Reading Report Assignment | Essay Help Services

If you are a teacher in an English language program, how would you help students learn about academic honesty? Use examples from the reading to support your argument. You should write at least 500 words. This means that your essay will be more developed than yesterday’s.point and counterpoint
Plagiarism and the culture of
multilingual students in higher
education abroad
Colin Sowden
The cultural values of multilingual students are sometimes at variance with
Western academic practice, in matters such as plagiarism. In accepting this,
however, it is important to avoid stereotyping. Instead we should respect and
make use of the students’ own traditions of study. It is also time to acknowledge
that ideas and language are necessarily derivative, and to take account of this
in our understanding of plagiarism. Plagiarism itself can be discouraged by the
use of oral presentations, both as a means of improving language control, and
as a tool within the overall assessment process. In addition, attention should be
given to students’ unfamiliarity with concepts which are culturally conditioned.
Background In English language teaching today cultural appropriacy seems to have
replaced appropriate methodology as the key concern in the classroom.
In the field of EAP the question of how best to train non-native speakers
to imitate the work of competent native speakers has given way to
discussion of whether such a goal is legitimate or even desirable.
It is against the background of this shift of emphasis that the issue of
plagiarism among multilingual students has attracted increasing
attention. In particular, there has been debate about the role of the
students’ own culture in explaining the phenomenon, and it is this
relationship which I wish to explore in this paper. In doing so I make
a distinction between the plagiarism of ideas and the plagiarism of
language, which do not always go together. I also distinguish
between the issue of ownership of text (a matter of copyright) and
the issue of originality (a matter of authenticity), and focus on the
second.
The culture factor It is certainly possible to identify values and practices among certain
groups of multilingual students which contradict established notions of
plagiarism in theWest, especially in countries with an Anglo-Saxon
heritage. Among these is the idea of the communal ownership of
knowledge. Pecorari (2001: 145) reports a conversation with a group of
Japanese students in which a tutor questions their failure to cite an
author whose arguments they had used in their assignments. They
replied that since what the author said was obviously true, his name did
not need to be mentioned. In other words, the author’s insights, having
ELT Journal Volume 59/3 July 2005; doi:10.1093/elt/cci042
Q The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
226
achieved the status of common sense, had thereby entered the field of
common knowledge, and no longer belonged to him exclusively.
A similar point could be made about Chinese academic norms, which are
the result in part of a long tradition of reproducing Confucian teachings
in civil service exams. The philosopher’s words were known by and
belonged to everyone, and being able to reproduce them, without citation,
in place of your own, was considered an appropriate, even laudable
strategy.
Another cultural characteristic which is likely to prove awkward here is
the idea that good students do not challenge their teachers or other
authorities, but faithfully copy and reproduce them. As Cortazzi and Jin
(1997: 78) say, speaking particularly of China, ‘A learner’s duty is to
understand and master what those in authority say, as transmission,
before any independence of mind or creativity in a field can be expected’.
In the same vein, Ballard (1996: 155) reports an exchange between a
Politics lecturer in an Australian university and a Japanese student.
When the latter
was asked ‘What is your opinion about these two conflicting
interpretations of the reasons for the Great Depression?’, his reply,
‘But I do not have an opinion—I am student’, reflected genuine
cultural bewilderment.
Closely connected with this perception of roles is the idea of there being
a correct answer to every question, which it is the teacher’s duty to
provide and the student’s duty to learn. There is little tolerance of
uncertainty. From this perspective, plagiarism can be seen as a virtue:
producing what you know to be correct. In contrast, speculating with
ideas which may be incorrect will tend to be viewed as pointless or even
dangerous.
Yet a further difference which is relevant is the assumed role of the
individual student vis-a` -vis their fellow students. In many cultures,
especially those of Asia, achieving group consensus is more important
than demonstrating one’s own understanding and abilities. Such an
attitude, of course, has deep socio-psychological roots. Speaking of the
Japanese, Dorji (2001: 63) says that they ‘learn froman early age to
always consider themselves in relation to the group as a whole for, what
are, essentially, Confucian ideas of hierarchy, extend into the realm of the
family’, and this thinking is reflected in their behaviour in the classroom.
Such an approach to learning is greatly at odds with what is expected of
students in most countries in the West, where individual effort and
self-reliance are considered meritorious, and mutual assistance is not
encouraged outside strict boundaries. As Thorpe says (1991: 113) in
reference to Chinese students:
. . . there are cultural differences in the definition of what constitutes
doing one’s own work, not only as far as help from a tutor is
concerned, but also over the question of whether or not students may
write collaboratively and claim a piece of work as their own.
It is not unreasonable to assume that a culture which tolerates the idea of
students sharing knowledge and responsibility in this way, is one which
Plagiarism 227
is less likely to discourage copying and the appropriation of ideas from
other sources without acknowledgement.
