Deterring Plagiarism in the Age of the Internet

by Elizabeth Guiliano

from Inquiry, Volume 5, Number 1, Spring 2000, 22-31

Abstract
Guiliano suggests some effective means of identifying and preventing plagiarism in our era of high technology.

Plagiarism is an issue that has plagued generations of educators. Unfortunately, now, as new technologies provide easier access to source materials for serious students, technologies also provide easier access to information for less serious students to plagiarize. Plagiarism, broadly defined, is the use of the words or ideas of another without giving proper credit. The majority of instances, it should be noted, appear to be inadvertent, caused by a lack of a clear understanding of what constitutes plagiarism and a failure to know how to cite sources properly. Although unintentional plagiarism is a concern of the academic community, faculty must address the problem of intentional plagiarism (particularly as it is tied to Internet usage) to understand why students commit this type of academic dishonesty and to establish ways to limit or eliminate its presence in the academy.

One need only look at the abundance of Web-based term paper sites to see that the temptation to plagiarize is ever-present when conducting Internet research. Rocklin provides a brief history of the development of term paper mill access from the days of small ads in campus newspapers, to the advent of term paper markets with toll-free 800 numbers, to the present with unlimited Web sites providing term paper sources (1). Students in earlier days needed to go out of their way to cheat, whereas now access can be gained from home computers. Rocklin goes on to describe that some sites were established for the clearly academic purpose of having a place for faculty and students to “publish” for a wider audience than had been available previously (Rocklin 2). Unfortunately, some have lost sight of the intended purpose of online publishing, with these legitimate sites being overshadowed by those with less scrupulous motives. Chidley supports this by noting that Kenny Sahr (proprietor of the Web site schoolsucks.com) “claims it attracts 5,000 to 6,000 Web-surfers a day” (76). The vast number of available sites from which to choose is just part of the attraction to downloading Internet papers. Clearly, another incentive for using the Internet sites is the time it takes to actually get the paper. One can go online to a search engine, type in a topic or suggested title, and within seconds the choices available are there on the screen. From there, with a click of the mouse, the paper is headed to the student’s computer printer. For the student who has procrastinated, the Internet is a dream come true. The ability to manipulate the download is important too: “The combination of Internet access and word processor power have made it almost trivially simple to disguise the origin of a downloaded term paper” (Rocklin 2). And as Maramark and Maline have pointed out, for many of these students the stress of college competition is sufficient rationalization for making the decision to plagiarize (2).

The Internet and the students’ willingness to misuse its assets appear to be formidable obstacles for teachers. But as the Internet’s use has increased, so have the teachers’ detection mechanisms. Teachers have learned to conduct online searches of their own using key phrases from the suspected work. Additionally, Olans describes Glatt Plagiarism Services, which provides training for teachers and software programs that detect plagiarism by analyzing sample student essays (10). Schools have also gone to court to help them in this battle. Machlis reports that Boston University has sued eight Web sites for what the university deems as breaking the law against selling term papers in Massachusetts (1). Schools are resorting to whatever means possible to restrict students’ ability to get away with plagiarism.

Despite dogged efforts to curb plagiarism, students are continuing to find ways to circumvent the system. Stebelman argues that for students who are willing to put in minimal additional effort, they are likely to find a paper that most teachers would not be able to track down. Because of translation software being accessible while using the Internet, students can locate a foreign document suitable for their purpose, translate it to English, and download it. Should the teacher attempt to locate key phrases, the words would not be detected because of their foreign language origin (Stebelman 49). He also goes on to suggest that those with a bit more expertise with computers can search usenet groups for original material that they then would put into their own words, and would therefore escape detection (Stebelman 49). It seems clear that students who want to cheat will find ways of doing so despite educators’ best efforts.

The problem is clear; how to handle it is not quite so clear. Much of the scholarship on plagiarism deals with the detection of plagiarism rather than finding ways to avoid the problem before it occurs. However, educators truly intent on eliminating the problem must look to prevention rather than detection if the effect is to be long lasting. Although there is no one fail-safe method of eliminating plagiarism, there are several techniques, that, when combined, may help to reduce the widespread existence of plagiarism, which is particularly important in the age of the Internet.

