Tyndale University College and Seminary

Assessing and Evaluating the Nature and Extent of Plagiarism in One Course at a Southern African Christian College in Kitwe, Zambia

A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Ministry Tyndale Seminary

by Richard Kent Ball

Toronto, Canada April 2014

Thesis Approval [NOTE: This sheet will be replaced by the DMin office with the official signed sheets.] The academic requirements for this DMin Thesis have been satisfactorily completed. STUDENTS NAME: _________________________________________ TITLE: Assessing and Evaluating the Nature and Extent of Plagiarism in One Course at a Southern African Christian College in Kitwe, Zambia APPROVAL DATE: __________________________________________ FIRST READER: ____________________________________________ SECOND READER: __________________________________________ THIRD READER: ____________________________________________

Copyright 2014 by Richard K. Ball All rights reserved

iii

DECLARATION AND DISCLAIMER Tyndale Seminary, Toronto, Canada

Statement 1 This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is not being concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree. (Signed)______________________________________ (candidate) (Date)_________________________________________

Statement 2 This thesis is the result of my own independent work/ investigation, except where otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged with explicit references. (Signed_______________________________________ (candidate) (Date) ________________________________________

Statement 3 The views expressed in this thesis are my own and do not necessarily express the views of the thesis readers or Tyndale Seminary. (Signed)_______________________________________ (candidate) (Date) ________________________________________

iv

LIBRARY RELEASE FORM FOR THESES DATE: May 12, 2014 CANDIDATES NAME: Richard K. Ball THESIS TITLE: Assessing and Evaluating the Nature and Extent of Plagiarism in One Course at a Southern African Christian College in Kitwe, Zambia DEGREE GRANTED: Doctor of Ministry YEAR DEGREE GRANTED: 2014 Permission is hereby granted to the Tyndale University College & Seminary Library to reproduce single copies of this work and to lend or sell such copies for private, scholarly, or research purposes only. A digital copy may also be made by the Library for preservation, and/or lending purposes. The author reserves all other publication and other rights in association with the copyright of this work, and except as hereinbefore provided, neither this work nor any substantial portion thereof may be printed or otherwise reproduced in any material form whatever without the authors prior written permission.

___________________________________ _________________________ Candidates signature Date Tyndale University College and Seminary 25 Ballyconnor Court, Toronto, ON Canada M2M 4B3 v

ABSTRACT A guest instructor at a Southern African Christian college in Kitwe, Zambia incorporated a tutorial in academic literacy and integrity into his course syllabus and assessed its effects through a syllabus quiz, end-of-class evaluation, and examination of student papers. Citation knowledge improved but plagiarism persisted. Subsequent in-depth analysis of plagiarized student writings yielded taxonomies of poor English, poor academic writing, tell-tale plagiarism indicators, and characteristics of plagiarism and fabrication present in student writings. Plagiarizing students were graded on their plagiarism. Three classes of plagiarizing students were identified. The researcher concluded something other than lack of knowledge was driving plagiarizing behaviours. If plagiarism results from deficiencies in knowledge, ability, or motivation, the driving forces seemed to reside in ability and/or motivation rather than citation knowledge. The researcher concluded plagiarism was grades-driven. A literature review identified pedagogical and moral perspectives of plagiarism. The researcher concluded plagiarism must be viewed and addressed through twin pedagogical and moral lenses, all instructors should view promoting academic literacy and integrity as integral to their job, and more attention should be paid to the role of the bibliography or Works Cited when assessing for plagiarism.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Panel-beating is a Zambian body shop term. Its an apt metaphor for a thesis which goes through many iterations and is assessed by many on its way to its final form. Appreciative thanks to all who helped and contributed, especially those labouring in African fields. Special thanks to Dr. John and Ruth Kerr of Trans-Africa Theological College, who approved the research and supported me throughout; to Dr. Jack and Nancy Whytock of Haddington House, valued mentors and colleagues; and to the students of Trans-Africa Theological College, whose consent to research made this thesis possible, and whose enthusiasm will be remembered with appreciation and gratitude.

vii

CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................xiii LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................xiv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................1 Thesis Chapters ..................................................................................................2 Project Background - Trans-Africa Theological College ...................................4 Problem/Opportunity .........................................................................................5 Constructing the Project .....................................................................................8 Formative Influences: Past Student Encounters ...........................................9 Response/Innovation ..................................................................................15 CHAPTER 2: THEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK .................................................16 The Role of a Christian Educator.....................................................................17 The Complexities of Plagiarism.......................................................................18 Christian Virtues, Academic Values, and Citation ...........................................19 Plagiarism: To Steal, To Commit Literary Theft .............................................23 Plagiarism: Not Crediting the Author ..............................................................27 The Acknowledgement ..............................................................................28 Shift in Honours Focus .............................................................................30 Plagiarism: Passing Off Anothers Ideas or Words As One's Own ..................31 Diligence ....................................................................................................32 Faithful and True Witness ..........................................................................33 Conclusion .......................................................................................................34 CHAPTER 3: PRECEDENT LITERATURE AND CASES .................................37 Governing Theories..........................................................................................38 M-Plagiarism....................................................................................................39 Prevalence ..................................................................................................40 Factors/Influences ......................................................................................40 Remedies ....................................................................................................42 P-Plagiarism .....................................................................................................42 Patchwriting................................................................................................43 Language Competencies, Unfamiliar Subject Matters, and Acquisition of Voice...........................................................................................................45 Academic Literacy and Culture .......................................................................46 L2, C2, and International Students ............................................................47 Culture........................................................................................................49

viii

L2 National Students - Native Students in Transplanted Western Academic Environments .............................................................................................52 Posner: The Assertion and Assumption of Originality ....................................53 Posner on Student Plagiarism.....................................................................55 Fabrication .................................................................................................56 The African Context .........................................................................................57 African International Students ...................................................................59 Arlene Archer - University of Cape Town Writing Centre ........................60 South African Anglil-Carters Contribution to Theory and Research ......61 The University of Zambia Do Not Plagiarize, it is a crime ...............65 Africa - Insights From Popular-Level Literature .......................................65 A Zambian Internet Forum Discussion ......................................................66 Plagiarism and Communal African Culture ...............................................68 The Syllabus As Solution .................................................................................69 Purposes A Syllabus Serves .......................................................................69 Goussots Precedent Action .......................................................................71 The Utility of a Syllabus Quiz .........................................................................72 Summary and Conclusion ................................................................................72 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY AND PROJECT ..............................................74 Research Context and Overview of Research Project .....................................74 Research Methodology and Project Definition ................................................75 Linkages to Plagiarism Theory ........................................................................78 Research Ethics ................................................................................................80 The Research Project Timeline ........................................................................81 Pre-Engagement Tasks and Timeline .........................................................81 Engagement Tasks and Timeline................................................................82 Post-Engagement Tasks and Timeline........................................................84 Pre-Engagement Research Design ...................................................................86 The Quiz and End-of-Course Evaluation ...................................................86 The Syllabus...............................................................................................89 Onsite Engagement: Administering the Quizzes, the Course, and the End-ofClass Evaluation...............................................................................................93 Minimizing the Research Footprint ...........................................................93 In-Class Review of the Syllabus ................................................................94 Marking the Book Reviews .......................................................................94 Finishing Up ..............................................................................................95 Post-Engagement Investigative Research ........................................................95 In-Depth Analysis of Plagiarized Student Papers ......................................95 Follow-on Letters to Students ....................................................................96

ix

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS AND OUTCOMES .....................................................97 Project Limitations ...........................................................................................99 The Syllabus Pre-Quiz Results ......................................................................100 Preliminary Pre-Quiz Questions Q1-Q10 Results ...................................101 Q11-Q27 - Academic Citation Standards - Pre-Quiz Results ..................104 Decopro vs. Regular Students .................................................................108 Student Attitudes Regarding Academic Integrity and Plagiarism ...........108 Plagiarism In The Book Reviews ..................................................................110 Student Attitudes and Opinions Regarding Academic Literacy and Integrity - Pre-Quiz Results .....................................................................112 Pre-quiz Student Comments ....................................................................115 Speaking With Students Who Plagiarized Their Book Reviews .............115 In-Class Engagements ...................................................................................118 Underlining of Family Names Issue ........................................................118 Paraphrasing.............................................................................................119 The Christs Resurrection Class Exercise ................................................120 The Syllabus Post-Quiz Results ....................................................................122 Pre/Post Quiz - Preliminary Questions Q1-Q10 - Results.......................123 Q11-Q27 - Academic Citation Standards - Pre/Post-Quiz Results ..........127 Pre/Post-Quiz - Student Attitudes Re: Academic Integrity and Plagiarism Results .....................................................................................................132 Plagiarism in the Essays ................................................................................135 The End-Of-Class Survey .............................................................................137 End-of-Class Engagements............................................................................139 The Apologetics Exam - A Late Arriver ..................................................140 A Final Request .......................................................................................140 Post-Engagement In-Depth Analysis of Plagiarized Student Papers.............141 Poor Writing The Immediate Literary Context for Plagiarism Among TTC Students ...........................................................................................142 Plagiarism Indicators ...............................................................................145 Further Plagiarism Characteristics...........................................................148 Plagiarizing Student Profiles ...................................................................155 Post Engagement With Students ....................................................................158 R03 - a C-grader ......................................................................................159 D01 - a B-grader ......................................................................................161 D05 - a B-grader ......................................................................................163 R17 - an A-grader ....................................................................................165 The Pretoria Bible College Consultation Conference....................................168 Trans-Africa Theological College 2014 ........................................................169 Summary .......................................................................................................173

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS....................................175 The Syllabus and Quiz...................................................................................175 Plagiarism and Citation Knowledge ..............................................................177 The Follow-On Work of 2014........................................................................178 An Instructors View of the Syllabus.............................................................178 An Instructors View of the Quiz...................................................................179 The Knowledge - Behaviour Gap ..................................................................180 Lack of Precision ...........................................................................................181 The Role of the Bibliography or MLA Works Cited in Plagiarism Assessment .......................................................................................................................181 Time ...............................................................................................................182 Varying Academic Assignments: Group, Solo, Written, Oral........................183 The Double Lens of Pedagogy and Morality ................................................184 The Utility of In-Depth Analysis ...................................................................184 Poor Writing.............................................................................................185 Plagiarism Indicators and Characteristics................................................185 Fabrication ...............................................................................................185 Its The Grade, ......................................................................................186 Knowledge - Ability - Motivation .................................................................189 Knowledge ...............................................................................................189 Ability ......................................................................................................190 Motivation................................................................................................191 The Limitations of A Guest Instructors Role................................................191 Keeping The Positive In View .......................................................................192 Academic Literacy and Integrity: Every Instructors Responsibility ............193 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY ...............................................................................195 APPENDIX B: RESEARCH ETHICS DESIGN AND EXECUTION ...............198 Ethical Considerations and Approach............................................................198 Voluntariness............................................................................................200 Informed Consent ....................................................................................200 Instructor Power over Students................................................................201 Privacy and Confidentiality. ....................................................................201 Zambian Social Science Research Ethics ......................................................201 Research Ethics Certification ........................................................................204 Research Ethics Consent Forms and Scripts .................................................205 Research Ethics Institutional Consent Form............................................205 Research Ethics Information Card ...........................................................209 Research Ethics Script - Prior to Start of In-Class Research ...................211 Research Ethics Script - Post-Class Research Consent ...........................213 xi

Post-Research Student Consent Form......................................................215 Correspondent Informal Consent Statement ...........................................218 Business Card Informal Consent Statement ............................................219 APPENDIX C: THE 2013 SYLLABUS QUIZ ANNOTATED .....................220 APPENDIX D: 2013 SYLLABUS QUIZ ...........................................................230 TTC 2013 Apologetics Course - Syllabus Pre-Quiz - Cover Page ................230 TTC 2013 Apologetics Course - Syllabus Post-Quiz - Cover Page ..............231 TTC 2013 Apologetics Course - Syllabus Quiz ............................................232 APPENDIX E: 2013 END-OF-CLASS EVALUATION ....................................238 TTC Apologetics 2013 - Syllabus/Course Evaluation ...................................238 APPENDIX F: 2013 APOLOGETICS SYLLABUS...........................................243 Trans-Africa Theological College (TTC) Apologetics Syllabus 2013 ..........243 APPENDIX G: MODEL FOLLOW-ON LETTER TO STUDENTS..................259 APPENDIX H: 2014 APOLOGETICS SYLLABUS..........................................261 APPENDIX I: 2014 SYLLABUS QUIZ .............................................................279 APPENDIX J: DATA TABLES ...........................................................................285 Table A.J.1. Plagiarism in book reviews mapped to pre-quiz wrong answers 285 Table A.J.2. Student book review grades and plagiarism mapped to low alignment qA-qK answers and student comments ........................................287 Table A.J.3. Student comments - Post-quiz ...................................................291 Table A.J.4. Student plagiarism mapped to wrong post-quiz answers ..........292 Table A.J.5. End-of-class evaluation questions sA-sG ..................................294 Table A.J.6. Student comments - End-of-class evaluation ............................295 APPENDIX K: MY RESPONSES RE: LETTERS TO STUDENTS .................298 Response to R03 ............................................................................................298 Response to D01 ............................................................................................299 APPENDIX L: 2014 FLAGGED FOR PLAGIARISM FORM .........................301 REFERENCE LIST .............................................................................................303

xii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. Detected plagiarism - Apologetics book review assignment - TTC 2004 - 2012..... 7 Figure 5.1. Detected plagiarism - Apologetics book review assignment - TTC 2004 - 2013......117 Figure 5.2. Detected plagiarism - Apologetics book review assignment - TTC 2004 - 2014......172

xiii

LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1. Pre-Engagement Tasks and Timeline....82 Table 4.2. Course Onsite Engagement Tasks and Timeline.......82 Table 4.3. Post-Engagement Tasks and Timeline......84 Table 5.1. Syllabus pre-quiz questions Q1-Q6....102 Table 5.2. Syllabus pre-quiz questions Q7-Q10......104 Table 5.3. Syllabus pre-quiz questions Q11-Q20 - Less important to plagiarism.........105 Table 5.4. Syllabus pre-quiz questions Q13-Q27 - Important to plagiarism - Book reviews.....106 Table 5.5. Syllabus pre-quiz questions Q13-Q27 - Important to plagiarism General.107 Table 5.6. - Syllabus results for pre-quiz questions qA-qK.....110 Table 5.7. Plagiarism in book reviews mapped to pre-quiz wrong answers....111 Table 5.8. Select students mapped to low alignment to qA-qK answers and student comments.113 Table 5.9. Syllabus Pre/Post-Quiz questions Q1-Q6...125 Table 5.10. Syllabus Pre/Post-Quiz questions Q7-Q10...126 Table 5.11. Syllabus Pre/Post Quiz questions Q11-Q20 - Less important to plagiarism.........128 Table 5.12. Syllabus Pre/Post Quiz questions Q13-Q27 - Important to plagiarism Book reviews...129 Table 5.13. Syllabus Pre/Post Quiz questions Q13-Q27 - Important to plagiarism General.....130 Table 5.14. Syllabus Quiz questions qA-qK - Pre/Post Quiz results...133 Table 5.15. End-of-Class Evaluation select questions sA-sG..138 Table A.J.1. Plagiarism in book reviews mapped to pre-quiz wrong answers.....286 Table A.J.2. Student book review grades/plagiarism mapped to low alignment qAqK answers and student comments......288 Table A.J.3. Student comments - Post-quiz.....291 Table A.J.4. Student plagiarism mapped to wrong post-quiz answers.....293 Table A.J.5. End-of-class evaluation questions sA-sG....294 Table A.J.6. Student comments - End-of-class evaluation...296 Unless otherwise indicated, all Bible references in this paper are from The New American Standard Bible (NASB). (The Lockman Foundation: La Habra, CA).

xiv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION For the past eleven years (1994-2014), I have travelled from Canada to Africa serving as a visiting guest-instructor at Trans-Africa Theological College (TTC) located in Kitwe, Zambia. The fourth-year, graduating students in my seven-day, intensive, Christian apologetics classes have been receptive and enthusiastic, eagerly embracing what an academically-oriented institution such as TTC, and I as a visiting instructor, have to offer. While these engagements have been rewarding, plagiarism has been a recurring problem (see fig.1 for incident levels). Several times I have had to give students zeroes on their assignments and more than one student has ended up failing the course because of plagiarism. This is tough on them and tough on me. Incidents of plagiarism appear to be on the rise, perhaps in conjunction with deteriorating English language skills that have been noted by myself and others, along with increasing availability of the Internet to Zambian students. As a consequence, I embarked on a project that sought to address, assess, and evaluate the phenomenon of plagiarism at TTC.

