next »

[mj_romo]

And I think my students finally got it.  I saw this comment on the "Foreign Students and Plagairism" thread and it reminded me of what I did earlier in the semester:
 

Add to that the fact that plagiarism is a concept that a good portion of the US students don't often don't get either, until they have been busted.

One of the problems I kept encountering in a developmental comp class was my students' insistence that they had the same ideas as the authors we read, but the authors put it better so they were just going to borrow the authors' way of putting it.

I got really frustrated one day, dropped the more academic language, and I put it to them like this:  You may have the same idea and you may think the same way, but if someone else was smart enough to get that on paper before you, then you've got to give that person "props" for it.  That person deserves the credit for getting there first.

Then, I gave them some examples from the media that I knew they would be familiar with because they're very familiar with that stuff, particularly about music.  And we discussed some hypothetical examples, again using media figures, and finally, they got it.  And not only do they seem to now understand plagairism, they also understand the need for acknowledgment and documentation.  I felt very lame using that language and those examples, but I think it was the most successful lesson I had in that class all semester.

(BTW: I'm not entirely sure what "props" means, but I'm relatively confident that I used it correctly.)   

[conjugate]

(BTW: I'm not entirely sure what "props" means, but I'm relatively confident that I used it correctly.)   

You did.  It means "proper respect."

And congratulations; it looks like you have made a breakthrough.

Added afterwards:  Oh, it's "plagiarism," not "plagairism."

[commcycle]

Then, I gave them some examples from the media that I knew they would be familiar with because they're very familiar with that stuff, particularly about music.  And we discussed some hypothetical examples, again using media figures, and finally, they got it.  And not only do they seem to now understand plagairism, they also understand the need for acknowledgment and documentation.  I felt very lame using that language and those examples, but I think it was the most successful lesson I had in that class all semester.

Nothing lame about how you broke the concept down! In fact, I might steal it myself. It's difficult to get students to understand the admittedly fuzzy edge between being inspired by an author and plagiarizing an author. Plus, they probably got a kick out of it. I've found that it's good sometimes to be funny/goofy, even in an undergrad setting, because it makes students pay attention and increases their involvement.

(BTW: I'm not entirely sure what "props" means, but I'm relatively confident that I used it correctly.)   

For remedial watching, I'm assigning Black Moon's "who got the props" on YouTube. You will need to review 5 times and then write a short essay to answer the question: who, indeed, has the props, and how are they given?

[t_r_b]

I'm something of a stickler, I suppose, but I think the distinction between "plagiarism" and "theft of intellectual property" ought to be maintained. Someone could sell me the legal rights to reproduce their work, in which case reproducing it would not violate their intellectual property rights. Yet doing so for an assignment that calls for my own work would nonetheless constitute plagiarism.

I have an imaginary conversation in my head between myself and a hypothetical plagiarizer, who offers the excuse, "but I didn't steal the paper! I paid good money for it!" I am very reluctant to present a class a definition of plagiarism that equates it with copyright infringement, precisely to avoid having to listen to (and then squash) this excuse.

[infopri]

I'm something of a stickler, I suppose, but I think the distinction between "plagiarism" and "theft of intellectual property" ought to be maintained. Someone could sell me the legal rights to reproduce their work, in which case reproducing it would not violate their intellectual property rights. Yet doing so for an assignment that calls for my own work would nonetheless constitute plagiarism.

I have an imaginary conversation in my head between myself and a hypothetical plagiarizer, who offers the excuse, "but I didn't steal the paper! I paid good money for it!" I am very reluctant to present a class a definition of plagiarism that equates it with copyright infringement, precisely to avoid having to listen to (and then squash) this excuse.

I see your point TRB, but I think mj_romo's approach has the merit that it got through.  Perhaps the next step is to add the notion that "the person who came up with the original can't give you permission to present it as your own."  That, of course, is not true of intellectual property, but it is for plagiarism.  I'll leave it to mj_romo, who clearly has effective teaching skills, to come up with how to get this idea across.