The teacher’s first defense against plagiarism should be through knowledge. Many experts suggest that if students know the seriousness of ramifications or sanctions imposed for an instance of plagiarism, they are less likely to commit it (Maramark and Maline 2). Maramark and Maline go on to add that research suggests that the lowering of grades may no longer be a strong enough penalty to keep students from cheating; stronger or additional sanctions such as transcript notations or required counseling may be necessary to prevent the offense (4). McKenzie suggests that teachers should discuss with their students what constitutes plagiarism, introduce guidelines for citing sources, and be available for conferencing with students during the research process (2). Harris agrees and suggests that certain issues, such as plagiarism, must be discussed during the first class session to avoid problems later on. He says that the discussion should emphasize that:

Plagiarizers are really (1) cheating themselves by not learning, (2) cheating their friends and fellow students, and (3) insulting the professor and showing contempt for the academic experience. They are not at college to learn, or to earn a degree, but to pretend to learn and to steal a degree. (Harris 2)

Unfortunately, as Hricko points out, such policies should be covered in all courses but “in most cases, teaching students about plagiarism becomes the sole responsibility of the English Department” (2). Jendrek cites a study by Nuss (1984) that concludes “that more than half of the faculty members (53%) said that they rarely or never discussed with students either the university policy or a faculty member’s policy relating to academic dishonesty” (402). If students are not clear on the policy or how the teacher responds to the problem, they may not consider it that important of an issue.

Discussing plagiarism in the classroom is important for several other reasons besides clarification of school and/or teacher policy. Stebelman cites Bruwelheide who indicates that “there also seems to persist in the minds of many researchers a belief that anything available over the Internet is fair game and public domain, free of both legal and ethical intellectual properties considerations” (48). Therefore, a student who goes on the Internet with the intention of conducting research may find him or herself in an ethical dilemma when faced with information that may seem free of restrictions.

Likewise, teachers need to discuss plagiarism in order to accommodate the various perspectives of the issue held by other cultures. Thompson and Williams note that “in some Asian cultures, students are taught to memorize and copy well-respected authors and leaders in their societies to show intelligence and good judgment in their writing” (27-8). McKenzie provides a list of reasons why students from other cultures may knowingly commit what we consider plagiarism. Among those conditions is that they “believe that ideas can’t be owned” and that they may “not have the English to express a complicated idea” (McKenzie 1). As a final thought on this particular perspective, many students from other cultures are taught that using the words and ideas of others is expected by American teachers (Thompson and Williams 27). Clearly these students need to be told by the teacher what is expected of them, particularly in light of the confusing issue of plagiarism.

Some teachers have found ways to turn their discussion of plagiarism into important lessons that go far beyond discouraging academic dishonesty. If the students have completed several writing assignments prior to the term paper assignment, the teacher can discuss the concept of “voice” in terms of the signature style of each student that comes through in his or her writing. Students may realize they are unable to modify a downloaded paper to imitate their own voice and therefore forego the plagiarism. Howard indicates that lessons about proper summary writing that she first taught her students for the purpose of avoiding plagiarism have now become lessons in reading comprehension, a skill many students still have difficulty with at the college level (2). Additionally, since the Internet appears to be one of the major problems now in terms of plagiarized papers, some teachers suggest taking students to Web sites to investigate what they have to offer. Hricko believes that it is essential to teach students to evaluate the sites from which they gather information. By not evaluating the sites’ credibility, the students may be unintentionally gathering fraudulent information. Furthermore, when students see that their teachers are competent in using the Internet, they may refrain from accessing sites they know the teacher may be aware of. In light of this, Rocklin suggests actually using papers from offending sites such as ‘schoolsucks.com’ for in-class lessons on critiquing quality. He suggests identifying several online papers, grading and commenting on them, and sharing his findings with his students. Another possibility he suggests is to have students select a paper from such sites, critique it, and then discuss the results in class (Rocklin 4). Both ideas make good use of the available resources and will hopefully show students that the quality of such papers is questionable at best. If the student cannot download a paper that will earn a better grade than the student feels he or she could earn on his or her own, he or she may not feel as strong a desire to use such a method.

If teaching the students how and why to avoid plagiarism does not seem to be enough to prevent its presence, there are ways to prevent student plagiarism on term paper assignments. Many sources suggest limiting the number of choices and/or the scope of term paper topics available to students. By doing so, students may not be able to find a paper in the Internet paper mills that will meet the specific topic required by the teacher. Conversely, Malehorn suggests that students be given as wide a choice as possible in selecting a topic. His theory suggests that if given an open-ended choice, the student will select something that he or she is truly interested in, and will therefore put in the personal effort to learn about his or her topic of interest (107). Kloss proposes a somewhat related alternative, which suggests that the student base his or her research on an idea he or she has introduced in one of many written responses from earlier in the course. He finds this particularly effective because it shows the student that the teacher has taken an interest in the earlier writings and also, as Malehorn suggested, the topic has more personal interest and will, therefore, be more appealing to research for one’s self rather than look for a match in the term paper mill (7). Requesting that the student apply concepts, rather than just describe them, adds to the learning experience and deters plagiarism also (Hinchliffe 1). Finding a paper with appropriate applications could be quite difficult to locate, and incorporating these applications into an existing paper would be awkward at best.

