Many recent articles on textual borrowing have argued that punishing English language learners (ELLs) for plagiarism is often not helpful (e.g., Chandrasoma, Thompson, & Pennycook, 2004; Mott-Smith, 2011; Pecorari, 2003). This is because, while we often view plagiarism as deceitful, a comprehensive perspective places it in a complex cultural context in which dishonesty is not the main factor. For instance, ELLs may plagiarize because they lack knowledge of referencing conventions, feel they lack writing facility and want to make use of the best expressions possible, are overwhelmed by academic demands, or are familiar with a different set of expectations around textual borrowing from their prior schooling experiences or use of the Internet. While there may be some students who do cheat, for many others, a teaching approach to plagiarism would be more effective than a punishing one.

However, this is easier said than done, as many teachers, particularly those teaching in Western colleges and universities, operate within institutions that punish. Few resources offer concrete suggestions to teachers on how to teach about plagiarism in such a context. In this article, I offer a reflexive approach involving a careful consideration of how we as teachers relate to institutional plagiarism policies and how we react to possible instances of student plagiarism. Such an approach is the logical extension of the growing understanding in the literature that plagiarism is a construct that varies by culture (Pennycook, 1996) and context (Price, 2002). As teachers, it behooves us to critically examine that construct and our relationship to it.

Valentine (2006) has argued that, while discussions of plagiarism are often in the language of ethics, composition teachers need to deepen their understanding of plagiarism as a literacy practice. This involves taking a nonjudgmental view of textual borrowing and understanding that it is a practice situated within institutional relationships that involve identity and values. In her case study, Valentine looked at a doctoral student who wrote a paper using quotations that he attributed but did not enclose in quotation marks. In such cases, rather than immediately assuming that the student plagiarized, it is helpful for a teacher to examine the choices the student made as he constructed the text: Why were quotation marks omitted? Did the student know to use them? Had he lost track of the origin of the sentences? Was he trying to pass the sentences off as his/her own?

It turned out that the student in Valentine’s study used few words of his own because he thought the point was for him to demonstrate his knowledge of the field, and, indeed, he had read 30 articles. Thus, we can see the interplay of institutional relationships (the student assumed that his audience was the teacher, and the teacher would recognize the sources), identity (the student sought to establish his authority through demonstrating knowledge of the field), and values (the student demonstrated his value of hard work). After knowing these facts, many teachers would not find the student deceitful, but rather, might conclude that he had misunderstood the intent of the assignment and the expectations about how to construct his text.

What Roles Will You Play With Regard to the Plagiarism Policy?

Many of us who think deeply about plagiarism are nevertheless caught off-guard when we find ourselves needing to address it with one of our students. It may seem like every case we encounter brings a new challenge. And because of a lack of preparation, we may fall back on the language of punishment. It may not even be a decision, but, rather, an emotional reaction: “How could s/he? S/he should have known better!” Even when we use seemingly innocuous language such as “off-guard,” we (inadvertently) place ourselves in an adversarial position with respect to our students.

To counter this type of reaction, it may help to go through the following process. First, make a list of various practices that are considered plagiarism. To do this, draw on your actual experiences with students. Here is a sample list:

1. Borrowing sentences without quoting and/or citing them.
2. Writing sentences that use the structure and some of the vocabulary of the source.
3. Submitting a paper without a reference page.
4. Submitting a paper with incorrectly formatted notes or reference page.
5. Using the organizing structure of a source.
6. Having a paper over-edited by a friend or tutor.
7. Using the paper of a student who took the course before as a model.
8. Sending a paper to an online editorial or translation service.
9. Cutting-and-pasting a large portion of text from an online article into one’s paper.
10. Submitting a paper that was bought on the Internet.

Next, consider the items on your list and group them together based on which ones are always deceitful. The goal here is not to prejudge any given literacy practice a student may engage in, but, rather, to separate the practices into those readily recognized as cheating (even by your students) and those that are more complex.¹

In the list above, probably the only action that I punish consistently is number 10. For numbers 5–9, I often give students a chance to rewrite. Numbers 1–4 are built into my syllabus and remain a teaching rather than punishing concern throughout my first-year writing course.

The next step is to make sure that you understand the procedures required by the university plagiarism policy. If you want to teach about plagiarism rather than punishing, you need to identify the spaces in the policy that allow you to do so. At my university, the explanation of the procedure reads (in part):

A faculty member responsible for assigning final grades in a course may acquire evidence, either directly or through information supplied by others, that a student violation of academic integrity may have occurred. After collecting the evidence available, the faculty member meets with the student to present the evidence of a violation and request an explanation.

If the faculty member accepts the student’s explanation, no further action is taken. (Towson University, 2001, p. 5)

This last line is a very important part of the policy, as it opens up a space in which teachers determine whether a given case needs to be punished or not. Thus, rather than being required to report a student for academic dishonesty because his tutor did too much work for him, I can choose to have him revise the paper with his own ideas and words.