Thesis Chapters Chapter 1 summarizes the project and provides the background context and thinking that went into the formation of this research project. I describe the formative precedent influences that shaped both me and the research project. I sketch the nature and focus of the research. Chapter 2 provides a theological framework for the project. I argue that Christian educators in academic contexts need to inform themselves about plagiarism and deal with it in a manner consistent with Christian values. I argue for the consonance of academic citation standards with Christian virtues and conclude that Christian educators should uphold citation standards when teaching in academic settings. I root my argument in the congruity of three of the Ten Commandments with three definitional dimensions of plagiarism. I conclude by suggesting it might be better to de-emphasize the theft dimension associated with student plagiarism and focus instead on the more positive dimensions of truthtelling and honoring others, by giving credit where due. Chapter 3 summarizes my review of relevant social science literature. I distinguish between those who frame plagiarism primarily as a moral issue related to student motivation and those who frame it primarily as a pedagogical issue related to student knowledge and ability. I perform a literature review of both positions. Where possible I use academic literature from Africa. From Zambia I offer a series of Internet forum posts on academic integrity and plagiarism that

present an illuminating person-on-the-street view of the problem. I conclude by looking at literature pertaining to the use of a syllabus as an instructional and communicative tool. Chapter 4 describes the project. On the pedagogical assumption that students might have insufficient citation knowledge, I developed a tutorial on academic literacy and integrity and incorporated it into my class syllabus. To assess its effect, I developed a tutorial quiz which I administered at the start and end of class. I also developed and administered an end-of-class evaluation. I assessed for plagiarism as usual in the two formal academic assignments, a book review and essay. Subsequent to marking the students papers and submitting student grades, I performed in-depth analysis of plagiarizing students submissions. I developed and sent a follow-up letter to the plagiarizing students detailing their plagiarism and inviting them to respond. Qualitative/quantitative mixed-methods were used to gather student data. The project adhered to the shared ethical research standards of Canada and Zambia. In 2014 I performed a second abbreviated research cycle. Chapter 5 details the research findings. There are indications that citation knowledge improved, but plagiarism persisted. From in-depth analysis of plagiarizing students writings, I identified taxonomies of poor English, poor academic writing, several plagiarism indicators or give-aways, and tell-tale

characteristics of plagiarism and fabrication present in student writings. I graded students on plagiarism and identified three classes of plagiarizing students. Chapter 6 summarizes the findings and assesses what they may mean to me, a visiting guest instructor, and to the students and faculty at Trans-Africa Theological College. I conclude that something other than simple lack of knowledge drove plagiarizing behaviours among the students. If plagiarism results from deficiencies in knowledge, ability, or motivational alignment, the driving forces seemed to reside in ability and/or motivation rather than lack of citation knowledge. I conclude that plagiarism must be viewed and addressed through pedagogical and moral lenses and that more attention ought to be paid to the role of the bibliography or Works Cited when assessing for plagiarism. Project Background - Trans-Africa Theological College Trans-Africa Theological College (TTC) was established in 1967 by the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC) in Kitwe, Zambia (TTC 2009). It offers a four-year academic degree in association with Pan Africa Christian university, as well as two- and three-year non-degree programs (TTC 2014a). Degrees conferred by TTC are recognized by the government of Zambia (TTC 2009). The 100-plus student body includes students from the Pentecostal Assemblies of God (PAOG) Zambia as well as other denominations. Students come primarily from Zambia, but some also come from the D.R. Congo and other countries. The student body is a mix of young persons studying for ministry and 4

veteran ministers, commonly referred to as Decopro (degree completion program) students, seeking accreditation. As indicated by informal discussions with TTC faculty, and by the TTC prospectus, TTC is committed to an academic approach to learning. Such an approach emphasizes development of critical thinking and writing skills. Part of this is the submission of properly formatted work characterized by academic literacy and integrity. With regards to the latter, TTCs prospectus says, cheating on exams (i.e., copying from another persons exam, using cheat notes, etc.), on assignments and plagiarism (the presentation of someone elses work as the students own without proper documentation) will result in course failure (TTC 2009). As indicated by informal discussions with Mrs. Ruth Kerr at TTC, TTCs curriculum includes a first-year course in academic writing that includes guidelines for the submission of properly formatted, properly cited work. Problem/Opportunity TTC seeks to develop both ministerial and academic competencies in its students. It does so in the midst of what some have characterized as a deteriorating Zambian educational system. For example, I asked the Reverend David Wegener whether he had detected either improvement or deterioration in the English and academic skills among the students passing through his Zambian Bible college down the road in Ndola over the past ten years. In an email response dated January 22, 2013 he said, Easy. English skills have gone down hill. Still

there are a few really fine students and so many that are a privilege to teach. I have noticed this deterioration myself, and others I have spoken with at TTC concur. Further evidence which suggests deterioration of the Zambian educational system in general is offered in Chapter 3. Canadian institutions like Tyndale Seminary have a robust academic literacy/integrity infrastructure. This infrastructure includes student handbooks, tutorials, websites, librarians trained in academic literacy/integrity issues, and writing centres with available consultants. However, one can assume no such things at a resource-poor African institution like TTC. While TTC is characterized by many of the artifacts associated with academic institutions (e.g., a campus, a library, instructors, classrooms, student housing, an administrative building, and the use of syllabi, essays, exams, and quizzes) it is poor in resources to develop academic skills and combat plagiarism. For example, it has no student handbook and its website does not address the issue (TTC 2014b). This affects the role of a visiting instructor. What can a visiting instructor do to help a resource-poor African college promote academic standards? The number of students in my fourth-year graduating class ranges each year from the low to high twenties and the students themselves are different each year. Assignments have varied over the years but a book review due first day of class has been a constant. Figure 1.1 illustrates the levels of detected student plagiarism in the book review assignment for data available from 2004 - 2012.

Figure 1.1. Detected plagiarism - Apologetics book review assignment - TTC 2004 - 2012.

No. of Students

No. of students

3 2 2 2 2 1 0 2004 0 2005 0 2006 2008 2009 2010 2011

2012

The data indicate that plagiarism has been a recurring classroom problem for a number of years. While formal academic methods may or may not be the best way to train students for Christian ministry these are contextual realities; challenging them is beyond my role as an invited guest instructor and beyond the scope of this thesis. TTC is committed to standards of academic scholarship (TTC 2009), as is the Zambian government (as will be shown in Chapter 3). Given these commitments, seeking to improve TTC students ability to do sound academic work characterized by academic literacy and integrity, including the avoidance of plagiarism, is a worthwhile endeavor. At the same time, I recognized that cultural factors may make it more difficult for African students to understand and appreciate the need for citations

and may contribute to plagiarism among African students. Because of this, I sought to proceed in a culturally informed manner. Constructing the Project According to Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary, to plagiarize is to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as ones own : use (anothers production) without crediting the source (Merriam-Webster 2003, 946). There are three discernible dimensions of plagiarism present in this definition: (a) literary misappropriation or theft, that is, stealing the ideas or words of another, (b) misrepresentation, that is, passing them off as ones own; and, (c) failing to give credit or honour where due, that is, failing to credit the source. In the case of student plagiarism a fourth dimension may be added: (d) for the purpose of gaining academic credit. While scrupulous citing of sources may enable one to avoid the accusation of plagiarism, there is more to citation than simply avoiding plagiarism. Citation serves at least four salutary purposes: (a) to provide authority or evidence for what you are saying, (b) to provide a research trail for others, (c), to give credit to others, and (d) to differentiate between your ideas and words and the words and ideas of others (Turabian 2007, 133). It is the latter two dimensions that pertain to plagiarism. Source citation, and plagiarism avoidance, are aspects of academic literacy. There are many challenges to achieving academic literacy in general and

what might be termed citation-compliance in particular. These challenges, which are discussed in Chapter 3, are faced by even the most advantaged students. However, these challenges are compounded when there are academic, linguistic, or cultural distances among the students. To illustrate, as I can personally attest, virtually all Zambian students attending TTC face linguistic distances associated with English being a second (L2) language. There are also cultural distances students encounter when entering the subculture of the academy. According to the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA), Zambian primary and secondary education remains largely rote-based, with an emphasis on memorization of knowledge rather than development of critical thinking skills (OSISA 2014). Coupled with this is the fact that educational standards in Zambia appear to be deteriorating (as indicated earlier). Because of these factors, students are not always prepared for tertiary (i.e., post-secondary) education at a degree-granting college. Formative Influences: Past Student Encounters An instructor seeks to shape students, but students invariably shape instructors as well. As a starting point for the project, and in the spirit of reflective practice (Hatton and Smith 1995), I reflected upon how past engagements had shaped my views and motivated me to do something about plagiarism. As a starting point, I recognized that plagiarism may be either intentional or unintentional. The Purdue University Online Writing Lab, for example, defines

plagiarism as the uncredited use (both intentional and unintentional) of somebody else's words or ideas (Purdue University 2014a). The Baylor University website, meanwhile, indicates, students may fail to understand how to quote accurately and paraphrase effectively, and it is possible for students to plagiarism without realizing they are doing so (Baylor 2014). While it is sometimes difficult to discern between unintentional and intentional plagiarism, several instances of plagiarism I encountered over the past eleven years seemed intentional, with moral implications. In one case a student got ahold of his roommates study notes and crafted them into an essay he presented as his own work. The result was two look-alike papers. The roommate appeared genuinely surprised when I spoke to him or her about this. When I spoke with the plagiarizing student, his initial response was a defensive denial of wrongdoing. He declared, I did not copy my roommates paper! I replied, no, you copied his study notes. At this, he wilted, and confessed that he had. A time of redemptive prayer and reconciliation ensued. In another case, two students handed in substantially the same book review. When I inquired, it turned out both reviews had been generated from the same laptop computer. The fonts were different, suggesting a clumsy attempt at concealment. In spite of the clear similarities of their papers, the two students denied collusion, while at the same time insisting that standards for book reviews were more relaxed than those for an essay. Since neither would indicate who had

10

copied from whom, I gave them both zeroes. Their only question to me was, can we get zero on the book review and still pass the course. They later complained of the injustice of being falsely accused. While several instances of plagiarism clearly seemed intentional, there was at least one instance that gave me serious pause. A student missed the final exam. As make-up I assigned him or her the task of reading and writing a short review of two books on apologetics. Since I had returned to Canada, the student typed the reviews and emailed them to me (most submissions are still handwritten). I read his or her reviews and initially gave the student an A on both, commending the student for his or her work. However, something did not feel quite right. I located the two books at a nearby library and began to read. After some effort I determined that the students submissions consisted entirely of verbatim extracts from the books; the only words that were the students were the occasional connectives used to start a new paragraph or section. I estimate that in the two reviews fewer than ten words were the students own. If giving a student a zero grade illustrates the tough-on-the-student, toughon-me issue associated with plagiarism, this raises a second problem: when an instructor misses plagiarism and gives a student an undeserved grade (as I nearly did), the instructor becomes part of the problem. This is so whether the plagiarism is intentional or not. When the instructor positively praises the student for this work (as I nearly did), it is even worse.

11

Because of this, plagiarism is not just a matter of the student who plagiarizes. It is also involves the instructor who may become an unwitting accomplice in giving a good grade and praise where neither is due. In this sense, student plagiarism is not a victimless crime. I took the time to read this students paper in good faith and wrote good argument, or well-expressed, and it was undeserved. In cases where I sense the plagiarism was done deliberately, I feel suckered and betrayed. I emailed the student two grades of F along with an explanation. He or she emailed back asking if he or she could re-submit in line with [my] guidance. This request struck me forcibly. It was as if the student was indicating he or she had never been told what was expected of him or her in a book review; it was if he or she had no idea that there would be a problem simply copying words from a book and submitting it as a book review. I needed guidance myself. For this I turned to my African hosts. My hosts in Africa are two Canadians living in Zambia, Dr. John and Mrs. Ruth Kerr. I asked them about the puzzling situation with this student. Mrs. Kerr said that the students receive instruction in English grammar, writing, and academic writing during two first-year courses. However, she pointed out that this student was a Decopro, that is, a mature, continuing-education, part-time student, and he may have missed some of this instruction.

12

Another instructive encounter entailed the way students present author names. TTC students often invert author names. They present authors in lastname, first-name order in the body of their essays. Christian apologist Lee Strobel, for example, becomes Strobel Lee. I brought this to the attention of a prior years class. I indicated that if both names are used, they should be in firstname last-name order. One of the students corrected me, insisting they had been taught differently. They had been told to present names in inverted order. I was wrong. I asked him or her whether he or she had ever seen names written this way in a book and insisted I was right in this matter. He or she wouldnt budge. I checked that evening with Mrs. Ruth Kerr. As I had suspected, she indicated they were taught to use last-name, first-name in the end-of-text Works Cited section only. I wondered, from this, if instructions are perhaps understood superficially and inflexibly, with students failing to grasp the why, that is, the rationale, underlying a what. Perhaps it would help if I provided students with an underlying rationale for citing sources and avoiding plagiarism. Another instructive encounter occurred the year I deducted grades from several students who had copied from a book they were reviewing. Whole sentences and paragraphs had been copied, un-cited. Several of them had copied from the books back cover, which did the work of providing them with a concise summary.

13

The students pushed-back on my reduced grades, arguing that standards for essays do not apply to book reviews. One came to me and indicated student sponsorships would be at risk due to reduced grades his or her included. Grades were clearly important to them. This suggested two things to me. First, that at least some instances of plagiarism may result from lack of knowledge, and, second, for at least some students, getting high grades is of paramount importance. At the end of this class I asked this group to define plagiarism. To a person they defined it as stealing. They insisted it was illegal. More than one suggested anyone caught plagiarizing should be expelled from TTC. It seems they were plagiarism fundamentalists, viewing plagiarism as theft worthy of severe censure. However, at the same time they apparently believed plagiarism was something done by nameless, faceless, others and not themselves. When I asked Mrs. Ruth Kerr about their comments regarding the illegality of plagiarism, she indicated that Zambian students commonly conflate plagiarism with copyright infringement. These formative experiences informed the way I constructed the project. As I thought about them, I realized I had been functioning in a detect-and-punish mode: I arrived from Canada, assigned and assessed work, and when I found plagiarism, pounced. This resulted in an unhappy experience for the students and for me. I formed the goal of developing a more proactive educate-and-deter

14

model. As I thought further about the issue I posited a working premise that the root-causes of plagiarism must lie in deficiencies in (a) knowledge, (b) ability, or (c) motivation. Response/Innovation The question became, what can I, as a visiting guest instructor, do to promote academic literacy and integrity, including the creation of properly formatted, properly cited work. I realized that the visiting guest instructor has a tool at his or her disposal that I had not been utilizing to full advantage: the syllabus that both precedes and accompanies the instruction. I decided to develop a brief tutorial on academic writing, embed it in my syllabus tutorial, and assess its effectiveness via a syllabus quiz. When plagiarism among the students persisted, I performed an in-depth assessment of the plagiarizing students papers and sent them follow-on letters detailing their plagiarism and inviting further discussion. In this chapter I have summarized the project and provided the background context and thinking that went into the formation of the research project. I described the formative precedent influences that shaped both me and the research project. I sketched the nature and focus of the research. Several terms have been introduced. Appendix A contains a glossary of terminology and conventions used. The next chapter presents a theological framework for the project.

15

CHAPTER 2: THEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK In this chapter I provide a theological framework for addressing and assessing plagiarism. I consider my understanding of my role as a Christian educator and then develop a theological framework around the pedagogical and moral dimensions of plagiarism. The pedagogical discussion is brief; it is based on the Christian educators duty to prepare students for academic work. The moral framework is based on an exploration of dimensions of plagiarism found in the definition offered in Chapter 1, namely, taking anothers material, representing it as ones own, while failing to credit the original source. In the case of student plagiarism, a fourth dimension may be added: doing so to gain academic credit. Not all plagiarism is deliberate. It can result from lack of knowledge, ability, or accident. It is complex. Plagiarism is also contested. As Chapter 3 will indicate, some educators argue it is better viewed as a pedagogical, rather than moral, issue. Since plagiarism is contested and complex, Christian educators must do more than simply enforce the plagiarism rules in effect in their context. They must make the necessary effort to (a) inform themselves about the issue, (b) develop biblically-informed views on the subject, and then (c) act in a manner consistent with these views. In the Chapter 3 literature review I seek to do the 16

first; in this chapter, the second, and in Chapter 4 describing project methodology and scope, I seek to do the third. The Role of a Christian Educator When I was first asked to teach apologetics eleven years ago, I understood my role primarily as a content communicator and encourager. Subsequently, I realized I should try to train students as apologists rather than just educate them in apologetical content. More recently, I came to recognize that the Christian educators role includes character development. I refer to these components as the three Cs: (1) content, (2) competencies, and (3) character. According to Christian educator Ted Ward, the mandate of Christian education is to facilitate spiritual development and whatever other matters of learning and development are supportive to that end (Ward 1998, 12). But what is meant by spiritual development used in a Christian context? As Roman Catholic writer Michael D. Guinan notes, the term itself is vague (Guinan 2014). Guinan suggests a helpful starting place is to ask, what is the 'spirit' in spirituality" (Guinan 2014). He goes on to suggest the answer is Holy Spirit: You could even define Christian spirituality as our life in the Spirit of God or the art of letting God's Spirit fill us, work in us, guide us (Guinan 2014). I agree with Guinans view. And, while spiritual development, or growing in the life in the Spirit, entails more than development of moral character, moral character is unquestionably integral to Christian spirituality or life in the Spirit. 17

This brings us to the role of the Christian educator. Christian education does not have to follow a formal academic model. The apostle Pauls admonition to Timothy in II Timothy 2:2 (The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also), along with his hands-on mentoring of Timothy, suggest that an apprenticeship model of learning is entirely biblical. However, when an academic model is adopted, the Christian educator has an obligation to prepare his or her students for academic work. This preparatory work could be characterized as an obligation to equip the saints for the work of the academy (cf . Ephesians 4:12). It is with this sense of obligation towards a positive rather than negative goal that I embarked on this project. The Complexities of Plagiarism Morally culpable plagiarism occurs when it is either intentional or due to preventable carelessness. Morally innocent plagiarism occurs when it lacks intentionality and results from lack of knowledge or ability (despite best efforts), or accident (as in a typographical error or faulty reference). When plagiarism results from lack of knowledge or ability, the onus falls on the instructor to assist his or her students, as part of the instructors obligation to equip the saints. Although I cover it briefly, equipping the saints for the work of the academy by promoting academic literacy and integrity is integral to this project and its theological framework. It could be considered my vision statement.