Another important option is that suggested by Dede. He believes that papers, as with all assignments, should be part of authentic learning experiences where “hopefully the instructor gets a strong enough sense of students--and gives assignments targeted enough to the rest of their lives--that plagiarism is easily spotted and moreover, unattractive because the assignment is worth doing for its own sake” (Townhall 15 Feb. 1999). Rocklin, as well, selects topics closely tied to his classes’ subject matter, which he notes he does for academic reasons rather than to catch cheaters, although it does help in that regard too: “Frankly, my purpose in defining the assignment this way [using specifics from class discussions and analyzing class dynamics] had more to do with supporting my goals for the students’ learning than it did preventing plagiarism. The fact that the paper is hard to plagiarize is a byproduct of a carefully focused assignment” (Rocklin 4). Ironically, this kind of thinking is exactly what Internet paper mill entrepreneur Kenny Sahr had hoped for when he developed his ‘schoolsucks.com’ Web site. According to Stebelman, Sahr began his Web site in response to the programmed options for term papers so many professors rely on. Stebelman cites Sahr’s Web site as saying:

Unlike the rest of the real world, the education system has no checks and balances. By forcing mediocre professors, who have been giving the same assignments since the Truman administration, to rethink their assignments--and maybe even add a bit of creativity to them, School Sucks IS education’s check and balance. (48)

By offering students access to free papers on virtually every generic topic known, Sahr is forcing educators to take a serious look at what they are doing, and to take steps, such as those noted in this paper, to make student assignments more authentic experiences.

However the topic selection is made, the possibility that plagiarism will be deterred is increased when coupled with some of the following suggestions. Several scholars emphasize the need to focus on the entire term paper writing process rather than just on the final project (Galles 1, Harris 1, Hinchliffe 1). The teacher should, as best one can given time and course load constraints, monitor the entire progress of the assignment. This can be achieved by requiring evidence of the steps in the process, i.e. “topic proposals, idea outlines, multiple drafts, interim working bibliographies” (Hinchliffe 1). Rocklin proposes having the student submit three possible introductions for the paper (3). The student must therefore put forth some initial effort and thinking in order to meet this requirement, and may also find the subject interesting enough to continue writing. Likewise, if the teacher is the one choosing the introduction, the student would then have to manipulate the downloaded paper to fit with the teacher’s selected opening.

Other ideas to avoid Internet downloads include requiring specific components, such as a certain number of journal articles and a certain number of Web sources, or by requiring specific texts to be cited within the paper (Harris 1). Requiring only sources available in the school’s library would be another plausible method of restricting the possibilities available online (Galles 3). Hricko reinforces this by noting that some professors on the campus at which she works put on reserve specific texts they want students to use in their papers (3). Additionally, certain restrictions imposed by teachers on paper formatting or paper length may also force the plagiarizer to do more work to cover his or her tracks than planned on (Galles 2). Galles adds to this list that teachers should require an annotated bibliography and/or photocopies of all cited sources. He suggests that “assignments could require a description of the research process, particularly how the utilized sources were found, which would make it extremely difficult to ‘defend’ the use of another’s paper” (2). He indicates that requiring this step, although possible for a plagiarizer to make up, would require more work than would be saved by downloading the paper in the first place. Another way to make the downloaded paper more trouble than it is worth is to require the student to write the paper in the first person (Galles 3). Rarely would a student be able to locate a paper online which is presented in the informal first person.

Equally important to ways of monitoring the process of the paper as described above is to provide adequate time for the student to conduct the research and write the paper. Without ample time, the stressed-out student is more likely to turn to fraudulent means:

Most students who plagiarize decide to hand in another’s work as their own in a panic at the last moment. If students have been turning in interim evidence of their work throughout the semester, they are less likely to panic at the last moment. (Rocklin 3)

Teachers should also consider allowing the student to rewrite the paper for a higher grade. Often students lack confidence in their ability and trust the online sources more than themselves. If the possibility to make changes exists, the student may be willing to “take the risk” of writing his or her own paper. Students would also see a rewrite policy as being more fair to the students, a point which Fass suggests makes a big difference in whether students decide to cheat or not in a given class:

Students frequently report that cheating increases when students perceive tests or grading procedures to be unfair, when instructors are viewed as inattentive and inaccessible, when papers are not read and graded carefully, or when students perceive a very high level of cheating on the part of their classmates. (Fass 180)

Additionally, students need to see their teachers, as well as any authority figures, as role models. These people need to exemplify the adherence of standards that they expect of their students.