Furthermore, it is useful to learn which literacy practices fall under the university’s definition of plagiarism, as some of them may cause concern. For example, in my university, the policy lists “submitting as one’s own, work inwhich portions were produced by someone acting as tutor or editor” (Towson University, 2001, p. 2). This concerns me because students in my courses make good use of the tutoring center, and it is unclear what “portions” offered by tutors in the center might be considered a violation of the policy.

How Will You Respond to Possible Plagiarism?

Here’s an interesting question: At what point do you decide a given case is indeed plagiarism? Do you decide as soon as you detect a textual similarity? If so, you may find yourself writing “This is plagiarism,” or the more cryptic, “There’s a problem here; please see me” in the margin. Once this kind of feedback is provided, it is more difficult to give full credence to the student’s understanding of how the text was constructed. It is also less likely that the student will be forthcoming in his or her explanation.

Thus, we need to develop language to use when addressing possible plagiarism. First, it is helpful to look back at a set or two of student papers that you have commented on in order to see what comments you have made in the past. Here are some questions to ask yourself regarding these comments:

• Do you think that a negative emotional reaction influenced your writing of these comments?
• Did you use neutral language that reflected an understanding of plagiarism as a literacy practice?
• Did you use the same or different language for cheating and for more complex textual borrowing practices that require teaching?
• Did you write comments that invited a dialogue with the student author?
• How did the situation develop after you made these comments?

Second, it is important to practice writing margin comments. Take a student paper that you received in the past with an instance of possible plagiarism and make several copies of it so that you can try out different ways of responding to it. For instance, here is a passage from a student paper that I received, written about the novel Lucy by Jamaica Kincaid (published 1990 by Plume):

Jamaica Kincaid – author was so successful when he makes figure Lucy who has the same name as his novel. Lucy is a main figure in this novel who directs to tell about her life when she wants to move out her family and get a more perfect life. Passing Mother and Daughter relationship, Jamaica Kincaid made Lucy with many characters and a lot of new feelings about the life and human which is around a girl who is nineteen years old. Lucy offers sharp, perceptive commentary on American culture under the eye of a girl who is growing up.

As I read this passage, I was struck by the difference between the language of the first three sentences and the fourth, and knew instantly, by the lack of errors and the diction, that the student had not written the last, fourth sentence. How might you respond to this? After generating a few responses, consider how they are different and which ones are more likely to bring you into dialogue with the student about the literacy practices she used.

In addition to developing language to use when addressing possible plagiarism, it is important to learn to control our own emotions as well. When I read the above paper, I immediately got a feeling of “uh-oh,” as if something bad were happening. I did a quick internet search and located the borrowed sentence on www.gradesaver.com. But why did I do this? Would my having “proof” help me understand the student’s approach to constructing her text? Obviously not. I think that moments like these arise because we are influenced by the discourse of ethics (Valentine, 2006). In addition, we may respond emotionally and judgmentally when, for instance, a student uses cut-and-pasted sentences in an essay not for the first, but for the second or third, time after you have spoken to him or her about it. While this can be extremely frustrating for teachers, it is important to remember that plagiarism is an extremely complex construct and that comprehending it and learning to apply it will take a lot of practice and more than a few errors. These errors, like grammatical ones, are a natural part of the learning process.

This article has presented ways that teachers can prepare themselves to be better responders to potential plagiarism and to find alternatives to falling inadvertently into punishing students. The approach is reflexive in that it requires a self-scrutiny of one’s emotions, attitudes, and actions. The approach also requires engaging students in dialogue about their texts in class and in conferences. After all, once you have posed a question such as “Did you write all these sentences yourself?” in a margin comment, there needs to be a way for the student to respond so that the teacher can learn more about the student’s approach to textual construction. The goal is to remain calm, consider plagiarism nonjudgmentally, and avoid an adversarial relationship.

Endnote

¹This is also an excellent exercise to do together with one’s students.

References

Chandrasoma, R., Thompson, C., & Pennycook, A. (2004). Beyond plagiarism: Transgressive and nontransgressive intertextuality. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 3(3), 171–193.

Mott-Smith, J. (2011). Establishing textual authority and separating voices: A new approach to teaching referencing. English Teaching Forum, 49(2), 16–25.

Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 317–345.

Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others' words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 201–230.

Price, M. (2002). Beyond “gotcha!”: Situating plagiarism in policy and pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, 54(1), 88–111.

Towson University. (2001). University policies and procedures: Student academic integrity policy. Retrieved from http://inside.towson.edu/

Valentine, K. (2006). Plagiarism as literary practice: Recognizing and rethinking ethical binaries. College Composition and Communication, 58(1), 89–109.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank her colleagues, Zuzana Tomaš and Ilka Kostka, for their feedback on early drafts of this article.

Jennifer Mott-Smith is assistant professor of English and ESOL coordinator at Towson University. She recently coauthored a book, Teaching Writing, in the English Language Teacher Development series (Thomas S.C. Farrell, ed.) published by TESOL International Association. She continues to explore issues surrounding textual borrowing, and to improve the U.S. educational experiences of culturally and linguistically diverse nursing students.