18

While plagiarism may be innocent and pedagogical in nature, plagiarism often does entail a moral dimension. Since this is the case, it is the Christian educators role to assist students in both preventative and remedial ways. There are two roughly-synonymous terms used to describe moral conduct within the walls of the academy: academic honesty and academic integrity. Morality is integral to spirituality. Therefore, when Wards statement is applied in an academic context, it means that promoting academic honesty and integrity is not peripheral to a Christian educators role. It is integral to it. It lies at its heart. Christian Virtues, Academic Values, and Citation As indicated previously, according to Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary, to plagiarize is to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as ones own : use (anothers production) without crediting the source (MerriamWebster 2003, 946). There are three discernible dimensions of plagiarism present in this definition: (a) literary misappropriation or theft, that is, stealing the ideas or words of another, (b) misrepresentation, that is, passing them off as ones own; and, (c) failing to give credit or honour where due, that is, failing to credit the source. In the case of student plagiarism a fourth dimension may be added: (d) for the purpose of gaining academic credit. By taking these negative dimensions and re-working them into their corresponding positives, the positive values associated with citation may be stated as: (a) doing honest work, (b) truth-telling, and (c) honouring others by giving

19

them due credit. A fourth dimension could be, (d) seeking only academic credit that is due. There is a remarkable one-to-one correspondence between these four values and time-honoured Christian virtues. In fact, doing honest work, truthtelling, and honouring others by giving credit where due are not only congruent with Christian virtues, they are Christian virtues. The moral dimension of the theological framework, therefore, is based on framing citation practices as Christian virtues and viewing plagiarism as a transgression against these virtues. These three elements are viewed as virtues in Scripture. Truth-telling runs from Genesis 3:1 (cf. John 8:44) to Revelation 21:8. Honour is found in Abrahams tithe to Melchizedek (Genesis 14:20) and runs though to the honour accruing to Christ in the book of Revelation (e.g., 5:13, 21:26). Doing honest work and avoiding theft is found in Proverbs (e.g., 6:6-11) and shows up in various other ways in Scripture. However, the seminal locus of these commands is found in the following three of the Ten Commandments: do not steal, do not bear false witness and, honour your parents (and, by extension, others who deserve honour) (Exodus 20:12, 15-16). I am not the first person to apply the Ten Commandments to the issue of plagiarism, nor am I the first to consider plagiarism asa transgression of Christian virtues. Douglas Weir Graham produced a Doctor of Ministry thesis in 2010 entitled Pulpit plagiarism. As I have done, he also used three of the Ten

20

Commandments. However, where I use the prohibitions against theft, false witness and the injunction to honor parents, he used theft, false witness, and the prohibition against covetousness. In 2012 David E. Alexander and Kent Eilers authored an article entitled Evil in the classroom: Deception and desire. In this article they discuss deliberate plagiarism in the light of the seven deadly sins (Alexander and Eilers 2012). With respect to the Ten Commandments, Calvin taught that each negative prohibition in the Ten Commandments has a corresponding positive injunction, and vice-versa (Burgess 2014). This means that each negative commandment has a corresponding positive obligation. Because of this, each prohibition has a corresponding virtue (or virtues) associated with it. As I shall demonstrate, at the highest level, these virtues have something to do with either love of God or neighbour. The Ten Commandments, while situated in the Old Testament, extend into the New. Nine are repeated in the New Testament. (The sabbath command is not, but it is arguably echoed in the book of Hebrews (4:9) dealing with the rest available to believers.) These commands were central to the thinking of the apostle Paul, who stressed the new life in the Spirit (e.g., Romans 8), and thus, spiritual development. Their centrality is seen in Pauls admonition to the church at Rome: Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, You shall not commit adultery, 21

You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:8-10) Here the Ten Commandments are summed up by one overarching admonition: to love ones neighbour. Loving ones neighbour is not an option; it is an obligation, or in Pauline terms, a debt. The apostle Pauls method in Romans 13 is to provide a partial enumeration of the Ten Commandments and then sum them up as love your neighbour. However, it is also profitable to consider them from the other direction. The Scripture indicates we ought to love our neighbour, something few Christians would argue with. However, if one wants to know what loving ones neighbour looks like, as indicated by Romans 13, the Ten Commandments may be though of as a divine exegesis of what loving ones neighbour looks like. Far from being marginalized or superseded by the New Covenant, they are integral to the new life in the Spirit and, therefore, integral to spiritual and/or moral formation. The strong congruency between citation values and Christian virtues makes building a theological framework relatively straightforward: plagiarism, the moral kind at least, may be viewed as a deficiency in virtue. Therefore, promoting academic literacy and integrity, assessing for plagiarism, and taking appropriate actions when it is found, may be viewed as part of the ministerial task of developing or rehabilitating these virtues in students.

22

The practical implication to Christian educators is this: Christian educators must do more than negatively tell students not to plagiarize. Rather, they should first positively teach the virtues of truth-telling, honour-giving, and honest work, and then indicate how these apply to academic work. One way of doing this could be to stress the various purposes and merits of citation (e.g., Turabian 2007, 133), and then frame plagiarism as hamartia, or missing the mark. This approach is in harmony with my desire to move from a detect-and-punish mode to a more positive educate-and-deter mode. As such, it forms an important part of the theological framework. Teach the Christian virtues first, the values of citation second, and plagiarism-as-transgression third. But how exactly should plagiarism be viewed as transgression? In what ways or senses does it represent a transgression against the virtues of doing honest work, truth-telling, and giving credit where due? To answer these questions we must consider more closely the four dimensions of student plagiarism I have identified taking anothers labour, misrepresenting it as ones own, failing to credit the original author, for the purpose of academic credit. Plagiarism: To Steal, To Commit Literary Theft Plagiarism is commonly understood as stealing. However, consistent with the move away from viewing plagiarism as a moral issue, some modern dictionaries drop the theft element. The online Oxford Dictionaries website, for example, defines plagiarism as the practice of taking someone elses work or

23

ideas and passing them off as ones own (Oxford Dictionaries 2014b). While the idea of appropriation (i.e., taking) is present, the idea of misappropriation (i.e., theft) is not. So, what is a Christian educator to make of the (alleged) theft dimension of plagiarism? The first thing to note is that not all student plagiarism entails theft from an author. A term paper purchased from a paper mill has not been stolen. Nor has one willingly provided by a collaborating student or parent. Nor has material in the public domain for which the author permits unrestricted, unacknowledged, use. However, sometimes the charge of theft seems warranted. Writer Caro Clarkes work was plagiarized. She uses the language of theft to express the sense of personal violation she felt. On her website she says the following: My first reaction was sickness, the same sort of sick violation that someone feels when their house has been burgled. I then became so angry at this brazen passing off that I literally saw through a red mist. Then helplessness: how could I make this plagiarist remove my work from her site? What sanctions did I have? None except reproach reproach, against a bare-faced thief? (Clarke, 2014) In a similar vein, Kenyan student and thesis writer Anne Nangunda Kukali felt sufficiently defrauded to sue another student for the wholesale plagiarism (i.e., theft) of her thesis (Onchana 2011). There is more to plagiaristic theft, however, than theft of an authors material. I discuss some further dimensions here. Canadian journalist Rex Murphy writes about the theft of wood in his native Newfoundland. He offers the insight that such theft entails more than 24

taking a persons property or even livelihood; it is theft of their labours (Murphy 2010). Stealing a man or womans labour in the form of a neat pile of wood parallels stealing a man or womans labour in the form of a neat pile of closely reasoned, published argument. Furthermore, finding, hauling, cutting and stacking wood is labour directed towards an outcome a woodpile. In the same manner, student labour is directed towards composition whose outcome might be called a wordpile words neatly stacked, tightly reasoned, line upon line, precept upon precept. More than just words, plagiarism entails theft of labour, and not labour only, but literary labours result, composition. Two books on plagiarism use the word stolen in their title: Thomas Mallons Stolen Words (1989) and Shelley Anglil-Carters Stolen Language? (2000). The phrase stolen composition might be a better articulation of what is going on and what is at stake here. It is not words or even language, but the particular way they are used, the way they are stacked and piled, their composition. Seen in this light, plagiarism is not just a failure to cite; it should be seen as a failure to write. In this sense plagiarizing students in effect steal from themselves by denying themselves the opportunity to develop the competencies that come from practice alone. This is true whether the plagiarism is intentional or not.

25

The second point is this. Student plagiarism is different from the plagiarism done by professional journalists or academics. This is so for at least three reasons. First, professional writers are assumed to be competent and are expected to know better. Educators can make no such assumptions about students. Second, when a professional plagiarizes another professionals work there is a real chance that the plagiarizing professional will receive a reward or acclaim that ought to have gone to the other person. There is a real sense that something may have illegitimately accrued to someone at the expense of someone else. This is hardly the case when a student in college helps himself or herself to material from a college textbook or Internet site. Thirdly, when a professional steals from a subordinate, or some other less powerful person, there may be the further injustice of an unequal power relationship involved. Student plagiarism of distant published authors or of Internet websites rarely has these dimensions; a closer-to-home analogy would be when a student misappropriates another students paper or study notes; then the theft dimension is present. For these reasons, it may be useful to shift the emphasis of the theft dimension of student plagiarism away from theft of published authors or websites materials. Rather, the theft dimension should emphasize how plagiarism may result in local thefts: (a) from the student himself or herself, in terms of lost analytical and/or compositional practice, (b) from fellow-students (in the case of a

26

misappropriated paper or study notes), and (c) from the college, in terms of its reputation. To summarize, plagiarism misappropriates someone elses labour and composition in a way that potentially steals from the student himself or herself, and possibly others as well. Depending on the nature of the plagiarism, this may be true whether the plagiarism is intentional or not. In the case of intentional plagiarism, there may also be elements of theft from another student and of the colleges reputation. However, rather than obsessing over individual words or phrases, asking two related, qualitative questions might be more appropriate: is this the students labour, and, is this the students composition. Plagiarism: Not Crediting the Author The second dimension of plagiarism has to do with failing to give appropriate credit to others. Biblically, this may be characterized as failure to honour. The link between the command to honour parents found in the Ten Commandments and crediting authors is not obvious. It lies in the trajectories associated with the Commandments. Patrick D. Miller notes these trajectories (Miller 2009, 6, 18) and frames the whole of Scripture as a kind of living exegesis of the Commandments: the whole of Scripture New Testament as well as Old opens up the meaning of the Commandments and informs us how to live and act and think in the light of them. one must listen to the stories of Scripture as they help us understand how [the Commandments] work out in specific concrete situations (Miller 2009 7). 27

How they work out in specific concrete situations (Miller 2009, 7) is of particular relevance to this project. The Commandments function as seminal words pregnant with implications and trajectories. Because of this, it is not surprising that, by the time of the New Testament, the Old Testament command to honour parents has blossomed into a general command to honour everyone, everywhere, as appropriate. As the apostle Paul puts it: Render to all what is due them: honor to whom honor (Romans 13:7), or as the apostle Peter says, Honor all people (I Peter 2:16-18). What does it mean to honour someone? The online Oxford Dictionaries definition of the verb to honour includes to regard with great respect, pay public respect to, and fulfil (an obligation) or keep (an agreement) (Oxford Dictionaries 2014a). One way of honouring or paying public respect to someone is by recognizing what they have done or said. In academic terms, a primary way we do this is via citation (Turabian 2007, 133). The Acknowledgement While citation affords a primary means of honouring others, it is not an appreciative writers only means of acknowledging his or her sources. Consider the Acknowledgements section prefacing Albert Mohlers book on the Ten Commandments, Words from the fire. In it he offers an elegant expression of the author as an embodiment of myriad conscious and unconscious influences:

28

A book may be written in solitude, but it is never a solitary endeavor. Even as we ourselves are walking collectives of conversations, books, thoughts, sermons, songs, and impressions any book reflects far more than the work of its author. I am especially aware of that truth as I express appreciation to many (Mohler 2009, 9) In a similar vein, author Rebecca Howard Moore, in the preface to Standing in the shadow of giants: Plagiarists, authors, collaborators, states that she would like to credit a few who would not otherwise receive bibliographic citation in the text. She does that, then goes on to say her writing is centrally indebted to a particular article, which she mentions (Howard 1999, ix, xi). Several things follow from these two examples. First, they show us that, while referencing or citing is a formal method of acknowledging a source, it is not the only way. In the case of second language, second culture, L2-C2 students, Christian educators could teach students the principle of acknowledgement and encourage them to do it by informal as well as formal means. For example, a student might say, I am indebted to author X for the following material dealing with subject Y. While falling short of formal citation, it does indicate an attempt at acknowledging a source and giving credit where due. Second, as I indicate in Chapter 3, Howard characterizes academic citation as a cultural arbitrary (Howard 1999b, 98, 100, 131, 151), suggesting it is rooted in nothing more substantive than a subjective cultures arbitrary whims or norms. However, in addition to availing herself of the full apparatus of academic citation throughout her book, thus satisfying any reasonable academic debt,

29

Howard also feels moved to offer tribute to sources and influences in the books Preface. Moreover, she uses terms similar to those used in this theological framework, terms such as giving credit, and indebtedness (cf. Romans 13). This suggests that acknowledging the contribution of others may be rooted in something less arbitrary and more substantial than cultural arbitraries. It may be a human instinct, that is, rooted in human nature itself. This means that citation may be viewed as a formal and precise means of doing what is natural to our better instincts, that is, acknowledging the contributions of others while taking care not to accrue undue credit to ourselves. Shift in Honours Focus I believe Christian educators should promote citation as a means of honouring or giving credit to authors. However, as with the theft dimension, it may be helpful to shift honours focus locally. Unless students already have a highly developed sense of honour, it is unlikely they will be motivated to cite faceless sources out of a desire to recognize or honour them. Moreover, it is difficult to see how students will view plagiarizing as dishonouring or taking much if anything away from a distant, unknown author or anonymous Internet website. There is a second dimension to consider. Since students seek credit in the form of grades for their submissions, undetected plagiarism results in a student receiving undue credit for their submission. The apostle Paul explicitly refused to

30

take credit for others labours (II Cor. 10:15). I believe in stating this he was acting on a spiritual principle, something close to, give credit where credit is due but not where it is not. Principled Christians should do likewise. Because of these two considerations, it may be more effective to present honour in the following local context: students dishonour their instructor by trying to fool him or her into giving credit where credit is not due; they dishonour their fellow-students by seeking honour or credit they have not earned; and they dishonour their college by acting against its stated values. Because of these local realities, although it lies outside of the scope of this project, I think the honour code movement advocated by McCabe, Trevio, and Butterfield (2002), and covered in Chapter 3, is worthwhile. To summarize, honouring should be promoted as a virtue, and that includes honouring sources through attribution. However, the local dimension of honour should be given equal or perhaps greater stress. Plagiarism: Passing Off Anothers Ideas or Words As One's Own The third virtue associated with plagiarism is truth-telling. When it comes to telling the truth, two verses go to the heart (literally) of the matter: the Lord desires truth in our inward parts (Psalm 51:6) and, let your yes mean yes, and your no, no (Matthew 5:37, my paraphrase). The Bible clearly puts a premium on truth and truth-telling as does the academy. Among other things, citation provides a means of distinguishing our own ideas and words from the ideas and 31

words of others. It allows us to differentiate our own labour from the labour of others (cf. II Cor. 10:15). It allows us to legitimately use others ideas and phrases or paragraphs and incorporate them into our own composition. Plagiarism does not always entail theft of an authors material, but it always entails misrepresentation. Whether students get their material from a paper mill, another student, their parents, or a non-attributive public domain source, when they submit it as their own work, they are not telling the truth. Although the association of plagiarism with theft is firmly entrenched, if by nothing else the words etymology (meaning kidnapping - see Chapter 3), misrepresentation actually lies more at its heart. Consequently, promoting citations consonance with the Christian virtues of truthful witness-bearing may be more effective than focusing on the more negative dont steal approach. Diligence Failing to the tell the truth need not be deliberate. It can be due to laziness, carelessness, or accident. Truth-telling requires diligence. The book of Proverbs is full of admonitions to diligence and avoidance of sloth (e.g. 10:4, 12:24, 12:27). There is a moral dimension to plagiarism resulting from sloppiness or careless work, even in the absence of willful intent. The following advice from the apostleteacher Paul to his disciple-student Timothy encapsulates the Christian virtue of doing intentional, careful work: Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of

