Twitter discussion: on plagiarism

[Descartes]

https://twitter.com/Dianavmxx/status/1367847955596800002?s=19

Interesting discussion going on over here. The gist is this: professors have been known to copy materials word for word from other sources.

The one comment I wholeheartedly agree with is that the concept of "self plagiarism" is largely BS. Oh, and the one who said "college is a scam."

[Hibush]

https://twitter.com/Dianavmxx/status/1367847955596800002?s=19
The one comment I wholeheartedly agree with is that the concept of "self plagiarism" is largely BS. Oh, and the one who said "college is a scam."

Who said that? Are you using that quote without attribution? Plagiarism!!! /s


That is one depressing Twitter thread. I hope nobody here ends up with those tweeters in a class.

[RatGuy]

The gist is this: professors have been known to copy materials word for word from other sources.
Oh, and the one who said "college is a scam."

So I didn't read the whole thread, as I found it painful. But I don't think that's the gist -- the poster is a high school student, and most of the thread is about "teachers" rather than "professors." My understanding is that the girl was accused of plagiarism, and the joke is the "lesson plan" is on quizlet. With standardized curricula (and whatever might go on in a pedagogy class for soon-to-be K12 teachers), I don't think its surprising at all that such material circulates. I don't consider this plagiarism.

I also don't consider that thread an earnest discussion of plagiarism at the college level. The tweeter's reply is that "school" is a scam, not "college," and I would not consider much of that thread to be relevant to most fora folks.

[Caracal]

The gist is this: professors have been known to copy materials word for word from other sources.
Oh, and the one who said "college is a scam."

So I didn't read the whole thread, as I found it painful. But I don't think that's the gist -- the poster is a high school student, and most of the thread is about "teachers" rather than "professors." My understanding is that the girl was accused of plagiarism, and the joke is the "lesson plan" is on quizlet. With standardized curricula (and whatever might go on in a pedagogy class for soon-to-be K12 teachers), I don't think its surprising at all that such material circulates. I don't consider this plagiarism.

I also don't consider that thread an earnest discussion of plagiarism at the college level. The tweeter's reply is that "school" is a scam, not "college," and I would not consider much of that thread to be relevant to most fora folks.

You can't plagiarize in a lesson plan or quiz, or lecture, because there's no expectation that these things are original work. It just isn't a relevant concept. My teaching materials are a hodgepodge of things. When I first started teaching the intro course, a friend sent me his lecture notes and Powerpoints and I used those as a starting point for a lot of my lectures. Over the years we've shared material back and forth and we are always amused when it turns out that I'm sending him a lecture that was actually originally based on something he created, but I've heavily modified over the years. This kind of collaboration and sharing of material is a good thing and makes for better teaching.

[Descartes]

The gist is this: professors have been known to copy materials word for word from other sources.
Oh, and the one who said "college is a scam."

So I didn't read the whole thread, as I found it painful. But I don't think that's the gist -- the poster is a high school student, and most of the thread is about "teachers" rather than "professors." My understanding is that the girl was accused of plagiarism, and the joke is the "lesson plan" is on quizlet. With standardized curricula (and whatever might go on in a pedagogy class for soon-to-be K12 teachers), I don't think its surprising at all that such material circulates. I don't consider this plagiarism.

I also don't consider that thread an earnest discussion of plagiarism at the college level. The tweeter's reply is that "school" is a scam, not "college," and I would not consider much of that thread to be relevant to most fora folks.

Ah, you might well be correct.  I hadn't realized any of them were high school students.  I'm pretty sure some on that thread specifically mentioned college or university,  but you might be right that this wasn't most of them.

[kaysixteen]

Is it really true that a professor (or k12 teacher) cannot plagiarize a lesson plan, syllabus, etc.?   Why is this?  Under what definition of 'plagiarism' is this the case?

[marshwiggle]

Is it really true that a professor (or k12 teacher) cannot plagiarize a lesson plan, syllabus, etc.?   Why is this?  Under what definition of 'plagiarism' is this the case?

I know that sometimes, for teachers' college, students are required to make really detailed lesson plans, but in real life it's hard to see how one person's lesson plans would be much use to someone else. The assignments, exercises, and so on that would be used probably wouldn't be explicitly contained in the lesson plan, so anyone copying it would have to come up with those independently, and that is much more work than just coming up with an outline for a class.

[downer]

Interesting twitter thread? No.

Self-plagiarism? If you passing off old work as new, it is a cheating. Plagiarism seems a fair word.

I've downloaded whole powerpoints from the interwebs and used them in class, though often making some improvements along the way. Sometimes I give an attribution, though most come without the creator saying who they are.  I'm not the one being tested for my understanding in the class. Why make work for myself that I don't need to?

[namazu]

Is it really true that a professor (or k12 teacher) cannot plagiarize a lesson plan, syllabus, etc.?   Why is this?  Under what definition of 'plagiarism' is this the case?

