Rethinking Documentation for the Digital Age (Mla Handbook for Writers of Research Ppapers).” Ignoring the typo and the punctuation of the bracketed instance of MLA, we see what is possibly a new approach: “rethinking documentation…“.

This notion of a new approach is borne out in the price, $11.42 in US and £10.50 in UK. That compares with $16.79 and £18.50 respectively for the still available 7th edition.

It is not necessarily generosity behind the reduction in price for the new edition. The 8th edition is 145 pages against the 292 pages of the 7th edition – the new edition is Continue reading

Snake (in the grass)

Print Friendly
Share Button

A recent posting in an OCC forum* got me investigating again.**  The post included a recommendation for the free “plagiarism scanner” Viper.

I have warned about Viper, and its parent company scanmyessay.com in an earlier post, Authentic authenticity. There I noted that Viper’s then Terms and Conditions included the statement

When you scan a document, you agree that 9 months after completion of your scan, we may upload your essay to our student essays database so that other students may use it to help them write their own essays. You agree that any right you may have to remuneration for such use of documents is waived.

Some of the other sites using that same “student essays database” are paper mills, selling on pre-written student essays. Viper and Scanmyessay may be free to use, but the cost is the possible loss of one’s original essay, one’s rights to it, and the possible loss of one’s reputation.

That wording is slightly different Continue reading

In other words…

Print Friendly
Share Button

The usually excellent Jonathan Bailey has, I fear, fallen short of excellence in his latest post in the WriteCheck blog.

Granted, he upholds that standard in much of the post – How to paraphrase. It is good advice – but there is, to my mind, one vital notion missing.

He gives a three-step guide to good paraphrase: read and understand what you are reading, put it aside and don’t look at it again, then note or write fully what you remember as most important, the “key points.”

Bailey does not define “key points.” I would make the point that what is key may well depend on your purpose, why you want to make those points, why you think they are important and worth noting.

That is a minor point. The big point I think he has missed is that, Continue reading

Another fine can of worms

Print Friendly
Share Button

In my last post, I reflected on text-recycling. This is the practice of re-using one’s own work without acknowledgement. While (I think) most academics frown on the practice and call it self-plagiarism, it seems to be accepted and possibly widely practiced by academics and their professional bodies – in very limited circumstances – in a number of disciplines.

In those fields which do accept text-recycling – or at least turn a blind eye to the practice – it is claimed to be a useful device for speeding the writing process and for ensuring consistency of language when compiling, for instance, a review of the literature, or when describing methods and methodologies. It is not seen as acceptable to copy-paste someone else’s literature review, but it is acceptable (in those fields in which the practice is accepted) to copy-paste one’s own previously published literature review, as long as, for instance, material which is irrelevant for the current study is deleted.

I am not sure that I accept the argument, but, as Cary Moskovitz has argued Continue reading

Cans of worms (and other kettles of fish)

Print Friendly
Share Button

I have long been aware of the notion of self-plagiarism, reusing one’s own work without acknowledging the earlier use. The post Elusive allusions is especially to the point.

That post was built around a piece by Paul Greenberg, In Praise of Plagiarism, in which he suggests that the re-use of a master’s prose (he names Cervantes and Shakespeare) may be excusable (along the lines of: you cannot say it any better than a master, so why try?). Not excusable, he continues, is the case when a plagiarist uses “… bad prose. It’s not the theft that troubles in such cases, but the poor taste of the thief.” Possibly in an attempt to establish a claim to literary taste and mastership, Greenberg’s January 2015 piece included large chunks of an article he had published in 2007, which in turn included large chunks of an article he had published in 2000.

I have recently come across the term “text recycling,” the practice of re-using one’s own words in new pieces, without noting that the text has been used before. Plagiarism? Self-plagiarism? Where is that line to be drawn?

Many sites and sources use (without thinking?) and usually attribute the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of plagiarism such as ” the act of using another person’s words or ideas without giving credit to that person : the act of plagiarizing something” This definition be found in the online Meriam Webster Dictionary as well as in myriad resources which have used this definition.

But if the words or ideas are one’s own and not someone else’s, then it cannot be plagiarism, can it? Self-plagiarism? Not by the Merriam-Webster definition.

Where it gets complicated, even more complicated, is that, in some disciplines, it seems that text-recycling, the re-use of one’s own words may be – in some circumstances Continue reading

What’s common about common knowledge?

Print Friendly
Share Button

A participant in a recent workshop had a cautionary tale to tell: one of her school’s brightest students, one who scored 40 points in her IB examinations (out of a maximum 42 for the six subjects), had been found guilty of plagiarism in her extended essay. This merited a straight Fail for the essay and that meant she could not receive a diploma (normally awarded to students scoring 24 or more points, with at least a D in Extended essay and Theory of knowledge).

