Review of the article in question presents a specific reality; namely, the issues of plagiarism and dishonesty in academic spheres today is far more complex a matter than of students cheating. Teachers at all levels are confronting something of a crisis, and one based on multiple factors. Students today literally grow up culling information and entertainment from technology that is virtually universally accessible, and they also grow up sharing these things. This goes to generations who, it seems, do not fully understand the concept of intellectual property, and who consequently do not perceive using the work of others as dishonest. Added to this is that the typical response of teachers and schools, when plagiarism is detected, is harsh. This translates to students often suffering extreme penalties for actions they themselves do not view as wrong, or which are not done intentionally as plagiarism. Technology, it appears, has created a kind of “arms race,” with teachers desperately seeking ways to discourage or prevent academic dishonesty, while their students are increasingly enabled to present the work of others as their own.
Some of these issues, however, demand investigation, and particularly as set out in the article. The authors, for example, discuss how teachers are often faced by students having very different ideas regarding the ethics of academic integrity itself. The question is asked: how does a teacher impose certain ethical values on students who do not share these values? The article concludes that achieving a shared ethical norm is then the goal, but this is an interesting position in itself. On one level, it is perfectly rational; the class cannot function as a class unless the processes of learning and academic creation are understood by all. This goes as well to the integrity of teachers, who seek to reach a form of mutual accommodation with their students. On another level, however, there is something inherently misplaced in accepting that students operate by a different ethical standard because, in plain terms, this cannot be permitted. To affirm that different people may hold different values is fine, but the greater reality is that certain values are absolutes, and especially in regard to the fundamental processes of teaching and learning. The student who asserts that they do not perceive plagiarism as unethical is not expressing a value; they are unjustly denying a value universally in place in all school settings. Put another way, there is no rationale whatsoever in claiming that presenting the work of others as one’s own is valid. It is not and it never can be, and it is disturbing that teachers are willing to respect such positions as expressions of belief, which demand some degree of respect. Such teachers are doing no service to their students; they are instead mistaking an unacceptable breach of a standard norm with regard for individual ethical views.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Talking About Plagiarism and Academic Integrity in the Digital Age".
This in turn goes to another interesting aspect of the article. It consistently traces the difficulties faced by teachers but, in this very pattern, arrives at the only possible solution to plagiarism in the schools. There are students, certainly, who do not wish to be dishonest but who do not genuinely comprehend why it is important to cite the work of others, or why it is wrong to present it as original. That this may well be at least partially due to technology and the Information Age is also extremely likely, if not inevitable. This scenario in itself, however, calls for teachers to do what has not traditionally been required before: discuss with the students, and in depth, the basic concepts behind academic integrity and why plagiarism violates this. As the article maintains, this is an effective means of creating the necessary understanding, as well as of reinforcing that, for students who persist in plagiarizing, the consequences must be harsh. For some, it is unfortunate that teachers today should actually have to make these efforts, but there can be no underestimating of how technology has generated new ways of perceiving and communicating information.
Then, this approach of specific education on the subject addresses all potential issues. Academic dishonesty occurs when the student presents words and ideas not their own as their own, and do not acknowledge the source. This is the reality, no matter the source. It also occurs when information is passed along by technology from one student to another, even as this is essentially the same behavior. Consequently, today’s teachers, as do the teachers in the article, must take the time to make the underlying and urgent concept behind plagiarism policies known to the students. They must emphasize, beyond anything else, the need to identify sources used. To reiterate, this is not “one” ethic to be reinforced, but rather the foundation of academic integrity itself.
Lastly, collaborative multimodal composing must be addressed by teachers, and because this is presents serious risks to a true understanding of academic integrity. Such composing inherently invites complex sharing of work and ideas, so it is all too easy for students to lose sight of individual contribution. If the multimodal composing enables greater creativity, it is a minefield in regard to plagiarism, and because it is based on “blurring the lines” of contribution. This, however, may be turned to advantage by teachers. It may be used to illustrate the important differences between work that is intended to be fully collaborative, and that which must be done individually. More exactly, the parameters of integrity depend upon how the composition is to be credited. When all involved know that the work is seen as a group effort, there is no dishonesty because the collaboration is identified as such and, unless specific individual contributions are to be noted, all concerned are then justly credited. At the same time, however, this enables teachers to reinforce that this is an unusual circumstance. Moreover, and even within it, material obtained externally must be acknowledged as such. Put another way, the shared nature of the multimodal may act to illustrate, by contrast, the ethical demands of work that is individual. What ultimately matters here, also, is the noted need of the teachers to clarify without question that, in academic pursuits, there are no real “gray” areas in terms of honesty, and the formula is extremely basic; if the words or the thinking is not one’s own, the creator must be cited.
