Peggy M. Houghton, Ph.D.
Department Chair of Leadership Studies
Baker College
peggy.houghton@baker.edu

Michael E. Heberling, Ph.D.
President for The Center for Graduate Studies
Baker College mike.heberling@baker.edu

Posted: February 2006     Student Affairs Online, vol. 7 no. 1 - Summer 2005



Cheating is a serious problem in today's educational system (McCabe, Trevion, Butterfield, 2001). The ubiquitous World Wide Web has made it extremely easy for today's students to pirate everything from one-paragraph writing assignments to complete essays. Some students, in fact, may not view this Internet plagiarism as being wrong. They have been raised on the premise that it is permissible to freely copy songs and movies from the Internet (another fallacy, of course), so they think that it is perfectly legitimate to copy someone else's words and ideas. They see the World Wide Web as a free and powerful source for the dissemination of knowledge, and they do not see any problem in using this free knowledge as they see fit. Students may think that it would be wrong to submit a complete paper that they had purchased off the Internet, but they do not see any wrong-doing in selecting several long and un-cited quotes from several different authors in writing a paper.

Cheating Made Simple

Has the Internet created and encouraged a new cheating tool in which students can utilize? While there may never be a definitive answer to this somewhat philosophical question, there can be some educated assumptions based on existing literature. McCabe and Pavela (2004) note that newer students may not realize that the Internet is a relatively new resource tool. They note that it is the faculty member's responsibility to educate students on Internet etiquette as well as its proper use. Internet utilization is a wonderful resource technique; but, when abused, the Internet can be discouraging and even detrimental to one's educational experience.

McCabe and Pavela (2004) interviewed a science major at a large Canadian university, and the student said:

Google and other search engines can be used to find past assignments and essays quite effectively…Internet cheating is huge…getting papers off the Net, especially the ones that are written for you. I wish there was some way to control it better, because it is not fair to students who submit honest work. (p. 13)

The authors conclude by stating, "some faculty have almost abandoned writing assignments, because cheating is so rampant" (p.13). We consider this to be a disservice to the students. Reading and writing are, in our perspective, two of the most important components of an education. To abandon writing assignments merely "cheats" students from their academic growth and development.

Furthermore, there was a recent story written by Christina Stolarz (2005) in the Detroit News that explored how many of today's students feel about plagiarism. One 16-year-old student said that she knows plagiarism "is like stealing," but that did not stop her from using several phrases that she copied from the web. Her excuse? "I needed it for my paper and I didn't feel like writing down where it came from. I was just worried about the paper and getting it in" (p. 1A).

Different Levels of Cheating?

The student who simply purchases or copies a complete paper from the Internet and turns it in as his or her own work deserves no sympathy whatsoever. He or she has cheated in the worst possible way and should be punished by failure of the course and/or expulsion from the program.

But what about the student who has obviously completed substantial research and has plagiarized by taking uncited or incorrectly cited quotes from several sources? He or she has obviously put forth considerable effort in order to pass the paper off as original work. Should this particular punishment be less severe?

And, what about the student who tries to give credit in an imprecise way, but simply does not do enough work to establish his or her sources? For example, a student who says something like "According to a recent editorial in one of the Detroit papers…"Is this a form of plagiarism, or is it just lazy writing?

The Honor Code While there is substantial evidence existing related to the prevalence of academic dishonesty, there is, fortunately, a silver lining. Many small, large, public, and private academic institutions have implemented a traditional or modified honor code. According to McCabe and Pavela (2000), these codes are being incorporated in an effort to reduce the rate of cheating.

McCabe and Pavela define traditional and modified honor codes in the following manner:

Strong traditional academic honor codes typically include provisions such as nonproctored exams, a written pledge that students are asked to sign attesting to the integrity of their work, and a strong (often exclusive) student role in the judicial system that addresses allegations of academic dishonesty. Some traditional codes also include non-toleration provisions that encourage or require students to report any cheating they see among other students. Modified honor codes typically include a strong role for students in the judicial process but generally do not mandate nonproctored exams or the use of a pledge, although these can often be used at an instructor's option in selected courses. (p. 6)

It appears as though these codes have been successful. Susan Warren Gebert illustrates this success in the following table (as cited in McCabe and Pavela, 2000, p. 6):

Table 1:
Type of Cheating by Types of Institutions and Honor Codes

	Private Campuses With an Honor code	Large Public Universities With Modified Codes	Campuses With No Code
Test cheating	23%	33%	45%
Cheating on written work	45%	50%	56%
Any serious cheating	53%	58%	68%

These statistics bode quite well for those academic institutions that implement either traditional or modified honor codes. While cheating is not entirely eliminated, it is significantly reduced when some form of honor code is practiced.

Conclusion

We are acutely aware that cheating, such as plagiarism, is not an absolute thing…and cannot be resolved in an absolute way. Educators now have Internet tools, such as turnitin.com, which enable them to detect plagiarism from the World Wide Web. Consider this scenario -- turnitin.com results indicate that student A plagiarized 60 percent of his or her paper, and student B plagiarized only 20 percent of his or hers? Should the punishment be the same for both students?

If the answer is "yes," then the assumption is that there is no relativity in plagiarism. Stealing one word or phrase is as bad as stealing an entire paper. Unfortunately, if this rationale was applied to the world outside academia, it would be like saying that stealing a candy bar is just as serious as stealing a million dollars.

If the answer is "no," then there must be an attempt to find meaningful and uniform standards by which teachers can evaluate different "levels" of plagiarism. If every single paper graded by every single teacher could be evaluated by a percentage system such as the one used by turnitin.com, this might be possible. But this sort of universal grading is not likely to happen in one's lifetime.

But even resource tools such as turnitin.com are not fool proof. For example, turnitin.com only searches on-line databases. If students utilize both on-line and hard copy resources, only those used from on-line databases are considered when attempting to detect any type of plagiarism. Furthermore, if the student only utilizes hard copy resources (not on-line), such as textbooks, turnitin.com is a useless detection device.

While educators should certainly be cognizant of academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, they also have the responsibility to first educate their students on the very concept of academic dishonesty and plagiarism. First, and foremost, what actually constitutes academic dishonesty should be clearly defined to the student body.

We suggest that instructors specifically detail, in their respective syllabi, a section titled something such as "Academic Integrity." In this portion of the syllabus, the instructor should clearly state his or her integrity expectations. Plagiarism should be defined. We also encourage instructors to note that they have access to on-line plagiarism detection programs (such as turnitin.com) and that all student work is subject to submission to these various services.

Finally, we feel that the academic dishonesty issue should be discussed during the first week of class…whether it be on-line or on-ground. It is our experience that if students understand the meaning of academic integrity from the start of the course, they tend to submit much more original work throughout the entire course. Academic dishonesty will always exist; however, there are certain techniques that deter the likelihood of occurrence.

References

McCabe, D., & Pavela G. (2000). Some good news about academic integrity. Change, 33(5), 32-8

McCabe, D., & Pavela G. (2004). Ten [updated] principles of academic integrity. Change, 36(3), 10-16.

McCabe, D., Trevino, L., & Butterfield, K., (2001). Dishonest in academic environments. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(1), 29-45.

Stolarz, C. (2005, October 2). Schools' new target: Cybercheaters. The Detroit News, p. A1