During the investigation, the student accepted that she had not provided a citation for the passage which had been questioned – and declared that, as it was common knowledge, there was no need to cite it. Without seeing the essay and the passage in question, it is not possible to comment on the merit of this claim or to decide whether the examiner and the Awards Committee were over-harsh – or if they were perfectly justified in their decision.

It is a salutary reminder. I always advise classes and workshops of the five golden rules of citation: Continue reading

Zero credibility

Print Friendly
Share Button

BBC News today carries the story of Mariam Malak, The star pupil who scored zero in all her exams.

It seems that Mariam expected to score highly in Egypt’s high-school graduation exams. She had such a good record that she, her family, her school expected her to be among the country’s top-scoring students. She expected, and was expected, to score well enough to make it to medical school.

Instead of which, she managed to score a zero in all seven exams. It is pretty difficult to score a zero in one exam, never mind seven. According to the BBC report, “To get the minimum possible score, a pupil must more or less leave the paper blank.”

First thoughts, evidently, were that she had been discriminated against because she is a Coptic Christian in a Muslim country. Then corruption was suspected; now it seems likely that Mariam’s papers were switched with someone else’s papers, someone who had written out the questions – but nothing else. This seemed especially likely when a handwriting test showed that Continue reading

Lighten the load

Print Friendly
Share Button

At a recent in-school workshop, one of the year 11 students put up her hand and asked, “Is referencing taken as seriously at university as it is in this school?”

Good question – but maybe a sad question as well.

This student seemed to have the wrong understanding. The question suggests that she sees citation and referencing as an empty chore, a hoop to be jumped through, some kind of torture that teachers enjoy inflicting on students, without point or purpose.

She did understand that citation – in-the-text indication that words or ideas or data or information does not originate with the writer, along with quotation marks or markers as and if necessary – demonstrates honesty and integrity (as discussed in Nothing to fear).

But she seems not to have understood – yet – that or how referencing adds to one’s writing, enhances it. Referencing shows that the writer is ready to take part in conversation Continue reading

When you get wrong answers to the wrong questions…

Print Friendly
Share Button

There has been a bit of a splash in the last few days, publicity regarding a study of Turnitin by Susan Schorn of the University of Texas.

iSchoolGuide, for instance, splashed an item by Sara Guaglione: University Of Texas At Austin Writing Coordinator Susan E. Schorn Finds Turnitin Software Misses 39 Percent Of Plagiarized Sources, and EducationDive posts a similar take on the story, this by  Tara García Mathewson, Plagiarism detection software often ineffective.

There is not a lot new here, not for regular readers of this blog. Turnitin is ineffective.

Both articles are based on a post in InsideHigherEd by Carl Straumsheim, What Is Detected? worth reading, for its content and for the comments it has generated. Again, not a lot new, not for regular readers of this blog. Turnitin is ineffective (as are other so-called plagiarism detectors, it is not just Turnitin which is problematic).

Straumsheim goes further (than Guaglione and Mathewson), pointing to Turnitin’s propensity to assign false negatives Continue reading

Nothing to fear

Print Friendly
Share Button

A colleague recently told me of a teacher in her school who seems paranoid about students making mistakes in their referencing. He hounds them. Commas, UPPER and lower case, shape of brackets and parentheses, order of elements, everything – everything must be as per style guide, lest they be accused of academic dishonesty. Tortuous exercises, harangues, endless tests, mini-style guides, all coupled with careful, minute checking of every piece of work and submission to Turnitin to boot … for fear of plagiarism.

The students, it seems, are so scared of making mistakes that their writing is sometimes forced, their thinking is blunted. Many of them spend more time on getting the references right than they spend reading and writing. A few, it seems, prefer not to read or to use other people’s work at all – it saves the bother of referencing (and limits their awarenesses in other ways?).

It’s a shame and a disservice. It is wrong. It is wrong, not least because Continue reading

Somewhere, over the spectrum …

Print Friendly
Share Button

Shades of grey?

It is tempting to think of plagiarism in terms of black-and-white, either a writer has committed plagiarism – or s/he hasn’t.

There are plenty of grey areas, of course, especially when considering paraphrases or summaries, or the grey areas of common knowledge or of self-plagiarism (duplication of work). But by and large, plagiarism is clear-cut: a piece of work which appears to be the work of the present writer but which lack the indicators that show that this is the words, work or ideas of somebody else, that is plagiarism. Probably. Possibly.

