Critical Incidents in Counselor Education. Группа авторов
When going over the syllabus during the first week of class, educators may have a short introductory discussion of their expectations for the quality of student work. At a minimum, students should receive a quick overview of cut-and-paste plagiarism, paraphrasing plagiarism, citing of quotations, and self-plagiarism at the beginning of the course.
Later counselor educators can discuss proper paraphrasing and how, even with in-text citations and references, paraphrases too close to the original source may be considered plagiarism. Taking a sentence and changing one or two words is common practice among students in early submissions of their work. Counselor educators may also notice overquoting within an assignment. These more subtle forms of plagiarism may be honest mistakes students have not had a chance to learn about within their undergraduate education.
Counselor educators may find that students misunderstand the appropriateness of resubmitting assignments (i.e., self-plagiarism) to multiple professors when they teach similar topics, in particular graduate students who often have limited time in their busy schedules. The idea of resubmitting the same work or cutting and pasting large parts of the same idea for a new assignment can seem both attractive and time effective. Students are often surprised to learn that they cannot cut and paste from their own work without citing the original work. Counselor educators should be creative and build assignments in ways that minimize the possibility of student plagiarism through duplication. Brainstorming with colleagues who teach similar courses at their own and other institutions can allow professors to gauge how common an assignment is. Instructors can also build assignments that require a thorough understanding of course materials while also allowing for self-reflection, as doing so can give assignments depth. To add these reflections, students must understand the material well enough to create connections. It is difficult for students to unknowingly plagiarize reflections when connecting them to course content, even if they are retelling an experience they shared in another class.
It is important for professors to share the rules students need to follow regarding academic honesty as an important part of their dialogue and rapport building. For example, Professor P could share how part of their professional requirements include the publication of articles and research. Like students in their classes, professors cannot submit the same work to more than one journal at a time. Even reworking an already published piece is discouraged and toes the line of self-plagiarism. Faculty members may also help their students understand that it is common practice to reformat course papers into articles for specific journals; this is acceptable and is not considered a form of plagiarism.
Steps After Plagiarism
Even the very best writers may misstep with regard to academic integrity and plagiarism. In addition to educating students, counselor educators must challenge themselves to follow five recommendations for discussing and assessing student work around plagiarism.
First, educators should keep reading and studying. Professor P was able to catch that the assignment was plagiarized because they were familiar with the author and the article. There is nothing wrong with having go-to articles, books, and authors, but counselor educators need to continue feeding their minds in the same way they encourage students to learn and grow.
Second, faculty members may use free-write assignments in class and have students hand them in before the first big assignment. The free-write assignments allow counselor educators to learn about students and their writing styles. They also allow students to hone their creativity around an assignment. Through free-write assignments, students can build depth by forming their own ideas prior to the due date. A student who is crunched for time may inadvertently copy an idea from another source because their memory is pulling information from documents, audios, or programs they have reviewed. This type of plagiarism is connected to something called cryptomnesia (Dow, 2015). Although it is controversial, there have been discussions on inadvertent plagiarism through memory in extremely public cases, in particular around music (Yin, 2016).
Third, instructors should be thorough while grading and openly discuss the grading process. This includes making an active decision not to skim student assignments. In addition to being able to fully hear what students are saying in their submissions, reading the entirety of students’ work is an act of respect for the work they do. As counselor educators become more familiar with students’ styles, it becomes easier to distinguish whether they are using their voice. Openly discussing the grading process may encourage students to be mindful of their work while reassuring them that the instructor is being thoughtful about the care they are putting into the grading process.
Fourth, instructors should have students submit large assignments online. Grading online allows counselor educators the opportunity to hear the assignment through text-to-speech software. By listening this way first and then cycling back to read through on their own, counselor educators can hear an assignment in its entirety without the stop-and-go of marking. Counselor educators may use text-to-speech software so they do not become fatigued from reading each document twice. Often as we pause our reading while grading tone, mood, and flow can be disrupted, which can change the voice intended by the student.
Fifth, counselor educators should use a plagiarism detection program. Many university learning management systems provide screening programs such as SafeAssign or Turnitin. These programs provide a percent count of original student content to content likely written by someone else. These works can include published professional works or previously submitted student works.
Conclusion
These recommendations serve the dual purposes of ensuring the academic integrity of student work and enabling counselor educators to genuinely get to know students beyond their interactions in the classroom. Assignments can showcase student thought, which is deeper than what is shared in the classroom. In particular, students who often do not speak may use assignments to ask questions, brainstorm, and share ideas they may not be brave enough to say in front of their peers. These practices may prevent plagiarism and allow counselor educators the privilege of learning to better hear student voices through verbal discussion and written voice.
Reflection Questions
1 To what degree do you agree with Professor P’s approach to handling the plagiarism violation? Why?
2 What are some additional remediation strategies counselor educators can use in instances of blatant or incidental plagiarism?
Critical Incident Response
Casey A. Barrio Minton
As a first-year faculty member, Professor P is navigating a dynamic nearly all counselor educators will navigate at some point in their careers. The academic integrity violation of focus in this case was egregious, but the author recognized that violations occur on a continuum ranging from what seem to be unintentional mistakes to clear stealing or cheating. I see two key considerations related to Professor P’s actions: deciding whether to report and coordinating responses.
Counselor educators often develop caring relationships with students they conceptualize within their developmental and cultural context. Professor P easily cued into plagiarism and approached the student with care and consideration. After exploring with the student, they issued a failing grade on the assignment and decided not to report the violation. From a dispositions perspective, students who are willing to steal or purchase assignments may also be willing to lie about their actions. Although the student may have been genuine in interactions with Professor P, they may also have intentionally misled Professor P regarding this experience.
In deciding against taking a rules ethical approach, Professor P may have inadvertently violated university policy. Many systems require faculty members to go through formal student conduct processes when assigning academic penalties, including simple grade reductions on an assignment. These policies often leave the consequences of first violations to the discretion of faculty members; however, following due process policies can protect faculty members from claims of arbitrary or unfair