32

truth (II Tim. 2:15). This appeal to good workmanship, to diligence and accuracy, extends to writing. Consider Lukes preface to his eponymous gospel: it seemed fitting for me having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you (Luke 1:3). It is hard to imagine a better or more suitable preface to the writings of a diligent Christian scholar. Faithful and True Witness Carelessness may result in a failure to tell the truth, but not all such failures constitute plagiarism. A wrong page number or wrong year in a citation is not plagiarism but it is false witness, however minor. The academy values precision and expects scholars to be careful in what they attest. As evidence of this, Kate L. Turabian describes accurate citation as an issue of first importance: Your first obligation as a researcher is to cite your sources accurately and fully so that your readers can find them (Turabian 2007, 27). Moreover, she makes this an issue of trust, yet another value that resonates with Christian virtues: Before you look for sources, you should know how to cite the ones you find. Your readers will trust your report only if they trust your evidence, and they wont trust your evidence if they cant find your sources (2007, 27). As Christians, we trust the witness of the apostles. Can others trust what we attest, and bear witness to, as scholars? Academic writing is expected to be precise. With this in mind, citation may be viewed as a way of demonstrating the carefulness of ones investigation

33

into a matter; it provides us with a toolkit for precise witness-bearing. As such, citation is entirely Christian and should be defended and promoted by Christian instructors seeking to develop the virtues of careful work and truthful witness among Christian students. Citation in both its higher dimension (being precise and avoiding inadvertent errors) and lower dimension (avoiding the false witness of plagiarism) is entirely compatible with the positive Christian virtue of truth-telling as well as the negative biblical prohibition against false witness. One might even say, if citation did not exist we as Christians would have to invent it. Conclusion I have argued that plagiarism, at its heart, entails misrepresentation because misrepresentation is always involved in plagiarism, whereas theft is not. I have said that I think Christian educators should consider re-formulating student plagiarism away from the theft dimension and re-center it around misrepresentation. Misrepresentation may be present in either pedagogical or moral plagiarism. Perhaps, however, honor is the best place to start when talking with students about plagiarism. Consider Ruth Oniango, founder and editor-in-chief of The African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition, and Development based in Kenya. Her views on plagiarism are an instructive example of how one African is dealing with the issue of plagiarism. In a commentary published in her role as editor-in-chief, she characterizes the issue in the following gracious yet instructive

34

way: Nobody will fault you for giving credit where it belongs, or for paraphrasing someones work and acknowledging it. However, lifting whole paragraphs and expressions is unacceptable (Editor-in-chief AJFAND 2011). I appreciate the way she employs the definitional dimensions of plagiarism here. She twice uses the positive injunction about honouring (i.e., giving credit and acknowledging). Only then does she introduce the theft element (i.e, lifting) in a prohibitive way. Her commentary then ends with a stark warning, however: We at AJFAND take plagiarism very seriously and once it is proven, the guilty person risks being blacklisted. So authors, be warned (Editor-in-chief AJFAND 2011). Her prose is at once gracious yet, ultimately, unbending. Christian educators would do well to follow her lead. As indicated by Ted Ward, the mandate of Christian education is to facilitate spiritual development and whatever other matters of learning and development are supportive to that end (Ward 1998, 12). One way to do this is to lead by example. Christian instructors should first seek to embody the positive virtues of honest labour, careful work, truth-telling, and honour-giving and then promote these virtues among students. Christian educators need to do more than just tell students plagiarism is stealing and not to do it. We can do better than that. We need to first think through the issue. We need to reach our own biblically-informed conclusions. And then we need to put them into practice. In this chapter I have thought through the issue and

35

created a theological framework rooted in the promotion of three virtues: truthtelling, honest, diligent, careful labour, and honouring others. In Chapters 4 and 5 I seek to put this into practice.

36

CHAPTER 3: PRECEDENT LITERATURE AND CASES This chapter reviews relevant social science literature pertaining to plagiarism, the syllabus innovation, and the syllabus quiz. I emphasize secondlanguage (L2), second-culture (C2), and African contexts. Appendix A contains a glossary of terminology and conventions used. Plagiarism may be viewed as the presentation of others ideas, words, structures, outlines, or artistic works as ones own for credit or advantage. Etymologically, the word is associated with kidnapping (Oxford Dictionaries 2014b), and, by extension, theft. It is also commonly associated with the ideas of misrepresentation and failure to give credit where due. For example, the Purdue University Online Writing Lab defines plagiarism as the uncredited use (both intentional and unintentional) of somebody else's words or ideas (Purdue University 2014a; italics mine). As this definition indicates, it is commonly accepted that plagiarism may be intentional or unintentional. The literature presents plagiarism as complex and contested, with cultural, psychological, social, linguistic, rhetorical, compositional, pedagogical, moral and legal dimensions. However, not all of these can be covered in this review, nor are they necessary to the project at hand. I focus on four areas: the moral, 37

pedagogical, cultural, and literary (i.e., linguistic, rhetorical, compositional) dimensions. Governing Theories As indicated by its etymological roots and definitional aspects, the most straightforward way of viewing plagiarism is as a moral issue. It is often characterized in university handbooks, university academic integrity policies, and in the popular press, as theft or cheating. However, this moral view is currently contested, with some scholars preferring to discuss plagiarism primarily in nonethical, pedagogical terms. For example, Sharon McCulloch states there has been a shift away from moralistic understandings of plagiarism and suggests the issue is better viewed as a pedagogical matter rather than a moral one (McCulloch 2012, 56). I refer to these two ways of approaching plagiarism as M-perspective and P-perspective. The fact that there is currently a debate taking place over this issue is illustrated by the contrastive titles of two books. Thomas Mallon, an Mperspective voice, published Stolen Words in 1989. He concludes that plagiarism, if unchecked, will result in authors writing less or caring less about what they write. Plagiarism ends up, ultimately, being a crime against the reader (Mallon 1989, 238). Shelley Anglil-Carter, a P-perspective voice, published Stolen Language? in 2000. Her choice of title echoes Mallons Stolen Words and her use of a question mark appears to indicate that her pedagogical view is intended to

38

challenge that of Mallon. A reading of her book confirms this, in ways which I will discuss. Of course, there are nuances within each of these two perspectives. For example, Anglil-Carter, writing from a P-perspective, says: What I hope to establish in this book is that plagiarism in the undergraduate years is not so much a matter of deliberate theft, though this of course occurs, but is rather a complex problem of student learning, compounded by a lack of clarity about the concept of plagiarism itself, and a lack of clear policy and pedagogy surrounding the issue. (AnglilCarter 2000, 2) [italics mine] Those approaching the issue from an M-perspective likewise acknowledge that plagiarism can be accidental or inadvertent (e.g., Mallon 1989; Posner 2007). I believe both perspectives have merit. They both need to be listened to. I therefore present this literature review by listening to and interacting with those reflecting an M-plagiarism perspective followed by contrasting P-perspective voices. Then, I broaden the scope to consider the cultural and language issues of L2-C2 students, as well as African, and, in particular, Zambian articulations of the issue of plagiarism. Finally, I consider the literature specifically dealing with my proposed innovation an enhanced academic syllabus. M-Plagiarism In this section I look at the prevalence, causes, and proposed remedies for M-Plagiarism, that is, plagiarism that is believed to constitute a moral transgression similar to cheating.

39

Prevalence One of the characteristics of M-perspective researchers is their reliance on self-reported student plagiarism for much of their data. It is not surprising, given the source of the data, that they frame plagiarism in moral terms when the students themselves view plagiarism as cheating. As an example, according to a 2001 study published by leading M-perspective researcher Tom McCabe, along with Linda Klebe Trevio and Kenneth D. Butterfield (2001, 219, 223), a decade of research on self-reported cheating behaviours by students supports the conclusion that plagiarism, and other forms of cheating such as fabricating, or falsifying bibliographies, and turning in work done by others, is commonplace in the United States and on the rise. Other researchers reach similar conclusions. For example, Chris Park, a UK academic associated with Lancaster University, reported that cheating rates of at least 50% are common (Park 2003, 478), while Williams, Tanner, Beard, and Hale from the University of Arkansas concluded that from 40% to 90% of [American] undergraduates cheat, with plagiarism being a strong component of self-reported cheating behaviour (Williams et al. 2012, 9-24). Factors/Influences Why do students intentionally plagiarize? Park performed an extensive literature review of plagiarism in 2003. In it he presented a composite typology capturing the multiple and contingent motives of plagiarism by students (Park

40

2003, 479). More recently, Williams, Tanner, Beard, and Hale (Williams et al. 2012, 10) provided a similar list under the heading justifications of cheating behaviour. The combined data, moving from internal/individual to external/ communal factors encompass the following elements: lack of knowledge concerning citation protocols lack of knowledge of the course materials lack of motivation; distain for the assignment (irrelevant, too hard, tedious); defiance towards authority; attitude towards a teacher (he or she deserves it) or course (irrelevant, too hard, tedious) personal values/attitudes, e.g., efficiency gain of getting a better grade and saving time; denial or neutralization (i.e., rationalizing the offence away, blaming others) grade pressures/fear of failure time management e.g. active social lives and other time-consuming commitments, lack of preparation, looming deadlines temptation, opportunity, lack of deterrence: the benefits outweigh the risks (Park 2003, 479) peer pressure, including the pressure to cheat and/or collude; cultural climate where cheating is not considered a serious issue (Williams et al. 2012, 10).

Meanwhile, McCabe and Trevio (1997, 388) note that while individual factors influence student cheating behaviours, contextual factors exert the strongest influence, with students perceptions of peers behaviour and peer disapproval exerting the highest influence (McCabe and Trevio 1997, 391).

41

Remedies McCabe, Trevio, and Butterfield (2001, 223) argue that campus culture influences cheating behaviours. Schools that promote honour codes report lower instances of cheating. Moreover, their research found that when instructors ignore or minimize the consequences of cheating they in effect promote it as students reason they must cheat to keep up with others (McCabe, Trevio, and Butterfield 2001, 220). It follows from this that instructors should not ignore or minimize the consequences of cheating lest they inadvertently become a contributing cause or enabler. Williams, Tanner, Beard, and Hale suggest two classroom strategies for reducing academic misconduct on college campuses (Williams et al. 2012, 20). The first is to offer embedded material [promoting academic integrity] in a required freshman-level course, possibly within a required first-year experience course. The second is to develop classroom strategies to reinforce academic integrity expectations in all courses and assignments (Williams et al. 2012, 20). P-Plagiarism Those who espouse a pedagogical view of plagiarism stress plagiarisms historical origins and complexities. Carol Peterson Haviland and Joan A. Mullin, for example, say that plagiarism is a Western social construct located in Romantic notions of authorship and originality (Haviland and Mullin 2009b, 161, 174), and capitalistic notions of ownership (Haviland and Mullin 2009b, 168, 173; Haviland

42

and Mullin 2009a, 2). Composition theorist Rebecca Moore Howard characterizes plagiarism as a cultural arbitrary (Howard 1999b, 98, 100, 131, 151) that functions to validate and protect the traditionally powerful group and to keep outsiders such as students firmly excluded (Howard 1999b, 134). Evidence of the inroads the pedagogical view has made within the academy may be seen in the University of Oxfords definition of plagiarism. Oxford University defines plagiarism as the copying or paraphrasing of other peoples work or ideas into your own work without full acknowledgement. Collusion is another form of plagiarism involving the unauthorised collaboration of students (or others) in a piece of work (Oxford University 2014). The theft dimension is entirely absent in the primary definition, and misrepresentation and failure to give credit weakly present, at best. The moral dimension is clearly present only in the act of colluding with another student. This view is reflective of the P-perspective. Patchwriting Howard argues for the acceptance of a form of close-paraphrasing or nearcopying she refers to as patchwriting (Howard 1999b, 118). Howard variously defines patchwriting as copying from a source text and then deleting some words, altering grammatical structures or plugging in one synonym for another (Howard 1999b, xvii); mixing ones language with that of a source text (Howard 1999b, 139); and talking about a source while using language

43

clearly derived from it (Howard 1999b, 96). Patchwritten work may consist of phrases incorporated into ones own sentences without benefit of quotation marks (Howard 1999b, 11) and may or may not be cited by the student (Howard 1999b, 117). Perhaps the best sense of what Howard means by patchwriting is found in a source quoted (disapprovingly) by Howard, the Academic and Disciplinary Policies handbook of The Bishops School in California: In writing your own paper you could easily end up sewing together with the thread of your own words the patches of material taken from other people as if those patches had originally come from you. The finished product might appear to be all your own work (because ideas do not display their origins as obviously as pieces of material in a patchwork quilt do theirs), but in fact such a paper is plagiarized. (cited in Howard, 1999b, 158) Howard disagrees. She argues that patchwriting is a fundamental part of the writing process (Howard 1999b, 8), and the manner in which all of us necessarily write (Howard 1999b, 14). Rather than being criminalized (Howard 1999b, xxi, 13, 20, 33, 35, 57, 66, 97, 116, 150) patchwriting should be recognized as a legitimate student learning strategy (Howard 1999b, xviii, 7-8, 105, 110, 145) as well as membership strategy (Howard 1999b, xxi, 7, 40, 137, 145-147). Not merely tolerated, it should be celebrated as part of student identity-formation (Howard 1999b, 66). It is not entirely clear in all of this whether Howard expects patchwriting to be cited, or whether she would at a minimum insist that patchwritten sources be

44

acknowledged in the bibliography or Works Cited. What is clear is that she argues for acceptance of something that is commonly viewed as plagiarism by academic writing manuals and academic institutions. As an example of the latter, Kate L. Turabians A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations treats close paraphrases that are cited but which use words so similar to those of your source that they are almost a quotation as plagiarism (Turabian 2007, 77). Turabian goes on to say, anyone could see that you were following the source word-by-word as you paraphrased it (Turabian 2007, 77). The strength of Howards position is that it emerged out of real-world pedagogy. When dealing with unfamiliar subject matter, she found some of her students unable to stray far from the text or texts in front of them (Howard 1999b, xvii-xviii). As Howard put it, two of the students still plagiarized on the revision. Those students were learning, not cheating. Patchwriting was for them as it is for us all a primary means of understanding difficult texts, of expanding ones lexical, stylistic, and conceptual repertoires, of finding and trying out new voices in which to speak (Howard 1999b, xviii). Language Competencies, Unfamiliar Subject Matters, and Acquisition of Voice Other studies have shown this same propensity of people to stick close to the original language when writing about an unfamiliar subject matter. South African writer and theorist Shelly Anglil-Carter (2000, 44), for example, notes the student, because of her/his distance from these authoritative discourses is not able to manipulate, transform or make them her/his own. Concerning acquisition 45

of voice, she says, gaining authority in academic writing means learning how to use the voices of others to develop ones own (Anglil-Carter 2000, 45). Or, as Howard puts it, If students are working in discourse so foreign that the only voice available to them is the one they are reading, the eclectic patching that is such a natural, normal resource for composing becomes limited to the text at hand (Howard 1999b, 146). It seems fair to mark students gently if it looks like they are making goodfaith efforts at honest writing, just as it seems acceptable to view patchwriting as an interim, training-wheels strategy, which is how Howard viewed patchwriting in 1995, characterizing it as a transitional writing form never acceptable for final-draft academic writing (Howard 1995, 799). However, by 1999 Howard was advocating full acceptance of patchwriting (Howard 1999b, 137-153). Academic Literacy and Culture What we have discussed so far illustrates some of the difficulties associated with academic work. Plagiarism is not cut-and-dried. It is complex and contested. Avoidance of plagiarism is just one aspect of the myriad rules and regulations, expressed and unexpressed, associated with academic life. Because of this, the academy may be viewed as a sub-culture (or a multiplex of sub-cultures) with its own rules, both explicit and implicit, conventions, and rites of passage. The Purdue University Online Writing Lab expresses some of the seemingly contradictory demands of the academy this way; as a student you are expected to:

46

Develop a topic based on what has already been said and written BUT Write something new and original; Rely on experts' and authorities' opinions BUT Improve upon and/or disagree with those same opinions; Give credit to previous researchers BUT Use your own words and your own voice [emphasis in original]. (Purdue University 2014a). Anglil-Carter characterizes the academys incongruous demands as: the expectation of independent thinking together with the demand that all assertions be supported by evidence. The essay forces the student into impostor mode: pretending to know the university, pretending to be disinterested, pretending to be independent, pretending to be in control (Anglil-Carter 2000, 42). Achieving academic success is tough enough for those who study in their native (L1) language in their native (C1) culture; the difficulties in understanding and complying with the expectations of the academy are intensified when there are L2-C2 distances in language and/or culture. L2, C2, and International Students Much of the English-language literature on plagiarism is presented from Western perspectives with American, U.K. and Australian voices dominating. However, a subset of the literature discusses the circumstances of L2-C2 international students. Such students are more at risk to plagiarize (Park 2003, 480) because of three broad factors: a deficit in language abilities (Park 2003, 480; McCulloch 2012, 56); a deficit in core academic skills such as note47

taking, essay-writing, and referencing (Park 2003, 480; McCulloch 2012, 56); and different cultural views towards, for example, authors/experts/authorities, who are not to be questioned, and ideas, which do not need to be cited (Park 2003, 480; McCulloch 2012, 56). As Park puts it: As well as coping with language difficulties, these students often have different attitudes towards academic authority and deference, come from cultures with radically different attitudes to academic plagiarism and arrive with less well-developed study skills (Park 2003, 480). It is clear the factors associated with student plagiarism are varied and complex. It is recognized that plagiarism may be either deliberate or unintentional. However, as Park notes, intention is difficult to prove, (Park 2003, 476) and academics differ as to whether unintentional plagiarism remains a moral and/or academic offense. Park characterizes unintentional plagiarism as a failure to follow academic protocol, possibly due to ignorance, but, plagiarism nonetheless (Park 2003, 476). Howard, on the other hand, recommends that authorial intention be a determining factor when deciding what is and is not plagiarism (Howard 1999b, xxii), especially with regards to patchwriting: patchwriting [should] qualify as plagiarism and thus as transgression only if the authors intention is fraudulent only if the author, the student, appears to have been trying to deceive his or her readers (Howard 1999b, xxii).