Another effective way of preventing plagiarism on term papers is to require additional components to the assignment besides the paper itself. Having the student write a journal entry or a paper reflecting on the process of writing the research paper or on personal insight gained from the material researched would be difficult for many students to effectively create if they have not actually gone through the process (Hinchliffe 1). Likewise, Malehorn suggests informing students that there will be a test later in the semester which will require them to call on knowledge gained from their paper’s research. Students who have actually done the research will not be troubled by this, whereas those who would only have the paper itself to review prior to the test may think twice about selecting a downloaded paper over completing the research process (107). Harris suggests that requiring an oral report on the paper can be quite a deterrent. The oral presentation could be in the form of a one-on-one meeting with the teacher or as a class-wide discussion, where questions concerning the material presented or the process involved in writing the paper could be covered. Harris suggests that simply questioning the student’s use of a complex concept in the paper may cause the cheater to give up. Similarly he indicates that requiring the student to read the paper aloud may accentuate difficult to pronounce words the student would not typically use (Harris 1). If students know about these types of assignments in advance, they may choose to write their own papers and forego the possibility of embarrassment that such an oral assignment may create. Another alternative, which could lead to a valuable classroom discussion, is to have students debate controversial issues using the research from their assigned paper topic as their evidence (Galles 2). Most students would not want to debate before the class an issue for which the only information available is restricted to that of a downloaded paper from a questionable source.

It should be evident that teachers do have many methods available to them to deter plagiarism. But it should also be made clear that the responsibility for limiting or eliminating plagiarism must go beyond the classroom itself. Studies conducted by Bowers (1964) and McCabe and Trevino (1993) both indicate that “the climate or culture of academic integrity found on a campus may be the most important determinant of the level of student cheating on that campus” (McCabe and Trevino 30). Fass concurs when he adds that “academic dishonesty should be identified as the most serious violation of trust that can occur in a community of scholars and educators, and all members of such a community must be expected to deplore and resist it” (181). If other people--particularly those in charge--do not care, the students will find few reasons of their own to care. Unfortunately, while most schools have policies in place for explaining important issues, Maramark and Maline suggest that these policies may differ among disciplines and may not be explicit as to what specifically constitutes academic dishonesty (3). The administration’s failure to be clear on such policies sends mixed signals to the students affected by the policies, confuses the faculty who must institute the standards, and challenges the administrators themselves who must afford students due process if and when an academic dishonesty claim is made against them. Jendrek acknowledges the significance of such policies in light of Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (1961): “The court ruled that public colleges and universities are governmental bodies; therefore, they had to establish procedures that did not violate students’ due process rights when considering a disciplinary action such as suspension or dismissal” (Jendrek 401). Jendrek goes on to cite Pavela in noting that teachers who ignore their responsibility put “honest students at a competitive disadvantage” (405). How can a student who does his or her own work compete with students who are willing to go to any lengths to get the best grades available? Meanwhile those teachers who take disciplinary action into their own hands are being unfair by not reporting plagiarizing offenders to the administration, who could then in turn monitor those students’ actions and possibly prevent repeated offenses (Jendrek 405). There must be clear policies and consistency in administering them in order for the school’s integrity to be maintained and for plagiarism to be eliminated.

One such way of creating a stronger sense of integrity on campuses is through the use of some type of honor code. Although McCabe and Trevino’s research suggests that having an honor code will not prevent cheating, it does indicate that cheating may be less frequent on campuses with these policies (30). Maramark and Maline also indicate that faculty members at schools with honor codes are more likely to follow established school procedures when dealing with academic dishonesty (3). Making everyone aware of the rules so that they can be administered fairly is essential to maintaining the institution’s integrity. Hill discusses an example from her school where Student Affairs prompted the administration to provide an in-service for faculty that would address the gamut of issues involved with academic dishonesty (476). By providing the information needed to know what is right and wrong, and what to do about it, this school is better equipped to avoid and/or handle any difficult situations that may arise. Dowd sums up what is necessary in such a situation when he says:

Colleges must stand firm in their promotion of academic integrity, which includes faculty and student empowerment, role modeling, an emphasis on correct rather than incorrect behavior and policies that meet the needs of a variety of student and faculty members. (17)

An honor code or at least a pervading sense of honor must be present in all aspects of the academic community. Its presence must be felt from the college’s president and trustees to each and every student on campus.