The danger of
stereotyping
Such generalizations about cultural background and its influence do
need to be taken seriously, but we must beware of them degenerating
into stereotypes. As Phan Le Ha (2004: 52) comments, after having listed
the kinds of study behaviour usually associated with the East (her term):
The above notions of Asian students and teachers are not necessarily
false, but they are inherently problematic and misleading . . . they only
seem to touch upon the surface without understanding it sufficiently.
There is much more going on under the surface in respect to terms
such as ‘rote learning’. . .
Therefore, while maintaining an awareness of cultural predispositions
on the part of multilingual students, we must be careful how we interpret
the behaviour; we must also remember that groups defined by nation,
culture or language are not homogenous, but composed of individuals
who are not all alike.
Individual differences obviously exist: family background, the degree of
exposure to foreign ideas, aptitude, previous learning experiences and
personality will, among other factors, variously influence a student’s
approach to their new academic environment. Speaking of Chinese
students, Harris (1997: 43) maintains that ‘many are serialist learners by
acculturation not personal inclination’; given the opportunity, they will
respond positively to alternative approaches with which by nature they
are more in sympathy. Harris goes on to conclude: ‘if this is correct, it
follows that it is feasible to bring such students to a point of greater
learning versatility by the use of educational techniques designed to do
just that’. He makes the further point that multilingual students may
well cling to their traditional academic methods because, being in a new
culture, they need to have a sense of security, but will become more
flexible as their confidence increases. Furthermore, these methods also
provide for that gradual accumulation of knowledge, which will allow
them to take a broader, more critical approach to their studies at a
later stage.
The attitudes and expectations of multilingual students with respect to
the host culture will also vary considerably between individuals of similar
origin. James (1980: 13) identifies three distinct types here: those who
aim to make minimal change; those who aim to be bi-cultural; those who
aim to identify totally with the foreign context. These aims in turn inform
specific attitudes towards the learning process, fellow students, the
special subject, academic staff, and so on. If we agree that culture can play
a determining role in the matter of plagiarism, and if we also accept
James’ typology, then we can expect that those students in the third
group, who are already predisposed to adopt new academic values, will
respond well to the challenges presented by their new academic
environment. However, those who fall within the first group will tend to
be more resistant to change and adaptation. It may very well be that those
with a strong integrationist motivation towards their new place of study
228 Colin Sowden
will be less inclined to practise plagiarism than those who are not and
more willing to accept the prevailing academic values.
Bridging the gap The usual way of responding to the perceived culture gap facing
multilingual students is that followed in most EAP programmes, which
is to encourage them to adopt the norms of their host culture, including
those relating to the issues of plagiarism, and to become adept at the
skills that this involves. This process may be loosely termed
‘apprenticeship’ (Canagarajah 2002: 31). Such an approach certainly has
pragmatic value since it fosters behaviour which will be recognized and
rewarded by their new institution. At the same time, though, it assumes
that the host culture will naturally replace that of the student, and that the
latter will willingly collaborate in this process. Perhaps instead
multilingual students would benefit from preserving what they find most
useful from their own vernacular culture, both general and academic,
while also striving to assimilate what is best from their new context.
In this way they can draw on their existing strengths while developing
new ones.
Such an approach is what Cortazzi and Jin (1997: 88) term ‘cultural
synergy’, arguing that compromise rather than conversion should be
the goal: both teachers and students need to be aware of cultural
differences in the academic context and to respond in a way which
respects the integrity of the different traditions. Multilingual students
can learn to operate in both cultures, adopting in effect two personae,
which are deployed as occasion demands. This is an outcome which
Zamel (1997: 347) also anticipates when advocating what she refers to
as ‘transculturation’. Thus, when discussing plagiarism, Todd (1997:
182) comments, ‘It is possible we may be able to move to a position
where we can allow overseas students to write in ways more consistent
with their cultures without losing sight of our own ways of writing and
thinking’.
A greater openness in this respect might cause some academic norms to
be reformulated. Consider, for example, memorization, which is a
familiar technique among learners from a Confucian background.
Instead of being viewed as an end in itself, as it might appear to an
uncritical observer, it should rather be viewed as a means to an end, not
concerned with superficial, short-term retention, but as a way of gaining
deep understanding of a topic through respect for and mastery of a key
text (see Pennycook 1998: 222). This reflects the tradition that
enlightenment comes through approximation to an established wisdom
rather than by means of individual enterprise. Indeed, it may well be that
a concern for promoting critical thinking has meant that memorization
(as in chanting times tables or conning poems by heart for the purpose of
recitation), which a generation ago in Britain, for example, was
considered a vital component of learning, has been undeservedly
neglected in more recent times. Indeed Chan and Drover (1997: 59)
argue that:
the achievements of students from Confucian heritage cultures
suggest that staff in Western educational institutions may also benefit
Plagiarism 229
from revisiting some of the formal approaches to teaching which they
have largely repudiated.