48

Moreover, she argues for a similar criteria to be used when material is copy-pasted without citation. Assuming that it is done out of ignorance of citation constraints, rather than calling it plagiarism, it should be called failure to cite: Let failure to cite describe the act of ignorance committed by students who do not know academic citation conventions, and let us cease to terrorize students who do not know those conventions. Instead, let us respond pedagogically to ignorance of citation systems, just as we do to the presence of comma splices or the absence of a thesis statement. (Howard 1999b, 166) This seems reasonable, as long as it can be determined that it was done in ignorance. It also is relevant to my project. If copy-paste is going to be downgraded to the level of a grammatical error on the assumption it is done in ignorance of the rules, the onus falls on the instructor to teach citation rules, and test for them, in order to rule out ignorance as an excuse. I sought to do this. Culture A 2005 study by Lancaster University UK researchers Niall Hayes and Lucas Introna illuminates cultural issues. Hayes and Introna did cultural/ethnic research on L2-C2 international students studying in the U.K. They used a student self-reporting questionnaire designed by McCabe to examine the differing cultural attitudes and understandings of plagiarism among overseas postgraduate students (Hayes and Introna 2005, 215-6). Their findings both confirmed and extended common views concerning L2-C2 international students. Confirming material included the pedagogical distance between the educational environments of L2-C2 international students versus the U.K. Gaps included the following: 49

lax citation enforcement in native countries students often dealing with a single text in their native environments exams that were often nothing more than tests of memory the implicit authority attributed to authors paraphrasing difficulties (Hayes and Introna 2005, 223-225)

Such pedagogical gaps need to be recognized and addressed. However, their findings went beyond these into the moral dimension. (Note: in what follows, the term Asian as used by British writers Hayes and Introna refers to persons from South Asian countries such as India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.) Hayes and Introna report the following: 80% of Asian students admitted engaging in illegitimate collaboration, and viewed this as not cheating or trivial 20% of Chinese students admitted engaging in illegitimate collaboration, with 30% of viewing this as not cheating or trivial 80% of Asian students admitted they helped someone cheat at least once Asians viewed writing a paper for another student as not cheating or trivial (Hayes and Introna 2005, 223-225) Negative findings on cheating and plagiarism were not limited to Asian and Chinese students: 43% of Greek L2 international students admitted to using unauthorized crib sheets in an exam (Hayes and Introna 2005, 224). In a finding that the authors deemed shocking', the Greek students attributed their lax views towards cheating to a general culture of cheating that extends to professors who commonly collude with politically-connected students:

50

When you see that people are taking degrees without doing anything the youths of political parties have a say in the promotion of professors. They tell professors who they should pass. It leaves people thinking, why should I bother to study and memorize things that I do not need afterwards when these things are going on around you? Why should I try not to cheat when even the professors are cheating behind my back? The competition was unfair from the start; in my institution there were 600 and about 50 of them took a degree without even opening a book. (Hayes and Introna 2005, 224) Williams, Tanner, Beard, and Hale note the role national culture may play in explicating cheating behaviours: contextual factors such as national culture have been found to influence student cheating behaviour since some actions considered to be instances of academic dishonesty in one culture may be accepted or even encouraged in other cultures. For example, Lin and Wen (2007) report that Taiwanese students claim that cheating is much more culturally acceptable, tolerated, and even supported in Asian countries. (Williams et al. 2012, 10) The point suggested here is not the weak claim that some groups do not see a certain behaviour as cheating, or the moderate claim that they see it as cheating but justify or rationalize it; it is the strong claim that they see it as cheating but see little if anything wrong with cheating itself. This claim warrants further investigation. The study by Lin and Wen (2007) surveyed over 2,000 Taiwanese students. The study reported a 66.1% mean rate of plagiarism among the Taiwanese students (Lin and Wen 2007, 92). It suggested reasons for the relatively high rates of reported cheating could be cultural and suggested Taiwans focus on group work rather individualism and social pressure among Taiwanese

51

students to cheat or assist others in cheating as contributing factors (Lin and Wen 2007, 92-93). Zambians, like Taiwanese, are collectivist rather individualistic in orientation. As evidence of this, when taught the paradigm of Asian collectivism versus Western individualism at TTC, the Zambian students self-identify as collectivist, and even refer to themselves as Asians in such discussions. Because of this shared collectivist orientation, studies like this help identify and illuminate potentially relevant factors. From this section of my literature review I conclude that some students face greater challenges resulting from greater distances in (a) language ability, (b) academic ability, often the result of deficient educational systems in their native countries, (c) culture, and, possibly, (d) ethical/moral orientation between themselves and their academic environment. L2 National Students - Native Students in Transplanted Western Academic Environments Closely related to international students are students in non-Western and/ or non-English speaking countries who study in English-language, Western-style institutions in their home countries. For clarity, I refer to them as L2 national students by which I mean students studying in their native country in English, a second language. Most students at TTC could be classified as L2 nationals. Given the distance between native African culture and the academic model employed by TTC, they could arguably also be viewed as C2 second culture nationals. 52

Finally, although most of them are studying in their native country, I present evidence later in this chapter that the Zambian educational system at the primary and secondary levels may not adequately prepare students for a tertiary (i.e., postsecondary) level of education. All of these factors make it difficult for a Zambian student studying at TTC to succeed. Posner: The Assertion and Assumption of Originality American jurist Richard A. Posner, writing as an outsider to the educational establishment, provides penetrating insights into the issue of plagiarism. As an example, he defines plagiarism as unauthorized copying that the copier claims (whether explicitly or implicitly), and whether deliberately or carelessly, is original with him and the claim causes the copiers audience to behave otherwise than it would if it knew the truth (Posner 2007, 106). This means that not all textual appropriation or usage is plagiarism. For plagiarism to be present the (mis)appropriation of a text must be accompanied by an assumption and/or assertion of originality that, as Posner indicates, causes the reader to act differently than he or she otherwise would have done. This is helpful. One hopes it will put to rest such things as one municipality being accused of plagiarizing anothers plumbing code (where originality is neither required nor expected but where acknowledgement might nonetheless be appreciated). Both the assumption and assertion of originality apply in an academic context. The instructor assumes originality, at least tacitly, and the student asserts 53

it, at least tacitly, when submitting an academic paper for grading. Reflecting his legal background, Posner (2007, 34) states that students have an implied contractual duty not to plagiarize. However, the assumption and assertion of originality is not always just tacit. In some cases colleges require an explicit assertion of originality. This is true, for example, in the case of this thesis, as indicated by its Declaration and Disclaimer page. Moreover, in assigning a particular grade to a paper, instructors clearly do something other than what they would have done had they known a paper was plagiarized. Posners criteria are thus met in student submissions of academic work. Posner also helps with the issue of originality, an issued raised by the Pperspective. In the context of plagiarism originality does not mean novel, or even creative, in any kind of Romantic or critical sense. According to Posner, an original work is simply something that is different enough from some existing work that it could not be confused with it (Posner 2007, 96). This is another helpful criterion when assessing student writing. As an educator, I do not look for originality in the Romantic sense (in fact, I had never even heard of it prior to this review). Rather, I look for evidence of what might be termed originating-ality, that is, evidence that the writing, as composition, originates with the student, and that the student submission is something more than a pass-through of copy-pasted texts. To echo some of my language from the Chapter 2 theological framework, I

54

am looking for evidence of student labour and composition: is this the students wordpile? Posner on Student Plagiarism So, why do students plagiarize? Posner posits that both weak and ambitious students (Posner 2007, 79) plagiarize, either to save time, to get better grades, or both (Posner 2007, 89). He also notes that, if student plagiarism were irrational there would be much less of it (Posner 2007, 48). Posner goes on to indicate that students have a strong incentive to plagiarize if they have a good chance of getting away with it and the punishment if they are caught is not too severe (Posner 2007, 79). This is consistent with researchers findings alluded to previously (e.g., Park 2003, McCabe, Trevio, and Butterfield 2001, Williams et al 2012). It once again indicates that instructors need to look for plagiarism in student writings, and institutions need to have sufficiently stiff policies and practices to act as deterrents. Posner notes that student plagiarism does not really harm established authors and characterizes student plagiarism as a transgression against the instructor first and fellow-students or student competitors second (Posner 2007, 106-107). This also is helpful and is consonant with arguments I make in my theological framework of Chapter 2 that student plagiarism should be framed less as transgressions against distant authors and more in terms of dishonouring fellow-students, the instructor, and the institution.

55

He could have perhaps taken his point about harm further and posited the potential harm to a third group besides instructors and fellow-students: those who subsequently come to rely on a professional whose degree was obtained by fraudulent means. One might not care too much as a student if a professor plagiarized his or her way to a career in postmodern literary theory, but would one want to trust a doctor or pharmacist who plagiarized his or her way to a professional license? Fabrication Posner addresses the related phenomenon of fabrication. He characterizes both plagiarism and fabrication as forms of literary deceit with similar consequences: a scientist can try to steal a march on his competitors by plagiarizing another scientist but also by cooking the results of his own experiments (Posner 2007, 46). The association between plagiarism and fabrication is even stronger in the Lin and Wen (2007, 91) study. It includes fabricating a bibliography under the category of plagiarism. Fabrication, like plagiarism, is considered an academic offence. Northeastern Universitys academic integrity policy, for example, prohibits fabrication, which it defines as falsification, misrepresentation, or invention of any information, data, or citation in an academic exercise.

56

The African Context Both M- and P-perspectives are found among African writers. Ethiopian authors M. Ramesh Babu and N. Indrasenan (2009, 35) characterize plagiarism as a serious ethical issue related to professional integrity and moral/ethical intention. Ghanian author Perpetua Dadzie (2011, 63) calls it an information ethics violation. A South African study by Susan Benven (2010, 7) examined teaching methods in a large classroom and noted serious deficiencies in writing and academic literacy; Benven reported that many student submissions were plagiarized with some being little more than cut and paste exercises. Caleb V. Kangai and Tichaona Mapolisa performed citation analysis of 50 research projects at Zimbabwe Open University. The study determined that about a third (33%) of in-text citations were not referenced in the bibliography while about a sixth (16.8%) of bibliographical references were not cited in the texts (Kangai and Mapolisa 2008, 33-45). Among the authors findings was the need to teach research students how to quote, paraphrase, summarize, and avoid plagiarism (Kangai and Mapolisa 2008, 33-45). They recommended the department of Education be proactive and take measures to discourage [plagiarism] (Kangai and Mapolisa 2008, 41). However, in what is perhaps illustrative of the gap between academic aspiration and attainment in Zimbabwe if not Africa more generally, portions of their paper on citation analysis and plagiarism were themselves plagiarized. For example, portions of the Quoting,

57

Summarizing, and Paraphrasing sections (Kangai and Mapolisa 2008, 36-37) were copied verbatim from the Purdue University Writing Labs website (Purdue University 2014b), without attribution. In Nigeria, the Provost of the West Africa Theological Seminary publicly characterized poor writing skills and plagiarism as the bane of Nigeria's educational system (Obinna 2012). He indicated that plagiarism has eaten deep into the educational system of the country and urged the government to address the problem. He characterizes the practice of plagiarism as "a terrible dilemma and suggests plagiarism detection technologies as an antidote (Obinna 2012). Problems with lax Nigerian writing standards and plagiarism are confirmed in a published academic article by Ademola, Simeon, and Kingsley (2012). They note that too often graduates can neither write a simple essay nor communicate in English beyond incoherent sentences or pure pidgin (Ademola, Simeon, and Kingsley 2012, 2). They catalogue a litany of corrupt academic practices including the practice of selling academic placements and accreditation statuses. They include plagiarism within their list of corrupt practices: plagiarism or outright stealing of academic works without serious efforts to produce original work. In this case, students of one institution copy students projects, theses, dissertation verbatim from other institutions and claim the work as theirs (Adebisi, Adebisi, and Arogundade 2012, 5). Their insightful phrase without serious efforts to produce original work provides

58

another useful criterion for educators to use when evaluating the severity of an instance of plagiarism. This failure of some students to make serious efforts to produce original work is echoed by Richard Douglass, a visiting American professor to Ghana and Kenya. He notes the rampant, easy practice of copy-paste and states that plagiarism is a threat to academic and scientific integrity (Douglass 2011). African International Students What happens when an African student becomes an international student? In 2012 Anna Michalska reported on recent research on plagiarism and national differences across Europe as part of a European-wide plagiarism initiative entitled Impact of Policies for Plagiarism in Higher Education across Europe (IPPHEAE) (Michalska 2012). Regarding 13 Nigerian students studying in Europe she found: (a) 11 first became aware of plagiarism during master-level studies, (b) nine agreed they may have plagiarized, (c) 10 indicated they would like more instruction on how to avoid plagiarizing, and (d) 12 out of 13 agreed with the statement The previous institution I studied [sic] was less strict about plagiarism. This raises the questions of how well Nigerian-African institutions teach and uphold academic writing standards, and how well prepared NigerianAfrican students are for studies abroad.

59

Arlene Archer - University of Cape Town Writing Centre Arlene Archer heads up the Writing Centre at the University of Cape Town (South Africa). She is a representative voice for the P-perspective in an African setting. According to Archer (2012, 360), academic literacy may be thought of as a form of cultural capital. Teaching academic literacy thus opens doors that would be otherwise be closed to persons. She cautions, however, that teaching academic literacy should be empowering and critical, rather than merely bridges to established norms (Archer 2012, 363). Archer outlines four problems faced by post-apartheid South African students: students need to write in English and most are second-language (L2) students students are academically underprepared, especially those from disadvantaged contexts students must learn the various academic discourses associated with different academic disciplines (cf. my term the multiplex of sub-cultures) students arrive at tertiary institutions with different literacies and cultural conventions (Archer 2010, 496)

I would be hard-pressed to come up with a better list describing the difficulties faced by Zambian students at TTC. Archer acknowledges Lave and Wengers (1991) sociological premise that learning should aim for increased access of students to participating roles in expert performances (Archer 2010, 499). In other words, students should be

60

viewed as apprentices learning how to do authentic, real work in real contexts, rather than as academic students engaged in artificial assignments within a socially disconnected academic environment. Although not cited explicitly, Lave and Wengers views (1991) influenced the construction of my 2013 syllabus. I introduced a fictitious apologetics students conference that students planned and submitted papers for. (The papers themselves would then be submitted to a fictitious journal.) Archer further notes that being steeped in a rote learning environment at the elementary and secondary levels makes it difficult for students to acquire their academic voice when introduced to tertiary-level (i.e., post-secondary) education. Such difficulties may result in plagiarism (Archer 2010, 528). She consequently frames the remedy to plagiarism in pedagogical terms: educators must help students acquire their academic voice and learn how to select information from sources (Archer 2012, 355, 360). South African Anglil-Carters Contribution to Theory and Research South African language and pedagogy theorist Anglil-Carter offers another P-perspective. Like Howard, she emphasizes the difficulties students may face when doing academic writing, especially if the subject-matter and vocabulary are unfamiliar. What others might characterize as plagiarism she describes as students trying on new discourse in an unfamiliar field: This could be in the

61

form of whole phrases or sentences in a mosaic which barely contains a sense of the student as author (Anglil-Carter 2000, 37). Anglil-Carters Plagiarism Research Project Anglil-Carter performed a South-Africa based research project on plagiarism (Anglil-Carter 2000, 53). In the first phase she studied the essays of a single (i.e., one) student over the course of a year; in the second, she studied the work of first- and third-year students in a Social Sciences department using essays and interviews with students and their tutors. She also performed discourse analysis on a relevant university department handbook (Anglil-Carter 2000, 56). In doing so, she attempted to uncover the understandings of plagiarism and referencing which lie behind the language of the text, and to examine the way in which they are communicated to students (Anglil-Carter 2000, 56). The scope of her research sought to provide answers for the following questions: 1. How do students tutors and staff understand the role of referencing in academic writing? 2. What consequences do the practice of referencing have with regard to authority and voice in student writing? 3. What might be happening when students are thought to be plagiarizing? 4. What are the difficulties experienced in developing an authorial voice when using multiple sources? (Anglil-Carter 2000, 54) Anglil-Carter argues that language is acquired in chunks or phrases (Anglil-Carter 2000, 45, 114, 126). Consequently, when appropriated phrases