Committing plagiarism is ultimately the student’s choice, but by providing ample deterrents for such action and motivation for honesty, the college can make plagiarism a less inviting option. By acknowledging that there are things that everyone in the academic community should do, we can limit plagiarism; only by doing those things we must do can we stand a chance of eliminating plagiarism in the age of the Internet.

Works Cited

Chidley, Joe. “Tales Out of School: Cheating Has Long Been a Great Temptation and the Internet Makes It Easier Than Ever.” Maclean’s 24 Nov. 1997: 76-9.

Dede, Chris. “GMU Participates in Electronic Campus.” 15 Feb. 1999. Online posting. townhall.gmu.edu 14 July 1999.

Dowd, Steven B. “Academic Integrity--A Review and Case Study.” ERIC. Aug. 1992.

Fass, Richard A. “Cheating and Plagiarism.” Ethics and Higher Education. Ed. William W. May. New York: Macmillan, 1990. 170-84.

Galles, Gary M. “Copy These Strategies to Stop Plagiarism by Students.” 28 Sept. 1997. Online. Internet. 8 July 1999. Available WWW: http://www.chron.com/cgi-bin/auth/story/c...onicle/editorial/97/09/29/galles.0-0.html

Harris, Robert. “Anti-Plagiarism Strategies for Use in Assigning Research Papers.” 26 June 1997. Online. Internet. 9 June 1999. Available WWW: http://www.sccu.edu/faculty/R_Harris/antiplag.htm

Hill, Carol L. “How to Avoid Plagiarism: Enhancing the Student Affairs Profile.” Journal of College Student Development 33 (1992): 475-6.

Hinchliffe, Lisa. “Cut and Paste Plagiarism: Preventing, Detecting and Tracking Online Plagiarism.” May 1998. Online. Internet. 8 July 1999. Available WWW: http://alexia.lis.uiuc.edu/~janicke/plagiary.htm

Howard, Rebecca Moore. “The Virtues of Designing Assignments that Encourage Plagiarism.” Conference on College Composition and Communication. Milwaukee, 30 March 1996. Online. Internet. 17 June 1999. Available WWW: http://departments.colgate.edu/diw/VirtuesPlagCCCC.html

Hricko, Mary. “Internet Plagiarism: Strategies to Deter Academic Misconduct.” 1998. Online. Internet. 18 June 1999. Available WWW: http://www.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed98/mrhicko.html

Jendrek, Margaret Platt. “Faculty Reactions to Academic Dishonesty.” Journal of College Student Development 30 (1989): 401-06. Kloss, Robert J. “Writing Things Down vs. Writing Things Up: Are Research Papers Valid?” College Teaching 44.1 (1996): 3-7.

Machlis, Sharon. “University Sues over Internet Term-Paper Sites.” Computerworld 31.43 (1997): 3. CD-ROM. Infotrac. 1997.

Maramark, Sheliah and Mindi Barth Maline. “Academic Dishonesty Among College Students.” Issues in Education (1993): 3-14. CD-ROM. Sirs Researcher.

Malehorn, Hal. “Term Papers for Sale--And What to Do About It.” Improving College and University Teaching 31(1983): 107-8.

McCabe, Donald L. and Linda Klebe Trevino. “What We Know About Cheating in College: Longitudinal Trends and Recent Developments.” Change 28.1 (1996): 28-33.

McKenzie, Cheryl. “Plagiarism: A Cultural Aspect.” Online. Internet. 17 June 1999. Available WWW: http://salmail.sjsu.edu/cmckenzi/Global_Classroom/plagiarism.htm

Olans, Harold. “Computerized Plagiarism Detection.” Change 27.6 (1995): 10.

Rocklin, Tom. “Downloadable Term Papers: What’s a Prof. to Do?” August 1996. Online. Internet. 18 June 1999. Available WWW: http://www.uiowa.edu/~centeach/newsletter/online-exclusives/term-paper-download.html

Stebelman, Scott. “Cybercheating: Dishonesty Goes Digital.” American Libraries 29.8 (1998): 48-50.

Thompson, Lenora C. and Portia G. Williams. “But I Changed Three Words! Plagiarism in the ESL Classroom.” The Clearing House 69.1 (1995): 27-9.

Elizabeth Guiliano is an adjunct instructor of English at Lord Fairfax Community College. She is also currently pursuing a doctoral degree in community college education at George Mason University.