[commcycle]

Tangy: that is a worthwhile distinction, but I think it will be lost on most undergrads.

[conjugate]

I'm something of a stickler, I suppose, but I think the distinction between "plagiarism" and "theft of intellectual property" ought to be maintained. Someone could sell me the legal rights to reproduce their work, in which case reproducing it would not violate their intellectual property rights. Yet doing so for an assignment that calls for my own work would nonetheless constitute plagiarism.

I have an imaginary conversation in my head between myself and a hypothetical plagiarizer, who offers the excuse, "but I didn't steal the paper! I paid good money for it!" I am very reluctant to present a class a definition of plagiarism that equates it with copyright infringement, precisely to avoid having to listen to (and then squash) this excuse.

I see your point TRB, but I think mj_romo's approach has the merit that it got through.  Perhaps the next step is to add the notion that "the person who came up with the original can't give you permission to present it as your own."  That, of course, is not true of intellectual property, but it is for plagiarism.  I'll leave it to mj_romo, who clearly has effective teaching skills, to come up with how to get this idea across.

In fact, I think MJ_Romo's approach acknowledges TRB's point nicely.  She didn't say the student stole the idea or phrase; she said that you have to give "props" to the person who first put it that way.  If you bought the paper from a term paper web site, the same principle applies; you have to give credit to the original author (thereby, of course, removing the value of the purchased paper).

I wonder what I would do if I saw a paper with something like this:  "As the author who produced the paper I bought at StolenTermPapers-dot-com put it,..."?  At least they're citing the source.

[ideagirl]

I'm something of a stickler, I suppose, but I think the distinction between "plagiarism" and "theft of intellectual property" ought to be maintained. Someone could sell me the legal rights to reproduce their work, in which case reproducing it would not violate their intellectual property rights. Yet doing so for an assignment that calls for my own work would nonetheless constitute plagiarism.

I have an imaginary conversation in my head between myself and a hypothetical plagiarizer, who offers the excuse, "but I didn't steal the paper! I paid good money for it!" I am very reluctant to present a class a definition of plagiarism that equates it with copyright infringement, precisely to avoid having to listen to (and then squash) this excuse.

Here's how to squash it: if someone sold you the right to reproduce their work, you would still have to say it was THEIR work; you don't get to pretend it's yours. If I cover "Strawberry Fields" on an album of my own, I still have to make sure the record sleeve says that the song is by Lennon/McCartney. If Scott Turow sells me the right to make a movie out of his thriller, I have to put "based on Scott Turow's [Thriller Title]" or words to that effect. And so on and so forth.

Which leads to the inevitable conclusion that a student who buys an essay online has to turn it in with the name of the original source (the author, and/or the online service whence it came) right there on the paper. And then you, the teacher, would see that, give them a zero and say "I'm sorry, the assignment wasn't just to give me an essay, but to WRITE an essay YOURSELF."

[slac_vap]

Have you seen this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-qtKtP2F-4

It's a nice illustration: it melds Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" and Queen/David Bowie's "Under Pressure" into a single track.

[elsie]

Have you seen this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-qtKtP2F-4

It's a nice illustration: it melds Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" and Queen/David Bowie's "Under Pressure" into a single track.

That was well done. Not just melding the two songs, but melding the two different anime series as well, and the video worked well with the melded songs.

[infopri]

Have you seen this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-qtKtP2F-4

It's a nice illustration: it melds Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" and Queen/David Bowie's "Under Pressure" into a single track.

That was well done. Not just melding the two songs, but melding the two different anime series as well, and the video worked well with the melded songs.

Thank you!  This video will make a good response to one of the discussion threads in my class, in which my students seem to be missing a bigger picture (regarding copyright).  The video beautifully illustrates a point I was trying to make.  Great timing!

[svenc]

Props to you, MJ_Romo!