Re: Plagiarism (long)

[Mike Keene <mkeene@utkux.utcc.utk.edu>]

Hiya Chari,

I don't know what level course you're asking about, but here's what we do
in our 400-level tech writing course.  I think the instructors in the
200-level business writing course also use it. It follows the philosophy
someone else already mentioned, of making it easier to do it right than to
cheat, and also the idea of having people do their spadework very
methodically.  This is called the "plain brown envelope" approach, and the
core is that students turn in with their reports a plain brown envelope
with their name on it.  In the envelope is everything that went into doing
their major reports--rough drafts, outlines, note cards (or however they
take notes), photocopied articles, whatever.  That material doesn't have
to be sorted, but it does have to make a paper trail.  If they compose the
whole doc. on the computer, I specify they must print out their
intermediate drafts. 
	In this course they are encouraged to re-use pieces of earlier
writing they did for this course as part of the major report, so those
smaller pieces make it harder for the whole thing to be a fraud.  They
also are encouraged to really personalize or focus their topics--not "how
to prevent knee injuries" but "how the soccer coach at Holston Middle
School can prevent knee injuries on the 8th grade girls' team."
Especially important are the proposals they write, detailing plans for the
major report.  There I can really get the topics narrowed down, and they
have to keep revising the proposal until it meets my criteria.  There too
I make sure they have already identified the sources (library materials,
interviews, www materials) long before the final project is due.  AND the
copy of the proposal I return with my approval--complete with my
suggestions for improvement of the final project--must be included as
appendix 1 of the major report.  That way if I have still written "this is
too general--you'll need to get much more specific" (unlikely--I wouldn't
approve the proposal if I wrote that) on the proposal, I can see whether
the final report met that stipulation.
	Sure, someone can still cheat under this system--beat the
"focused, personalized topic" requirement somehow, get hold of the fake
paper early enough to use parts of it (which would still need to be
rewritten)  for the earlier assignments and to use its bib. for the
proposal's bib., create fake "rough drafts" etc. for the plain brown
envelope, and hope I approve the proposal "as-is."  But I _always_ tinker
with the proposals, so a student who is in fact describing the report she
already has in hand would _still_ have to rewrite it. 
	At some level this system seems, for most students, to make it
harder to cheat than just to go ahead and do the work.
	The policy statement I hand out at the beginning of the term says
"if the materials in the plain brown envelope do not convince me of the
authenticity of your work, then the burden of proof is on you to prove its
authenticity otherwise and not on me to prove its inauthenticity."  I keep
waiting for a student to challenge _that_, but it hasn't happened yet
(almost 20 years into this technique).  The question is, if you don't have
a paper trail, how the heck _did_ you do this work?  (BTW, the material in
the envelopes clearly belongs to the students just as the reports do, and
it gets handed back to them with the graded report.) 
	Hope this helps--sorry it's so long--it gave me a good break from
grading these 25 major reports!


Mike Keene
mkeene@utk.edu

Office Phone: 423-974-6969
Department Phone:  423-974-5401