62

show up in student submissions they may not be plagiarism but rather the results of an unconscious learning strategy (Anglil-Carter 2000, 45) involving the reuse of chunks of language which have been stored in memory, an essential part of any language learning process (Anglil-Carter 2000, 126). The need to re-used acquired chunks of language is especially acute in the case of L2 students due to their lack of optional vocabulary and syntax when attempting to use their own words in paraphrase (Anglil-Carter 2000, 114). Anglil-Carter follows Howards lead in addressing tier-1, basic issues such as students inability to paraphrase. For example, she indicates, The words of the [academic] discourse are too socially and conceptually distanced from the writer for her to reshape them in any way, and she does not have the confidence in her language ability to even try (Anglil-Carter 2000, 126). However, AnglilCarter also exegetes students tier-2 difficulties in developing an authorial voice when using multiple sources (Anglil-Carter 2000, 54). She notes, for example, that, selection, summarization, and comparison are difficult skills, requiring a high order of comprehension (Anglil-Carter 2000, 99). As a consequence of such difficulties, student attempts at academic writing may fall short and result in charges of plagiarism. Anglil-Carter argues that it is wrong to only characterize citation only as a means to avoid accusations of plagiarism (Anglil-Carter 2000, 60, 72). Positively, teaching citing may help students to recognize that knowledge and

63

ideas are constructed, that they belong to certain traditions, schools of thought, they are written by authors within a context (Anglil-Carter 2000, 90), and, far from being simply technical and peripheral the practice of referencing is a fundamental part of academic discourse. Knowing who said what is essential to a deep understanding of any discipline, an understanding of knowledge as constructed, debated, and contested (Anglil-Carter 2000, 114). Citation is thus a positive means of tracing an ideas provenance and leaving a trail for others. In this she echoes authors such as Turabian (2007, 133). Anglil-Carter notes the C2 second-culture distance socially disadvantaged L2 second-language African students face (Anglil-Carter 2000, 10). They may enter college with little if any experience in interacting with multiple sources. Their background experience is with descriptive or narrative and creative writing rather than critical thinking and writing (Anglil-Carter 2000, 103). However, she counters culture-based justifications of plagiarism: The point here is not to situate students in different cultural boxes in which they are held captive, or to excuse them from plagiarism practices (Anglil-Carter 2000, 39). She goes on to say, students are rooted in but not trapped by their prior literary practices, and if shown explicitly how the new practice differs from the old, can begin to write using the (critical) practices of the new discourse (Anglil-Carter 2000, 40). This is an important and welcome counter

64

to voices that may seek to excuse or justify plagiarism on cultural or linguistic grounds. The University of Zambia Do Not Plagiarize, it is a crime The University of Zambia (UNZA) is Zambias preeminent tertiary (i.e., post-secondary) institution. It provides advice to students such as the essay that you submit must be your own work, plagiarized and copied essays will attract zero percent, and "avoid plagiarism, it is a crime (University of Zambia 2012). UNZAs Acting Chief Librarian Akakandelwa Akakandelwa has urged the use of plagiarism screening software (Youth Challenges 2008.) I conclude from this literature that there is, at a minimum, an official commitment to preserving integrity in academic writing at the tertiary level of education in Zambia. It is also apparent that UNZA is struggling with student plagiarism and seeking to ameliorate it. Africa - Insights From Popular-Level Literature Useful insights that indicate how plagiarism has become entrenched in Africa as a social construct may be gleaned from the popular press and Internet forums. If there is one central finding (beyond the finding that plagiarism awareness is an embedded part of modern African culture) it is this: the dominant characterization of plagiarism in Africa is that of a legal transgression: plagiarism is theft, and often confused with the legal/intellectual property issue of

65

copyright infringement. To put it more colorfully, one might say Africans are plagiarism fundamentalists when asked what plagiarism is, they will often respond, it is stealing. As I indicated in Chapter 1, TTC students said exactly that. In Nigeria, the central bank governor was sued for plagiarism by an African-American author (Ademola 2012; Nnamdi 2012). In Kenya a lawsuit was launched by one student against another who misappropriated her thesis (Onchana 2011). In South Africa, Frankies CEO Mike Schmidt accused South African retail giant Woolworths of blatant plagiarism of Frankies brand (Nicholson 2012). Meanwhile, the Government of Zambia Electoral Act warns political parties not to plagiarize the symbols, colours or acronyms of other parties (Government of Zambia 2006, 331). Finally, when the Zambian Post newspaper published an article without his permission, Zambian academic Field Ruwe accused the Post of plagiarism rather than copyright infringement (Ruwe 2012), even though the article was, as indicated in the comments section, apparently published under his name. A Zambian Internet Forum Discussion I found few sources dealing with Zambia specifically. I did locate an Internet forum, which provided colourful, if anecdotal, evidence of how plagiarism is viewed in Zambia, at least among forum participants. While several

66

voices were present (including mine), I make no claim that these opinions are accurate or representative. S. K. Mande raised the issue of academic integrity vs. plagiarism on the Dear Zambia website forum (Manda 2011). Forum responders assigned blame to either lazy instructors or lazy students, with the Internet being cited as a precipitating cause. As bm said February 25, 2011 at 16:31, now with the internet ONLY 30 MINUTES AN ASSINMENT IS DONE. A reader with the Internet monicker reason added to this utilitarian theme by noting that the desperation of Zambian students to get a degree so that they can get a job makes the by any means possible attitude remain entrenched especially in the light of instructors who are unlikely to check for or find plagiarism (reason 2011). All of this echoes things said by academics and already reported on in this literature review (e.g., saving time, low risk of getting caught, the utilitarian attitude behind plagiarism). Possibly in response to an inquiry I made on the site, a reader, reason offered a thoughtful cultural critique containing three valuable insights: (a) Zambian children are taught by rote learning and raised to steer clear of books, (b) Zambian students are desperate to get jobs and this results in a "by any means possible" ethic, and (c) lecherous, broke and unconcerned lecturers do a lousy job (reason 2011). As a solution, reason recommended that Zambian children be exposed more to books and kept away from satellite TV. He

67

or she also sketched the decline of Zambian educational standards: We have reached a critical stage in academia in which we now have two generations of mediocre people and are headed for the third. 3/4 baked [students] led to 1/2 baked [students] and has now led to 3/4 raw students (reason 2011). While this colourful language ought not to be considered a quantification of educational deterioration, it is consistent with the opinion expressed in Chapter 1 by the Reverend David Wegener, an American missionary colleague who noted the deterioration of English language skills among his Zambian students in Ndola, Zambia. Plagiarism and Communal African Culture While arguments from silence are by no means conclusive, at no point in readings did I come across any suggestion that plagiarism by Africans in general or by Zambians in particular could or should be attributed to traditional cultural notions such as communal ownership. I posed this question to Richard Douglass, a visiting American professor to Ghana and Kenya, whom I quoted earlier (Douglass 2011). Douglass offered the following summation: I think the prevalence of plagiarism [in Africa] is a combination of superficial academic orientation throughout the education process and the notion that the work of others is inevitably superior to one's own work, woefully inadequate integration of ethics and social-morality in public education, lack of sources other than the Internet in most African countries, and a sort-of practical "why not" attitude based on assumptions of never getting caught. Rather than a sense of group ownership, I think it is the anonymity of the Internet and the isolation of students and would-

68

be scholars that are contributing factors. (Richard Douglass, November 29, 2012, email message to author) While by no means definitive or conclusive, it is noteworthy that at at least three points Douglass echoes the points made earlier on the Internet forum exchange, namely, (a) the superficial academic orientation of Zambian or African students, (b) the utilitarian practical why not attitude, and (c) the operative assumption that one was unlikely to be caught. In this latter point he also echoes Posner, McCabe, and others. The Syllabus As Solution Having surveyed the relevant literature on plagiarism, I now look at the syllabus as the potential locus for a research initiative. Purposes A Syllabus Serves The syllabus serves multiple purposes, some conflicting (Thompson 2007, 55). Susan B. Fink, of Drake University, suggests eight. Among these are its use as a planning tool for instructors, a course plan for students, [an] artifact for teacher evaluations/record keeping, and a contract of policies and procedures to be followed (Fink 2012, 2). The remaining three are particularly relevant to my project: (a) the syllabus role in communicating information, (b) its pedagogical role in student learning, and (c) its value in facilitating the classroom socialization process through the communication of roles and cultural knowledge related to the academy as a sub-culture (Fink 2012, 2).

69

Under the communication category, Fink outlines additional aspects relevant to my project. These include (a) communication of how the course materials fit into the broader context of [the students] education (something Fink asserts students are particularly interested in) (Fink 2012, 2), (b) preventative content designed to anticipate and answer student questions (Fink 2012, 2), and (c) inclusion of grading rubrics that communicate skills students should seek to develop (Fink 2012, 4). Additionally, Darlene V. Habanek of the University of Wisconsin suggests that the syllabus can be used by the instructor to model enthusiasm for the course content and convey a positive invitation to the student to explore learning in the discipline (Habanek 2005, 63). Researchers McDonald, Siddall, Mandell, and Hughes studied syllabi contents and use by students at two Ontario, Canada universities (McDonald et al. 2010). They produced a table of typical syllabi contents showing more common items in one column and less common items in another. The two items of interest to this project were university policies - plagiarism and student success strategies. These appeared under the less common items heading, at 52% (plagiarism) and 2%-4% (student success strategies) respectively (McDonald et al. 2010, 114). Tutorials on academic writing, citation, or plagiarism, did not make either list. While this is only one study, it suggests that such tutorials are not a common feature of syllabi. However, as University of Toronto instructor Rebecca Cober

70

pointed out in a casual conversation with me (February 21, 2014), a syllabus will often indicate that the instructor adheres to the academic integrity policies of his or her university, and then point students to further information. Some colleges in fact require the inclusion of such information in their syllabi. Finally, McDonald, Siddall, Mandell, and Hughes noted that inexperienced students make more extensive use of the syllabus as a study aid and concluded that greater attention to the learning tool function of the syllabus is needed (both on paper and its use in class) to support students (McDonald et al. 2010, 116). Goussots Precedent Action Senior lecturer Michels Goussots syllabus is a real-world example of an enhanced syllabus with a built-in tutorial on academic writing (Goussot 2012). His approach tracks mine at several points. First, he includes preventative content designed to anticipate and minimize anticipated undesirable student behaviours (Goussot 2012, 2). Second, he encourages students in what he believes are good study habits (Goussot 2012, 3). Finally, he embeds a full tutorial on MLA writing conventions, with detailed instruction on both the research paper as a form of exploration and communication and the mechanics of writing. Instruction on citing and avoiding plagiarism is an integral part of this (Goussot 2012, 8-14).

71

The Utility of a Syllabus Quiz The utility of a syllabus quiz was affirmed in a 2002 study by Patrick H. Raymark and Patricia A. Connor-Greene of Clemson University. Their research indicated that students who complete a take-home quiz have a better understanding of course policies than students who do not (Raymark and Connor-Greene 2002 286). They suggested that such a quiz may be especially valuable in enhancing students acclimation to the expectations of the instructor (Raymark and Connor-Greene 2002, 286). Their research also indicated that the mere presentation of a syllabus quiz does not eliminate student misunderstandings (Raymark and Connor-Greene 2002, 286). My project would test these assumptions. Summary and Conclusion Plagiarism is complex and contested, with moral, pedagogical, literary, and cultural dimensions. There are two predominant positions in the literature; the one views and addresses plagiarism from primarily a moral perspective, while the other views and addresses it primarily, pedagogically. While proponents of each side sometimes seem to be warring with each other, I believe both views have merit. Because of this, I believe a holistic approach is needed; efforts to address plagiarism should be grounded in the twin rubrics of academic integrity (the Mperspective) and academic literacy (the P-perspective).

72

The literature supports the conclusion that L2 (second-language) and C2 (second-culture) students face greater challenges than L1-C1 students. It also supports the conclusion that international students and even students studying in their home countries who come from academically deficient primary and secondary school backgrounds face additional challenges when engaging in education at the tertiary (i.e., post-secondary) level. These challenges result from greater distances or gaps in (a) language ability, (b) academic ability, (c) culture, and, possibly, (d) ethical/moral orientation. Finally, the literature surrounding the use of a syllabus indicates that the syllabus may be used to communicate instructor expectations and help equip students to be successful in their work. The utility of a syllabus quiz has also been affirmed in the literature.

73

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY AND PROJECT This chapter describes the project and its methodology. It covers (a) the research context and overview of the project, (b) the research methodology and project definition, (c) the projects linkages to plagiarism theory, (d) research ethics, (e) the research project timeline, (f) pre-engagement research design, including the quiz, end-of-course evaluation, and syllabus tutorial, (g) onsite engagement including the administering of the quizzes, assessing student submissions, in-class interactions, and administering the end-of-class evaluation, and (h) post-engagement investigative research. Appendix A contains a glossary of terminology and conventions used. Research Context and Overview of Research Project I was a guest apologetics instructor teaching a seven-day intensive at Trans-Africa Theological College (TTC) in Kitwe, Zambia. Plagiarism had been a problem. Part of the expected apparatus of the apologetics course is a syllabus outlining the nature and requirements of the course. This syllabus is distributed by hand a month in advance to regular, on-campus students. They are expected to work on pre-course assignments during their December semester break. Off74

campus, part-time, degree-completion Decopro students are expected to begin their work on the first day of class. I wanted to see if promoting academic literacy and integrity via a syllabus tutorial would ameliorate levels of plagiarism relative to prior years (as indicated in figure 1.1). If the syllabus was used, would plagiarism persist? My goal was to do research that would not unduly disrupt the focus or flow of the class. I did not want to turn the apologetics class into a class on academic writing. As well, my in-class stance is to generally assume that my fourth-year graduating students are informed and honest, and that, prior experiences notwithstanding, plagiarism will not be a problem in the present class. Wherever appropriate, Research Methodology and Project Definition The project took the form of investigative, evaluative research. I investigated the utility of a syllabus tutorial in promoting academic literacy and integrity. I investigated the phenomenon of plagiarism at TTC. I also investigated my role as a visiting instructor. The research questions may be framed as: (a) Do TTC students have sufficient citation knowledge to do work characterized by academic literacy and integrity, (b) If there are citation knowledge deficiencies, would a syllabus tutorial improve citation knowledge, and (c) what can I learn about the phenomenon of plagiarism at TTC by conducting quizzes, interacting with students, doing in-depth examination of plagiarized student submissions, and

75

(d) what, if anything, can a guest instructor such as myself do to ameliorate instances of plagiarism? While not action research, the project shared several of the assumptions and characteristics associated with it. I outline these here. Action research has been characterized as contextual, problem-driven research into ones own practice (Fernie and Smith 2010, 96, 98). One form of action research is insider research, which challenge[s] taken-for-granted assumptions and change[s] embedded institutional routines (Fernie and Smith 2010, 99). It may also be evaluative, and outcome-oriented. According to Lena Dahlberg and Colin McCaig (2010, 16), the aim of outcome evaluation is to establish how well a program, project, or intervention works in practice. It may be characterized in terms of purpose, methods, and focus: 1. Its purpose is to determine the value or effectiveness of something such as an innovation. 2. It uses normal methods of research evaluation. 3. It can focus on either process or outcome. (Dahlberg and McCaig 2010, 16) Qualitative/quantitative mixed-methods were used to generate data. Questionnaires (Fernie and Smith 2010, 106) served as my primary quantitative instrument. I assessed the cognitive domain via a syllabus quiz, offered at the start (the pre-quiz) and end (the post-quiz) of class. I assessed and the affective domain and opinions via the syllabus quiz supplemented with an end-of-class evaluation. 76

Outcome behaviour data was obtained via assessment, in my role as instructor, of book review and essay assignments. I also noted the reactions and responses of the students as well as my own. Following post-course analysis of the student papers, I sent a follow-on letter to students who had plagiarized. These individualized letters outlined each students plagiarism and elicited further dialogue. As Punch (2005, 101) indicates, all research, including qualitative research, involves sampling. In my case, I assumed a typical TTC senior-year class size of 22-30 students, split roughly into ! regular full-time and " part-time Decopro degree-completion students. In fact, 29 students attended; two did not provide written consent; they were excluded from the study. Of the 27 who provided consent, 21 were regular students and six were Decopro. The research evaluation strategy was mixed-methods designed to yield a blend of quantitative and qualitative data. While action research commonly entails interviewing or focus groups, in my case I used questionnaires and surveys (Fernie and Smith 2010, 106). The primary measurement tools were a syllabus quiz administered at the start and end of the class followed by an end-of-class evaluation. The scope of data collection was intended to address cognitive, affective, and behavioural dimensions. These were supplemented with qualitative observation.