Canagarajah (ibid.: 35) adds a further dimension to this question.
He argues that students may need to retain the integrity of their own
discourse in the new academic context in order to preserve a proper sense
of identity. He says that:
. . . students may see a need to resist academic discourse when they
sense the power it enjoys historically, with bad previous experiences of
objectifying their communities, providing them subordinate positions,
and even leading to the domination of minority cultures.
He refers (ibid.: 41) approvingly to Prior’s ethnography, which envisages
the multilingual student maintaining in parallel both their own
vernacular discourse and that of the host community, until the virtues
and benefits of the latter are absorbed without detriment to the former.
Indeed, the benefit will flow in both directions:
the authoritative discourse of the expert gradually becomes the
internally persuasive discourse of the student, just as the former itself
slightly changes in light of the new experiences introduced by the
student.
How original can
we be?
While the above responses to the question of plagiarism may be valid,
they do not address the matter at its most fundamental level. Producing
academic text, like producing everyday language, is never entirely an
original process, but is manifestly dependent on what already exists in
the public domain or in the writer’s or speaker’s own repertoire. Indeed,
the idea of lexical chunking as an underlying mechanism by which
language is generated presupposes that we rarely make an entirely
original utterance. This will be especially true when we are striving to
achieve command of a particular kind of discourse in order to gain entry
to a particular community. As Ivanic (1998: 3) says:
The only way an apprentice member can learn to become a full
member is by copying, adapting and synthesizing from the works of
other members.
With this in mind, the student writer will naturally model their output on
specific examples that they have already encountered, and cannot really
do otherwise.
As far as the originality of ideas is concerned, we need to be aware that,
in the general sense just mentioned, we all plagiarize. (What, indeed,
would be the point of handing out a reading list at the beginning of a
course if we did not accept this fact?) This practice can be justified by
the notion of intertextuality: that at one level or another, in language
and ideas, new texts are almost inevitably derivative. However,
exploiting other people’s ideas, like absorbing examples of language we
have encountered and committed to memory, does not preclude
originality in their use. The ways in which these items are subsequently
combined, and recombined, will rarely be identical, since one individual
is not likely to exactly mimic another in a sustained fashion unless they
230 Colin Sowden
have deliberately chosen to do so. Being authentic in this way, though,
is by no means easy, even for someone working in their first language.
As Scollon comments (1995: 22): to be original ‘is possible only as a
struggle to achieve that voice in an internal discourse of voices borrowed
from society’. At the same time, there is but a fine line dividing what
may be considered valid intertextuality and deliberate copying. Perhaps,
indeed, a distinction can only be made if one takes into account the
student’s intent, in their choosing whether to make use of the skills and
strategies which they have at their disposal. It is this consideration, of
course, which can give the matter a moral dimension, and so render it
liable to heated debate.
It could therefore be argued that if a student, multilingual or otherwise, is
creating original text by use of another’s ideas or language, then this
should be recognized as a valid procedure, and encouraged in the same
way that we would praise efforts at second language production based on
memorized lexis reproduced in a grammatically and contextually
appropriate way. Naturally in such cases students should be aided to
develop a correct method of citation and attribution, in order to ensure
that the norms recognized by the host academic culture are properly
observed. Most importantly, perhaps, multilingual students should be
assisted in the development of their second language skills, and strict
course entry requirements in this regard should be enforced. If, on the
other hand, there is a deliberate choice not to make use of known skills
(whatever the reason for this might be, which itself will need addressing),
then the charge of plagiarism in its full sense needs to be upheld. This is
so not primarily because of concern for intellectual property rights, but so
that students will be obliged to demonstrate understanding of the topic in
question by articulating related arguments with the degree of originality
just outlined.
Such a recommendation, of course, invites the natural response that a
student’s motives are not self-evident, and that if such a policy regarding
plagiarism were adopted in an institution of higher education, it would
render impossible a fair and objective assessment of academic writing
assignments. In addition, there would be little incentive for students,
particularly multilingual ones, to improve their language and texthandling
skills. Furthermore, such a response might fail to take
sufficient account of the obstacles presented to multilingual students by
their own cultural mindset, the overall schema with which they view and
interpret the world. Over and above the uncertainty which all
undergraduates experience when dealing with new topics, multilingual
students may find some of the concepts that they meet alien to their way
of thinking, and may therefore lack the cognitive framework to deal with
them adequately. This will then present a problem as far as the related
language is concerned because, as Scollon (ibid.: 16) says, ‘language
operates from an underlying metaphorical structure which reproduces
. . . a conceptual orientation to the world’. In other words, students whose
conceptual framework is limited in this way, will find it very difficult to
write originally about certain unfamiliar concepts, even in the sense
outlined above.