I recall from discussion on the Old Fora that the norms can vary considerably by field.  In certain fields where syllabus construction is a creative project of selecting readings around a narrative theme, some people seemed more apt to consider their syllabi to be personal intellectual property and to bristle at the idea of others using their syllabi wholesale (let alone without attribution -- heavens!).  In other fields, particularly STEM fields, and in courses where there's a more-or-less sequence of topics/material to be covered, more people felt like it was no big deal (or even standard) to share syllabi without a second thought. Of course, institutional norms and personalities also mattered.

[marshwiggle]

Interesting twitter thread? No.

Self-plagiarism? If you passing off old work as new, it is a cheating. Plagiarism seems a fair word.

How often is the date of supposed production an explicit consideration in a work's evaluation?

Consider the following scenario:
Student enrolls in Advanced Basketweaving. Partway through the course, an essay topic is given. Stu writes the essay, but before submitting it, drops the course for some reason. Next year, Stu retakes the course. The same essay is assigned. Is it plagiarism for Stu to submit the essay already written for that very course, but never submitted? If so, what possible "cheating" is involved?

[downer]

Interesting twitter thread? No.

Self-plagiarism? If you passing off old work as new, it is a cheating. Plagiarism seems a fair word.

How often is the date of supposed production an explicit consideration in a work's evaluation?

Consider the following scenario:
Student enrolls in Advanced Basketweaving. Partway through the course, an essay topic is given. Stu writes the essay, but before submitting it, drops the course for some reason. Next year, Stu retakes the course. The same essay is assigned. Is it plagiarism for Stu to submit the essay already written for that very course, but never submitted? If so, what possible "cheating" is involved?

So there is exactly the same essay topic given in both classes? Then it is cheating for a lazy professor. The perfect match.

Actually, I think re-taking a course may be a special case. So long as student hasn't forgotten what they learned the first time around.

If the student has forgotten everything from the first time, but is submitting old work, then that's cheating.

[Puget]

Is it really true that a professor (or k12 teacher) cannot plagiarize a lesson plan, syllabus, etc.?   Why is this?  Under what definition of 'plagiarism' is this the case?

I recall from discussion on the Old Fora that the norms can vary considerably by field.  In certain fields where syllabus construction is a creative project of selecting readings around a narrative theme, some people seemed more apt to consider their syllabi to be personal intellectual property and to bristle at the idea of others using their syllabi wholesale (let alone without attribution -- heavens!).  In other fields, particularly STEM fields, and in courses where there's a more-or-less sequence of topics/material to be covered, more people felt like it was no big deal (or even standard) to share syllabi without a second thought. Of course, institutional norms and personalities also mattered.

It may help to reframe the question as "when does copying someone else's work harm someone?" rather than "what is plagiarism?"

When a student copies someone else's work, it harms the student, because they are not gaining the intended learning benefit from the assignment, and arguably hurts other students and the institution (be devaluing their degrees), and future employers (because the it provides false information about the knowledge and abilities of the student).

When someone publishes something that copies from someone else without attribution, it harms the original author (by denying them credit), and the copyright holder of the original work.

However, if someone borrows teaching materials that are freely shared (by colleagues, the textbook publisher, or an organization), it harms no one (so long as they are of good quality). In fact, it helps lots of people by drawing on the wisdom of many and saving precious time that can then be devoted to other important things.

For that reason, faculty in my field are generally happy to share teaching materials with colleagues. I've regularly put whole courses of slides and materials into shared folders for colleagues and had them do the same in return. You always have to adapt things to your own use, but it helps a lot.

[marshwiggle]

Is it really true that a professor (or k12 teacher) cannot plagiarize a lesson plan, syllabus, etc.?   Why is this?  Under what definition of 'plagiarism' is this the case?

I recall from discussion on the Old Fora that the norms can vary considerably by field.  In certain fields where syllabus construction is a creative project of selecting readings around a narrative theme, some people seemed more apt to consider their syllabi to be personal intellectual property and to bristle at the idea of others using their syllabi wholesale (let alone without attribution -- heavens!).  In other fields, particularly STEM fields, and in courses where there's a more-or-less sequence of topics/material to be covered, more people felt like it was no big deal (or even standard) to share syllabi without a second thought. Of course, institutional norms and personalities also mattered.

It may help to reframe the question as "when does copying someone else's work harm someone?" rather than "what is plagiarism?"

One good thing about that framing is it makes the concept of "self-plagiarism" illogical.

[Hegemony]

I don't know why people get all fired up about how "self-plagiarism" is not a thing. A person publishes a book. Then they write another book, and drop eight pages of chapter 2 of their first book verbatim into chapter 4 of their second book, without acknowledging it in any way. Now you could call that "re-using previously published material without acknowledgement and passing it off as new," or you could call it self-plagiarism. It's not quite the same as other plagiarism. That's why it's called self-plagiarism.

[Hibush]

I don't know why people get all fired up about how "self-plagiarism" is not a thing. A person publishes a book. Then they write another book, and drop eight pages of chapter 2 of their first book verbatim into chapter 4 of their second book, without acknowledging it in any way. Now you could call that "re-using previously published material without acknowledgement and passing it off as new," or you could call it self-plagiarism. It's not quite the same as other plagiarism. That's why it's called self-plagiarism.

Whose ideas are they stealing without attribution? Their former self?