77

Since the project was investigative and evaluative in nature, the key project outcome was to be one of discovery: would a built-in syllabus tutorial be beneficial? Would it increase citation knowledge and reduce or eliminate the I didnt know that, or thats not what the rules are objections that I had encountered in prior years? Would it improve citation and plagiarism knowledge among students? Would it diminish plagiarism? Barring that, what, if anything, would an examination of students plagiarized submissions reveal? Linkages to Plagiarism Theory As indicated in Chapter 3, there are two predominant explications of plagiarism in the literature. M-perspective views plagiarism as a predominantly moral issue; P-perspective views plagiarism as a predominantly pedagogical issue. (Both perspectives acknowledge exceptions.) For the purposes of this project I sought to keep an open mind and adopt a neutral stance regarding rootcauses. My project was, however, informed by a working premise that plagiarism stems from a deficiency in knowledge, ability, or motivation. I believe these categories are sufficiently broad to encompass all potential reasons, and yet distinct enough to be useful categories for organizing ones thoughts and ideas. The project was designed primarily to support and test the first dimension: knowledge. In this sense, I was exploring a potential pedagogical factor for plagiarism. Howard framed the issue as follows:

78

Let failure to cite describe the act of ignorance committed by students who do not know academic citation conventions, and let us cease to terrorize students who do not know those conventions. Instead, let us respond pedagogically to ignorance of citation systems, just as we do to the presence of comma splices or the absence of a thesis statement. (Howard 1999b, 166) I chose to focus primarily on the knowledge dimension for a number of reasons. First, there was a lingering sense from previous interactions with students that caused me to wonder whether they were sufficiently knowledgeable about citation requirements and plagiarism. If they were, the syllabus would contain essential information they needed to know. Second, I wanted to move from a detect-andpunish mode to an educate-and-deter mode. I saw the syllabus as a potentially preventative innovation. Third, there is only so much a guest instructor can do over the course of a seven-day class where the subject matter is apologetics and not academic writing; the syllabus would have a small disruptive footprint and was doable. While the syllabus was primarily designed to address the knowledge dimension, I hoped it might have a motivational impact as well. As this chapter will indicate, it provided a rationale for citation and encouraged the students to aim to do work characterized by academic literacy and integrity. To the extent that knowledge is a prerequisite to ability, and the syllabus pointed the students to further resources, the syllabus also attempted to address ability, albeit in a minor way. Thus, in a small way, the project sought to ameliorate all three hypothesized drivers of plagiarism: knowledge, ability, and motivation. 79

Research Ethics The project adhered to the shared ethical research standards of Canada and Zambia. This means that participation by the college and students was characterized by consent that was informed, voluntary, ongoing, and penalty-free (see Appendix B). In order to ensure that appropriate research consent was obtained, the TTC Academic Dean opened the seminar with an explanation of research consent protocols. The students were assured that participation was to be based on informed, voluntary, ongoing consent, that confidentiality would be assured, that steps would be taken to preserve data security, and that formal, written research consent would be solicited at the end. Students were informed about how the research might be used, the steps that would be taken to safeguard the confidentiality of their contributions to the research, and how they could obtain copies of the research results. With regards to the latter, I indicated I would provide the TTC library with a copy. Students were verbally reminded of the voluntary nature of research at the start of explicit research activities, namely, the first and second offerings of the quiz, and the end-of-class evaluation. This reminder was included on the consent form itself. Formal written consent was solicited at the end of the class. The students were assured that the consent forms would be held in trust by the Academic Dean until all grades were submitted. They were. Two of the 29

80

students did not sign the research consent form; they were excluded from the research reporting. Persons with whom I corresponded and named in this thesis consented to having their names used. See Appendix B for ethics and consent-related discussions and instruments. The Research Project Timeline At this point I provide an overview of the research project. I refer to my time onsite in Africa up to the time the grades were handed to the Academic Dean as the engagement. The entire project, including post-engagement activities, was covered by the ethical guidelines referred to above. The following timeline outlines pre-engagement, engagement, and postengagement activities. I expanded the scope of the research activities as the research proceeded. This is not unusual with research; it is analogous to astronauts making in-flight adjustments when the actual mission gets underway. Pre-Engagement Tasks and Timeline Table 4.1 indicates the pre-engagement work I did in 2012 to obtain institutional research consent and develop the research instruments. A detailed treatment of the research ethics may be found in Appendix B.

81

Table 4.1. Pre-Engagement Tasks and Timeline. # Pre-Engagement Tasks and Timeline Date

Developed research ethics guidelines and compliance instruments. Obtained TTC

1

Jun-Aug 2012 Oct-Nov

organizational consent. See Appendix B for details.

2 Developed and quality-checked the syllabus quiz.

2012 Developed written tutorial in academic literacy and integrity based on the contents of the syllabus quiz. Incorporated it into the course syllabus. Forwarded via email to Dr. John 3 Kerr, Academic Dean. Dr. Kerr manually distributed the syllabus to regular, on-campus students prior to Christmas break along with an admonition to read it. Dec 4 Developed end-of-class student evaluation of the syllabus, quiz, and course. 2012 2012 Nov

Engagement Tasks and Timeline Table 4.2 indicates the activities I undertook in January 2013 related to the onsite engagement.
Table 4.2. Course Onsite Engagement Tasks and Timeline. # Course Onsite Engagement Tasks and Timeline Date

Academic Dean Dr. John Kerr opened class and indicated research would be taking
5

Jan 10, 2013 Jan 10,

place. See Appendix B for research ethics material.

6 Administered syllabus pre-quiz. Stored results without looking at them.

2013 Marked student book reviews and provided written feedback on each students paper. 7 Spoke individually with plagiarizing students. Granted two students permission to rewrite their book reviews. Jan 12-15, 2013

82

Course Onsite Engagement Tasks and Timeline Conducted brief in-class review of portions of the syllabus tutorial. Broke class into teams to discuss and report-out to class on the syllabus portion dealing with formatting

Date

Jan 14, 2013

issues. I chose teams to facilitate discussion among the students and to provide a variety of solo and group assignments. Briefly went over some issues dealing with citation, including the need to cite paraphrased material.

Jan 18, 9 Administered apologetics exam. 2013 Jan 18, 10 Collected student essays due end of class. 2013 Jan 18, Administered syllabus post-quiz to test for short-term retention. Stored results without 11 looking at them. Administered end-of-class student evaluation. The evaluations were given to the Jan 18, 12 Academic Dean for safe-keeping until after grading was submitted to the Academic 2013 Dean. Re-informed students of the voluntary nature of research and solicited written student Jan 18, 13 consent. The evaluations were given to the Academic Dean for safe-keeping until after 2013 grades were submitted to him. Marked student essays. Provided grades and written feedback to all students including 14 students who plagiarized their essays. Calculated final student grades and submitted to the Academic Dean. Received end-of-class student evaluations and research consent forms from the 15 Academic Dean. 2013 Jan 18-22, 2013 Jan 22, 2013

83

Post-Engagement Tasks and Timeline Table 4.3 indicates the post-engagement research activities I undertook. Items 16 through 18 were precipitated by the unexpectedly high levels of plagiarism I encountered.
Table 4.3. Post-Engagement Tasks and Timeline. # Post-Engagement Tasks and Timeline Date

Performed an in-depth, post-class assessment of plagiarized essays and book reviews. This entailed (a) confirming existing plagiarism and looking for more, (b)
16 Jan 10, 2013

obtaining cited books and articles and looking up each cited reference, and (c), recording my findings and reactions.
Crafted detailed feedback letters to each plagiarizing student. Sent these to the Academic Dean who distributed to students. This was done as part of the research project with the 17 Academic Deans concurrence. Research ethics are covered in Appendix B. The feedback letter template is found in Appendix G.

April 2, 2013

April 18 Received feedback via email from two students. Responded to them. 2013 Examined written student research permissions and removed from all assessments two 19 students who did not provide written permission. Twenty-seven of 29 students signed the research consent form. Aug 2013

84

Post-Engagement Tasks and Timeline Marked, coded, and assessed the syllabus pre-quiz and post-quiz results. To do this, I first transcribed the student hand-written responses into a database. I added fields where needed to allow me to capture my own notes. I then converted the database into a spreadsheet. From this I was able to do averaging and scan for patterns. I created a label for each student indicating Decopro or Regular and whether the student plagiarized his book review and/or essay. Because there were only two women in the class, I did not code for male/female as I would not be able to use this data and maintain confidentiality.

Date

Aug 20 I color-coded those who plagiarized. I used the spreadsheet as a basis for analysis and 2013 pattern-hunting. I checked those who reported they had read the syllabus at start of class vs. those who reported they had not. I checked Decopro vs. regular. I checked plagiarizing students vs. non-plagiarizing students. Subsequent to this, I created tables of individual student responses for the syllabus quiz results. For comparison purposes, I included student grades from an apologetics exam administered at the end of class in these tables. Additional work was done looking for patterns in the individual student responses. Coded and assessed the end-of-class student evaluations. Initial coding consisted of creating a spreadsheet column for each question and a spreadsheet row for each student. 21 Comments were captured verbatim without editing. Since the responses were generally very favorable, I focused my analysis on less favorable responses. Sep 22 Began writing-up research findings. 2013 2013 Aug

Nov-Dec 23 Created various tables to assist in searching for patterns (see Chapter 5 and Appendix J). 2013

85

Post-Engagement Tasks and Timeline Revised syllabus and quiz. Conducted 2014 apologetics course using revised syllabus

Date

Nov and quiz. Spoke with two students from 2013 class. Assessed for plagiarism. Developed 2013 24 You have been flagged for plagiarism form and used it to elicit student reactions and Jan feedback. Spoke with TTC staff about research findings. Spoke to 2014 class about 2014 plagiarism.

Pre-Engagement Research Design Pre-engagement research design consisted in designing a syllabus tutorial in academic literacy and integrity, a quiz that would be administered pre- and post-class, and an end-of-class evaluation. Because of the constraints associated with project approval, I designed the syllabus quiz and end-of-class evaluation before the syllabus tutorial. The syllabus tutorial was then crafted to cover the quiz material. The Quiz and End-of-Course Evaluation The quiz with annotated comments is found in Appendix C. The quiz as presented to the students is found in Appendix D. The end-of-class evaluation is found in Appendix E. The quiz questions and end-of-class questions are presented in chapter 5. The syllabus quiz and end-of-class evaluation questions were developed with scientific survey design processes described by Bradburn, Wansink, and Sudman (2004, loc 3065) in mind. The quiz primarily tested knowledge rather than attitudes or behaviour. Since my goal was to assess the effectiveness of an 86

educational innovation, this was appropriate: knowledge-related questions have many uses in surveys. They can be used to determine the literacy and educational achievement of adults as an indication of the effectiveness of the educational process (Bradburn, Wansink, and Sudman 2004, loc 1783). Since the first sections of the quiz called for binary responses, occasionally I asked more than one question concerning the same topic to test more deeply and reduce successful guessing (Bradburn, Wansink, and Sudman 2004, loc 1791). Following Bradburn, Wansink, and Sudman I attempted to optimize for simplicity (2004, loc 2327) and took into consideration avoidance of positive response-set bias where the respondent simply keeps selecting the same response to every question (Bradburn, Wansink, and Sudman 2004, loc 2320). With respect to the form of the syllabus quiz and end-of-class evaluation, I followed Bradburn, Wansink, and Sudman (2004) for considerations such as type size (loc 2706), numbering (loc 2722), fit on page (loc 2781), number of columns, that is, one (loc 2801), common answer categories listed across the page (loc 2812), use of blank space (loc 2950) responses listed from lower to higher and from left to right (loc 3186), avoidance of scale-point proliferation (loc 3207), and the desirability of thanking the participants (loc 2816). I checked the questions for simplicity, clarity, and relevance. I attempted to self-assess the quiz for desirability bias. I recognized the risk of the halo effect, that is, favorably inflated responses (Bradburn, Wansink, and Sudman 2004, loc

87

2314), in the end-of-class evaluations. I sought to mitigate this risk by making these evaluations anonymous, with the instructor absent from the room, and with instructions emphasizing the value of candid responses. As part of quality-control, I passed drafts of the syllabus quiz to a colleague with some experience in questionnaire design. To ensure that it was culturally appropriate, I submitted a draft to several African cultural advisors. I asked, Could you please review the attached quiz and let me know if you think it is culturally appropriate, or let me know if you spot any problems with it? Are some words confusing? Could I phrase things more clearly? Any other suggestions. I received one piece of feedback from a Tanzanian, via an email dated November 15, 2012. He said, Questions are relevant and do not have cultural elements in it. They are straight academic. According to Bradburn, Wansink, and Sudman (2004, loc 3065), Ultimately, every questionnaire must be tested and refined under real-world conditions. This proved true in my case, as did their assertion that the perfect questionnaire has yet to be written (Bradburn, Wansink, and Sudman 2004, loc 56, loc 3067). Because research can take place over multiple cycles, one of my research sub-objectives was to test the robustness of the syllabus quiz and end-ofclass evaluation instruments. The quiz and end-of-class questions are presented in chapter 5. The quiz with annotated comments is found in Appendix C. The quiz as presented to the

88

students is found in Appendix D. The end-of-class evaluation is found in Appendix E. The Syllabus This section describes the preparation of the syllabus. The syllabus quiz and end-of-course evaluation were developed first. The syllabus was then written to align with them. The full text of the syllabus is found in Appendix F. The innovations I introduced in the 2013 syllabus extended beyond the syllabus tutorial. Because they form the immediate greater context for the syllabus tutorial, I briefly describe them here. The first section was largely copied from the syllabus from the previous year. It covered the usual syllabus content of course description, objectives, reading assignments, planned activities, course requirements and assignments. For 2013 I included the following statement under objectives: Facilitate continued development of student critical thinking, reasoning, and writing skills. I was thus beginning to integrate development of English and academic literacy into the structural fabric of the course. As a result of my readings that stressed the need to promote English across the curriculum, I included two innovations designed to encourage students to develop English: a five marks spelling table, and a five marks vocabulary table. As I had done prior years, I also offered an additional 10 marks for on-time

89

submissions and classroom participation. Here is how I expressed this in the syllabus: Attendance and On-time Assignments 5%. If, as someone has said, 80% of life is simply showing up, 90% of life is showing up and getting stuff done on time. You get 5 marks simply for showing up and handing assignments in on time. Spelling Table 5%. Produce a table of misspelled words with the correct spelling indicated. Another 5 marks! Vocabulary Table 5%. Produce a vocabulary table of new or important words you have learned as a result of your reading and in-class work. 15 marks and you havent even broken a sweat! Participation: 5%. Awarded at the discretion of the instructor. Try to ask or answer at least one question during the seminar. Better yet, aim to say something each day. Better still, challenge the instructor or say something controversial! One of the purposes for doing this was to promote English and good study habits while at the same time affording some easy marks so struggling students could pass the course if they applied themselves. With these four items I provided a foundational 20 marks that any student who showed up for class should be able to achieve. In writing the syllabus I reasoned that perhaps students had never been given the rationale that underlies rules of academic writing. If given, academic writing might make more sense to them. It might help lessen any cultural distance between Zambians and Western academic ways. The conceptual heart of the syllabus innovation was thus a 2 # page Welcome to the Academy introduction to critical thinking and academic writing. To illustrate the value of critical 90

thinking I used the example of Martin Luther, without whom we would not have had the Reformation (or, at least, not the one we had). I followed this with a consideration of well-known controversies around the initiation rite of Christian baptism should baptism be infant, believers, covenantal, symbolic, regenerative, sprinkling, immersion, or, none-of-the-above? I used this issue to introduce both epistemology (i.e., how does one know?), as well as critical thinking, which I presented as a means of navigating and arbitrating among competing views. Having sought to provide the why behind the how of academic writing, I proceeded with some nuts-and-bolt issues on academic writing. I included brief how-to guidelines on book reviews, essays, and exam questions. These were followed by a section covering academic writing standards (e.g., use of paragraphs and how to present authors names), and one entitled, Citing Sources (and Avoiding Plagiarism): A Biblical View, excerpted here: Citing serves a number of purposes: a) It lets the reader know what sources we have identified in our research it helps us get good grades! b) It strengthens our argument by providing evidence and/or authority for our assertions this makes us good, careful scholars (and again helps us get a good grade!). c) It ensures that the originators and authors of facts, information, and ideas receive due recognition it is a way for us to give honor where honor is due; it is a way to pay a debt of recognition owing (Rom. 3:17-8).

91

d. It helps ensure we do not misrepresent someone elses ideas or writings as our own helping us to be truth-tellers (Psa. 51:6, Col. 3:9, Eph. 4:15) and to avoid bearing false witness (Ex. 20:16). e. It ensures we do not unfairly get credit for the work of others (1 Cor. 10:15), thus ensuring a level playing field (Proverbs 11:1) for all students competing for good grades. In doing so I sought to connect academic learning with spiritual content that would be familiar to these biblically literate students. This was followed by some practical concluding sections entitled TTC citation standards How to cite sources, Some common misconceptions, and Summary. The summary was as follows: It is unacceptable to copy something out of a book, newspaper, journal or any other printed or online source without citing it. It is important that the reader of your paper can tell what is yours, and what is someone else's. For short quotes, use quotation marks in the sentence. For a longer quote, indent it. Paraphrasing is fine, but it must be a good paraphrase, and you still need to cite. Summarizing is fine, but you still need to cite. If you need assistance with the writing of English, and/or with academic writing in general or the rules of citation in particular, seek help. If in doubt, ask your instructor.