Plagiarism 231
A practical
suggestion
Perhaps these problems can never be full resolved, but they can be
addressed. Parallel assessment procedures, such as viva voce interviews,
can be introduced where wilful plagiarism is suspected; greater use can
be made of oral presentations, both as an alternative to written
assignments or as a formative step in the process of producing an
assessed piece of writing; regular progress tests can be held, for both
formative and summative purposes. Oral presentations are a particularly
useful way for students to improve and demonstrate their mastery of a
subject, and they favour students with good memorization skills, as do
progress tests. They require an organization of ideas similar to that
demanded in an essay, but in language which is likely to be simpler and
more direct, and hence more manageable. Moreover, the need to reduce
complex ideas obtained from written sources to speech will inevitably
force the students to use their own words, even though they may not be
using their own ideas, thus largely avoiding the inevitable temptation to
plagiarize that comes when writing.
Of course, oral presentations have difficulties of their own, and may
contain plagiarism too, but a flexible range of assessment criteria, which
reflect the quality of delivery, the rhetorical structure and the use of
visual aids, as well as command of the subject-matter, will usually
ensure that the overall mark is appropriate. In the first year of an
undergraduate programme, performance in presentations and progress
tests can be scored, and the mark included in the final assessment.
The criteria for written work, the traditional essay or project
assignment, must remain strict as far as plagiarism is concerned, thus
encouraging students to improve in this area. Work on language and
study skills will continue, and the students’ command of English should
improve. In the next year of the programme, the marks awarded for oral
presentations and progress tests will decline as a proportion of the
overall total, until in the third year, assessment will be by written work
alone. End-of-year exams, too, will play an important role in crosschecking
student scores obtained from coursework.
In order to help multilingual students overcome their unfamiliarity with
new topics and meet the challenge presented by concepts which may
appear alien, subject-specific support, if not already available, should be
provided in addition to the more generic skills training which is usually
offered. Students can begin by verbalizing concepts with which they are
familiar before trying to articulate ones which are new and unfamiliar.
Such a proposal, of course, has obvious implications for the design and
delivery of support programmes. It would certainly involve a great degree
of collaboration between EAP and subject tutors. However, the benefits
would be considerable both in helping reduce plagiarism and in ensuring
that the academic institution takes a greater account of different worldviews.
This is one example of how cultural readjustment by what might
be seen as the dominant culture may be required and achieved. In this
way historical imbalances and present diversities can be discovered and
respected, and learning can become a two-way process.
Final revised version received June 2004
232 Colin Sowden
References
Ballard, B. 1996. ‘Through language to learning:
preparing overseas students for study in the West’
in H. Coleman (ed.). Society and the Language
Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Canagarajah, S. 2002. ‘Multilingual writers and
the academic community: towards a critical
relationship’. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes 1/1: 29–44.
Chan, W. T. and G. Drover. 1997. ‘The Hong Kong
connection’ in D. McNamara and R. Harris (eds.).
Cortazzi, M. and L. Jin. 1997. ‘Learning across
cultures’ in D. McNamara and R. Harris (eds.).
Dorji, L. 2001. ‘Japanese students’ learning styles
and British TEFL teaching styles’ in K. Gray and
M. Leedham (eds.).
Gray, K. and M. Leedham (eds.). 2001. The
Japanese Learner: Context, Culture and Classroom
Practice. Oxford: Department of Continuing
Education, University of Oxford.
Harris, R. 1997. ‘Overseas students in the UK
system’ in D. McNamara and R. Harris (eds.).
Ivanic, R. 1998. Writing and Identity. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins, BV.
James, K. (ed.). 1980. Study Modes and Academic
Development of Overseas Students. London: British
Council.
McNamara, D. and R. Harris (eds.). 1997. Overseas
Students in Higher Education. London: Routledge.
Pecorari, D. 2001. ‘Process citing: avoiding
plagiarism in student writing’ in K. Gray and
M. Leedham (eds.).
Pennycook, A. 1998. ‘Borrowing others’ words:
text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism’. TESOL
Quarterly 30/2: 201–230.
Phan Le Ha. 2004. ‘University classrooms in
Vietnam: contesting the stereotypes’. ELT Journal
58/1: 50–57.
Scollon, R. 1995. ‘Plagiarism and identity: identity
in intercultural discourse’. Language in Society 24:
1–28.
Thorpe, D. 1991. ‘Confused encounters: differing
expectations in the EAP classroom’. ELT Journal
45/2: 108–118.
Todd, E. S. 1997. ‘Supervising overseas students’
in D. McNamara and R. Harris (eds.).
Zamel, V. 1997. ‘Towards a model of
transculturation’. TESOL Quarterly 31/2:
341–352.
Plagiarism