Issues such as intent and extent might be of consideration when determining the consequences, but those are other issues, it is plagiarism or it isn’t. Cases in which plagiarism is suspected but cannot be proven will (usually, in education situations) be given the benefit of the doubt: it isn’t plagiarism. It is clear-cut, black-and-white.

Black-and-white. If the signals are not there, signals that indicate that these are someone else’s exact words, or the citation which indicates that these are someone else’s words or ideas, and it can be shown that the words or ideas originated elsewhere, it’s plagiarism.

Black-and-white (and shades of grey).  It is or it isn’t.

I often use Jude Carroll’s “Where do you draw the line?” activity* in workshops (with permission, of course). Carroll gives us six situations, six descriptions of work starting with no attribution or signal or bibliographical reference, and then increasingly more information is included in each scenario. Example 1 is clearly plagiarism, example 6 is clearly good practice, and, as this is a continuum, we can draw a line: that example would be considered as plagiarism, the next example is not plagiarism. Where do we draw the line?

This is a useful activity. I have often found that, even though plagiarism is a matter of black and white, teachers often draw that line in different places. Some draw their line too low, and would accept work which other teachers would rate as plagiarism – and, sometimes, some draw the line too high, and would refuse work which most would rate as acceptable.  Students too. We all know what plagiarism is – except that we don’t all agree. More grey than black-and-white?

Definitions are not always clear either, and the terms used to describe plagiarism or to explain good practice are frequently confused and confusing. Examples are often inconsistent and advice given is frequently wrong. Worst might be those bodies which give examples and state, clearly, categorically and mistakenly, that this is the only way to cite and reference, and that anything else is unacceptable. The SQA muddle which I highlighted recently is a case in point.

The worst of that SQA mess was the guide for Advanced Higher Chemistry which states Continue reading

Not such a bad idea?

Print Friendly
Share Button

It’s a convoluted story.

First, a memorandum was leaked (shortly before the recent UK general election) which was apparently an account of SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon saying, in private conversation, that she would prefer that David Cameron won the election and stayed on as Prime Minister, rather than Ed Miliband, the then leader of the Opposition.

Given that SNP and Miliband’s Labour party have much in common – especially in their joint opposition to Cameron’s Conservative party – and they seemed to be natural allies, and given that there had been much scare-mongering about the stranglehold which the SNP would have if Labour won the election, this was a hugely damaging allegation. It was damaging for the SNP as well as for Miliband’s party.

Sturgeon denied making the comment.

Then it was announced that the leak had been authorised by Alistair Carmichael, a Lib-Dem member of Cameron’s coalition government.

Carmichael denied authorising the leak.

Since the election, which the Conservative party unexpectedly won handsomely, there has been a Cabinet inquiry into the leak of the memorandum. It seems that Carmichael did Continue reading

Vested interest

Print Friendly
Share Button

Just a follow-up to earlier posts (1) on shale gas drilling (fracking) Still wrong to be forgotten and (2) on the problems of research performed on the behalf of companies with vested interests in a process or a product Flattering flaws

In the first, I discussed a heavily redacted report which had been released by the UK government on problems associated with fracking; the report, evidently, was intended to present the facts and so promote  unbiased discussion and informed argument – difficult when so much of the paper was censored.

The post on research and vested interest discussed, inter alia, unsubstantiated claims made in a press release posted by the plagiarism software company iThenticate.com, the company behind Turnitin and Plagiarism.org. The press release stated “the number of retractions in scholarly publications doubled between 2010 and 2011,” and cited the well-respected blog Retraction Watch as the source of this information. There was and is nothing in Retraction Watch to this effect (confirmed by one of the blog’s authors), and I made the point that, even if the statement about the doubling of the number of retractions was true, there is nothing to suggest that the retractions due to plagiarism had doubled; on the other hand, iThenticate.com might possibly be thought to have a vested interest in promoting plagiarism hysteria, the better to sell its products.

[It was verifying this for the present story which led to my discovery that iThenticate has since removed the erroneous claim that plagiarism doubled in scientific papers in the years 2010-2011. In its stead is an equally erroneous post regarding a ten-fold increase in the rate of retraction of scientific papers over the past 20 years. This second claim is attributed to an article in Nature – which had indeed reported on a study which demonstrated a ten-fold increase in the rate of retraction, but the period under review was more than 36 years, not the 20 years of the iThenticate story (see Memory hole).]

I have Retraction Watch to thank again, for a report which draws together these threads, fracking and vested interest. In the post Undisclosed industry funding prompts correction of fracking paper, Adam Marcus reports on a research paper published in Environmental Science & Technology. The abstract of “Methane Concentrations in Water Wells Unrelated to Proximity to Existing Oil and Gas Wells in Northeastern Pennsylvania” states that the researchers “found no statistically significant relationship between dissolved methane concentrations in groundwater from domestic water wells and proximity to pre-existing oil or gas wells” – and had suggested that the difference in findings to earlier studies (which found significant differences) was because the data-sets used in the EST study were far larger than those used in the earlier studies.

As may be. According to Inside Climate News, “Industry welcomed the Siegel study, the largest ever evaluating methane in water near gas development, as evidence of the safety of hydraulic fracturing.”  Well, it would, wouldn’t it?

But, as Retraction Watch reports, the journal has now published a correction, Continue reading

Memory hole

Print Friendly
Share Button

Yesterday, halfway through writing my next post, I needed a quotation I had used in an earlier post.  I quickly found the quotation, clicked on the link so that I could check and then cite the original source – and, horror, although part of the passage I wanted to use was still there, – the words of the vital sentence were not. They had been replaced, the evidence  I wanted to support my claim was no longer there.

The quotation in question was from the post Flattering flaws. I was commenting on a press release put out by iThenticate.com, promoting their then-recently published study Survey Shows Plagiarism a Regular Problem in Scholarly Research, Publishing, But Action to Prevent Falls Short. I pointed to several questionable statements in the press release, statements which were not always reflected in the actual study.

The paragraph in question reads:

Editors at scholarly publications were the exact opposite, with a majority reporting routinely checking submitting authors’ work for plagiarism. The web site Retraction Watch estimates that the number of retractions in scholarly publications doubled between 2010 and 2011 (iThenticate Press Release, 2012 December 5).

and, amongst other things, I questioned the second statement. There is no evidence in the study to indicate that “the number of retractions in scholarly publications (had) doubled between 2010 and 2011” – and there was nothing on the Retraction Watch website to suggest this either. Where, I asked, had iThenticate found this statement?

I still don’t have an answer to this question. It might not even be a valid question any more, because the statement is no longer there. Instead, what I see now Continue reading

Less is more (in this case)

Print Friendly
Share Button

An interesting post in the IB Middle Years Programme (MYP) Projects discussion forum on the OCC just recently: “if a student uses both MLA and APA throughout the report” would this be regarded as demonstrating “substantial research skills” (for middling marks) or “excellent research skills” (for top marks)?

My two penn’orth was that this was and is not good practice. While I could not comment on interpretation and application of criteria in an MYP assessment (since my experience is mainly with Diploma Programme (DP) students, several years older, and in any case I am not an examiner), good practice is the use of one recognised referencing style, not a mixture of two or more different styles. After some thought, I added that a DP examiner might look more closely at an essay which used two or more referencing styles, as this could be an indicator of plagiarism.

It is that afterthought which earned me a personal message – is it plagiarism to use a mix of citation or referencing styles?

My answer: No. It is not plagiarism to use several different styles, just as it is not plagiarism to make formatting mistakes in citation and referencing. If the writer signals that “this” is not her/his own and indicates direct quotation if direct quotation has been used, then it is not plagiarism. Formatting mistakes, including the use of different citation styles, are not plagiarism.

It’s the use of two different styles which might indicate less than original thought and suggest that further investigation might be necessary.  It might indicate Continue reading

Harvard on my mind – 3

Print Friendly
Share Button

I made a mistake in my last post. I criticised the SQA document Advanced Higher Chemistry Investigation Guidance for candidates 2014-15 for giving misleading information regarding citation and referencing, information which was either misleading in terms of academic convention or which require students to plagiarise. Possibly both.

Not just required – demanded, in that the examples are headed by an instruction which states that this is “the only acceptable method of citing and listing references.

I made a mistake.

The mistake was not in publishing the criticism. My mistake was to follow advice given in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA).  The manual suggests Continue reading

Harvard on my mind – 2

Print Friendly
Share Button

In Part 1 of this post, I looked at referencing style guides in general, and Harvard in particular. Unlike most referencing styles, Harvard does not have an authoritative published handbook or manual. As a result, many versions of Harvard exist and the opportunities for confusion are rife. In Part 2, we look at confusion writ large.

This investigation started when studying responses to a survey (on citation and referencing) conducted in a school in Scotland. Many teachers and many students commented that they were often confused, having to deal with too many referencing styles. That was odd. Although this school follows the curriculums and syllabi of three different examinations boards, IB, IGCSE, and SQA, the school promotes and uses just one referencing style.  Harvard.

And then the plot thickened.

The Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA)

Not all examinations boards publish detailed curriculum documentation or guidance on the open Internet.

The Scottish Qualifications Authority does.  Much SQA documentation is available.  It might be typical of other examinations boards, it might be totally untypical. But it is accessible – which is why it comes under the spotlight here. Continue reading