92

Onsite Engagement: Administering the Quizzes, the Course, and the End-of-Class Evaluation Students were given the syllabus quiz immediately following the research ethics presentation that began the class. They were given it again at the end of the seven-day intensive. In neither case was the quiz announced in advance. The quizzes included student names. This enabled me to cross-reference them to student behaviours. The end-of-course evaluation was given at the end of the course and answered anonymously. Neither the quizzes nor the end-of-class evaluation contributed to the student grades. In fact, to prevent bias, I embargoed the quizzes and evaluations until July 2013, after all class and post-class activities, including grading and feedback to students, had been completed. Minimizing the Research Footprint Following the pre-quiz, I did not go over the questions and answers with the students. (I would have answered questions, but none were asked.) My reasons were as follows: first, this was an apologetics class, not a class on academic literacy, and close to two hours had already been taken up with research consent and the quiz; second, the purpose of the research was to see if the syllabus itself in the hands of the students would be sufficient to eliminate or minimize plagiarism; third, I did not want to tip my hand regarding the plagiarism component of the research. If the students figured I was researching plagiarism, they may have avoided plagiarizing for that reason (which in itself suggests an interesting research project). Finally, since student consent would not be given 93

until the end of the class, I was worried about how I could honestly extricate the classroom contributions of those who withheld consent from the research results. Stopping to take student names and write down each comment seemed neither practical nor desirable; recording was undesirable since this would introduce an artificial dimension to the class and raise whatever anxieties students might already have about research, and I had no other resources available to me. As important as the research was, I did not want the research to upend my apologetics class. In-Class Review of the Syllabus A few days into the seven day intensive we were ready for a break from apologetics, so I asked student teams to make presentations to the rest of the class on the first part of the syllabus dealing with nuts-and-bolts academic writing matters (such as double-spacing submissions, underlining names, etc.). I wanted to get a feel for how the students were reacting to the syllabus contents without focusing on plagiarism per se. I closed with a brief review of some citation standards, as I might do in any class. This review included the need to cite paraphrases, which seemed to come as a surprise to many students. Marking the Book Reviews I marked the book reviews and discussed incidents of plagiarism with students as I normally would.

94

Finishing Up The final day of the class included a multiple-choice apologetics exam, submission of essays, administration of the post-quiz and end-of-class evaluation, and the signing of student consent forms. The student consent forms were gathered by the TTC student president and handed to the Academic Dean for safekeeping. After I tallied up the final grades and passed them to the Academic Dean, he handed over me the signed research consent forms. Post-Engagement Investigative Research The primary post-engagement activities I undertook (besides coding and analyzing the data) were in-depth analysis of student papers and sending a followon letter to students. In-Depth Analysis of Plagiarized Student Papers In February-April 2013 I undertook a detailed analysis of the student papers in which plagiarism had been detected. This was done to a) confirm instances of plagiarism detected in Africa, b) confirm/disconfirm suspected instances of plagiarism among plagiarizing students that could not be confirmed in Africa, and c) look for patterns in the data. To do this, I first obtained the books cited by the students. I undertook to look up and check each citation made by students, and to attempt to track down every instance of suspected plagiarism.

95

Follow-on Letters to Students Following this in-depth analysis, I crafted letters to each of the plagiarizing students detailing the plagiarism they had engaged in and inviting them to respond. A model letter is found in Appendix G. This feedback was more in-depth than what an instructor would normally be able to provide and more indepth than what I had in fact provided the students during marking of their papers. The letters were emailed to the Academic Dean who distributed them to each student. This chapter described the project and its methodology. It covered the research context, methodology, and ethics. It defined the project, its linkages to plagiarism theory, and the research project timeline. As indicated in the chapter, pre-engagement research design included the quiz, end-of-course evaluation, and syllabus tutorial. Onsite engagement included the administering of pre-and postclass syllabus tutorial quizzes, assessing student submissions, in-class interactions, and administering the end-of-class evaluation. Post-engagement work consisted in in-depth analysis of plagiarizing students submissions. In the next chapter I report the research findings.

96

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS AND OUTCOMES The project sought to promote academic literacy and integrity via a syllabus tutorial, and to assess the tutorials effects, especially with regards to plagiarism. Project research instruments included the syllabus tutorial, a syllabus quiz administered at the start and at the end of class, and an end-of-class evaluation. I assessed student behaviours by grading their book reviews and essays. Following the onsite engagement, I performed in-depth analysis on plagiarizing students submissions. I report the findings and outcomes in this chapter. I include findings from the syllabus pre- and post-quizzes, the end-of-class evaluation, student book reviews and essays, and in-class interactions. I compare the quiz results of those who indicated they had read the syllabus with those who indicated they had not. As well, I compare quiz results of those in whose work I found plagiarism with those in whose work I did not. Subsequent to the onsite engagement at Trans-Africa Theological College (TTC) in Kitwe, Zambia, I performed post-engagement, in-depth assessment of plagiarizing students essays and book reviews. This yielded further data which I report on. I modified the syllabus and quiz and re-used them in 2014. I also 97

created a further plagiarism instrument, a you have been flagged for plagiarism form for use in 2014. I briefly report on the results of 2014. There were 29 students in the class of 2013, two of whom did not sign the written research consent forms; they have been excluded from the reporting. The sample size was small, 27 students. Because of this, in order to preserve confidentiality, I reserved the right to alter minor details in this reporting. This included the right to create composites of students, and to use other techniques designed to preserve confidentiality without materially affecting the reporting. There were two female students among the 27. I use the constructs he or she and him and her when referring to plagiarizing students to ensure genderneutral language. However, I am not indicating by this that either of the two female students plagiarized. All data from the quizzes should be understood as as reported by the student. Each student was given an anonymous student ID. I separate observation from interpretation, where appropriate, by using an indicator such as Interpretation: to signal interpretive or reflective comments. In the spirit of reflective practice (Hatton and Smith 1995), I may give my immediate reaction as an instructor or researcher within an interpretive context. The language in such comments may be more colloquial and should be considered a form of data. The research ethics which governed the project, including research ethics forms and instruments, are found in Appendix B. The 2013 syllabus is found in

98

Appendix F. Syllabus quiz questions were discussed in general terms in Chapter 4. An annotated version of the quiz is found in Appendix C and the quiz as presented to students in Appendix D. I also include the quiz questions in tables used in this chapter. To help assess results and look for patterns, I created tables summarizing student responses to quiz questions. Where these tables are not presented in this chapter, or where a concise version is used, the full tables may be found in Appendix J. Appendix A contains a glossary of terminology and conventions used. Project Limitations The sample size was small (27 students). Because of the small sample size, I am not trying to make sweeping generalizations but rather looking for patterns. I use past plagiarism rates as a point of comparison. However, class sizes vary each year, ranging from the low to high twenties. In terms of percentages, this means that two incidences of plagiarism in a class of 22 is not quite the same thing as two instances in a class of 27. Moreover, different students attend the class each year, so there is not a constant that can be used when assessing plagiarism rates. However, the class sizes and make-up do reflect the variations of a real-world situation. I did not have access to current students prior plagiarism practices. It would be problematic to determine the effect the syllabus had since I did not

99

know current students past behaviours. Unless there was indicative, triangulating data, there would be no way of knowing if the syllabus tutorial dissuaded students from plagiarizing. To illustrate, assume plagiarism incidents for the book reviews persisted at roughly the same rate as immediately prior years (i.e., two-to-three). Perhaps in the class of 2013 these two-to-three represented a residual few, while many others were dissuaded by the syllabus from plagiarizing. For these reasons, past and present plagiarism rates were used as a potentially useful indicator only, not a measure, when assessing the effects of the syllabus tutorial on plagiarism. Instructor-researcher bias must also be considered. If I found extra-high levels, it may have indicated extra scrutiny on my part rather than an objective increase in plagiarism. Conversely, if I found little or none, it could be attributed to me lightly assessing the papers, perhaps unconsciously, in order to achieve a desired outcome. While I made a conscious effort to assess for plagiarism with the same diligence as in prior years, there is no way to disprove instructor-researcher bias, and whenever an instructor grades a paper, a subjective element is introduced. These limitations should be kept in view. The Syllabus Pre-Quiz Results For the pre-quiz, I compare the results of students who indicated they had read the syllabus to those who indicated they had not. I present the results in

100

summary table format with the question number and a concise rendering of the question on the left and two columns indicating the percentage of correct or preferable answers given by the students on the right. The Read column reports the results for students who had indicated they had read the syllabus. The NotR column reports the results for those who indicated they had not not read the syllabus. The use of percentages to report outcomes in a small sample size such as I was dealing with may be a concern; however, using percentages works better than absolute numbers when comparing two sub-groups of differing sizes. For efficiency, when reporting the pre-quiz results I sometimes look ahead and discuss data in the post-quiz. Preliminary Pre-Quiz Questions Q1-Q10 Results Table 5.1 reports on questions Q1-Q6. Questions Q3 through Q6 pertain to students background with English. While there is no right or wrong answer to these questions, in table 5.1 I treated the answers I believe would give students an English advantage as the preferred responses. Q1. Based on registration information given to me, I assessed that 100% of the students correctly identified themselves as Decopro (degree completion program) or regular students. This indicated good comprehension of the question and a basic competency in answering a written quiz like the one used. Q2. Regular students were expected to have read the syllabus and Decopro were not. In fact, seven of the 20 regular students who took the pre-quiz indicated

101

they had not read the syllabus and one of the six Decopros indicated he or she had.
Table 5.1. Syllabus pre-quiz questions Q1-Q6 Q Quiz Question Read = Syllabus Read - % correct (or preferable) responses NotR = Syllabus Not Read - % correct (or preferable) responses Y (yes) in question 2 indicates correct (or preferable) response Q1 Q2 columns] My parents/caregivers: speak (spoke) English (Y) OR do not (did not) speak Q3 English ( ) Q4 I learned to speak English: at home growing up (Y); in school ( ). 7 9 60 64 Decopro or Regular Student. Have you read the syllabus. (Y) [Note: response forms basis for Read and NotR N=15 N=11 Read N=15 %cor -NotR N=11 %cor --

Q5

English is (Y) is not ( ) one of my first or primary languages. The language of instruction in my high school was: English (Y); English and

53

27

Q6

another language or languages ( ); another language ( ); I did not attend high school ()

85

36

Q3-Q6. Q3 through Q6 elicited students background with English via four inter-related questions. I had hoped to be able to produce an English Advantaged/Disadvantaged score from these four inter-related questions. Because the questions were inter-related, I expected them to be answered in a cohesive, aligned manner (e.g., I expected students who indicated that English was a first language to indicate they had learned English at home). Often the questions were not answered as I expected. For example, for Q3-Q4, roughly 60% indicated their parents spoke English yet less than 10% indicated they learned to speak English at 102

home growing up. Many indicated they learned English in school yet reported it was a first language. More problematic was the fact that many of the students changed their answers to these static questions between the pre- and post-quiz. Because of these problems, I did not create an English Advantaged/Disadvantaged score as I had hoped, and I made little use of this data in the subsequent analysis and reporting. I discuss this more fully when presenting the results of the post-quiz. Questions Q7-Q10 (table 5.2) dealt with minor formatting issues. Since Q10 (The instructor has asked me to underline my family name whenever I submit written work) was a personal request, only students who had read the syllabus were expected to know the answer. Yet, students who indicated they had not read the syllabus (including Decopro students who had not even seen it yet) did about as well as those who indicated they had. Interpretation: Because Q10 represented a personal request, unique (as far as I know) to me, students who had not read the syllabus were not expected to know the answer. Their only recourse was to guess. Since the students who indicated they had read the syllabus did about the same as those who guessed, it raises the question of how much attention students paid to the syllabus before class. While by no means definitive, it at least suggests they too may have been guessing. Moreover, while about a third of the students indicated they believed I

103

wanted them to underline their names, no-one actually did so on the pre-quiz. The implications of this will be discussed with the post-quiz results.
Table 5.2. Syllabus pre-quiz questions Q7-Q10 Q Question Read = Syllabus Read - % correct (or preferable) responses NotR = Syllabus Not Read - % correct (or preferable) responses Y (yes) in question indicates correct (or preferable) response Q7 I should leave a 1-2 cm margin around each page of submitted work. (Y) Read N=15 %cor 93 NotR N=11 %cor 82

Q8

I should break my writing into paragraphs of about a page in size each. (N)

33

36

Q9

I should single-space my submitted work. (N) The instructor has asked me to underline my family name whenever I submit

47

45

Q10 written work. (Y)

33

27

Q11-Q27 - Academic Citation Standards - Pre-Quiz Results Q11-Q27 formed the heart of the syllabus quiz for research purposes. It constituted a 17-question quiz on academic citation. Since these questions reflected a standard model of citation and plagiarism, a knowledgeable student could have done well on this portion of the quiz without reading the syllabus. Table 5.3 shows students responses to questions that contribute to citation literacy but which are less important as potential causes of plagiarism. Students did well on the two conceptual questions, Q11 and Q12, but less well on questions dealing with common knowledge and use of quotes.

104

Table 5.3. Syllabus pre-quiz questions Q11-Q20 - Less important to plagiarism Q Question Read = Syllabus Read - % correct (or preferable) responses NotR = Syllabus Not Read - % correct (or preferable) responses T or F (true or false) in question indicates correct (or preferable) response A purpose of citation is to distinguish my words and phrases from the words and Q11 phrases of others. (T) Q12 A purpose of citation is to distinguish my ideas from the ideas of others. (T) 100 100 87 100 Read N=15 %cor NotR N=11 %cor

Q14 I do not need to provide a citation for something that is common knowledge. (T)

67

45

Q18 When it comes to using direct quotes, the rule is, the more the better. (F) The statement Zambia had a population of 5.2 million in 1978 requires a citation. Q19 (T) Q20 The statement Zambia is a country in Africa requires a citation. (F)

47

45

73

82

60

82

Table 5.4 shows the results for questions related to book reviews. Low scores on Q23 were a concern because false knowledge in this area could lead to failure to cite and plagiarism. However, the low scores but did not affect 2013 plagiarism rates.

105

Table 5.4. Syllabus pre-quiz questions Q13-Q27 - Important to plagiarism - Book reviews Q Question Read = Syllabus Read - % correct (or preferable) responses NotR = Syllabus Not Read - % correct (or preferable) responses T or F (true or false) in question indicates correct (or preferable) response If I am doing a book report I can copy from the book without citing it because Q22 since it is a book report the reader will know I got the material from the book. (F) Citation standards for a book report are different than those for a research essay. Q23 (F) I do not need to provide a citation for descriptive information taken from a books Q25 back cover. (F) 53 36 40 18 67 65 Read N=15 %cor NotR N=11 %cor

Table 5.5 presents the remaining important-to-plagiarism questions. Students did well on question Q13 dealing with the need to cite Internet material and Q21 dealing with the need to provide both in-text as well as end-of-text citations. Two questions of concern were Q16 and Q17 dealing with paraphrasing. A belief that paraphrases can be created by changing a few words coupled with the belief that paraphrases do not need to be cited could result in student plagiarism.

106

Table 5.5. Syllabus pre-quiz questions Q13-Q27 - Important to plagiarism - General Q Question Read = Syllabus Read - % correct (or preferable) responses NotR = Syllabus Not Read - % correct (or preferable) responses T or F (true or false) in question indicates correct (or preferable) response Q13 Material found on the internet is public domain and does not have to be cited. (F) Read N=15 %cor 93 NotR N=11 %cor 91

Q15 If material is not copyrighted I may use it without citing it. (F) If I re-express something in my own words (i.e., I paraphrase it) then I do not need Q16 to cite it. (F) Q17 A paraphrase can be created by changing a few words here and there. (F) I dont need to cite a source in the body of my paper as long as I have included it Q21 in my bibliography (reference list, list of sources). (F) Once I have cited a source in the body of my paper, I can then use it without citing Q24 it again. (F) It is OK to use other peoples study notes or essay as long as I re-express their Q26 material in my own words. (F) It is OK to take an essay that I wrote for one class and submit it for credit in Q27 another class. (F)

67

55

40

45

20

27

93

91

60

91

80

73

93

73

While there were differences in individual questions, there was no overall difference in averages between those who had read the syllabus and those who had not (67% vs. 65%). Moreover, the overall average for this standard knowledge quiz on citation and plagiarism was only about 66%. Interpretation: There are two important findings here. First, the syllabus was ineffective in equipping students prior to beginning of the class. It looks like students did not pay as much attention to it beforehand as I had hoped and

107

expected. Moreover, the quiz results indicate that students are starting class, with a book review due on first day of class, armed with only about two thirds of the knowledge they need to do citations correctly. Decopro vs. Regular Students One of my research questions concerned Decopro (degree completion program) students. Do Decopros as a group lack foundational citation knowledge that regular students have? Would they score more poorly than regular students? The data does not indicate this. In fact, Decopros averaged 74% to regular students score of 64% in the citation portion of the pre-quiz. In the post-quiz, they scored 83% vs. regular students 74%. One of my research questions was answered: 2013 Decopro students were not deficient in citation knowledge compared with regular students. Student Attitudes Regarding Academic Integrity and Plagiarism The final part of the syllabus quiz, questions qA-qK, explored the alignment of student opinions with academy values. I used a Likert-like scale. Question qD called for a negative disagree response. For the purpose of calculating the overall average, I reversed the numerical polarity of qD so that Strongly Disagree (1) became Strongly Disagree (5), and so on. Table 5.6 shows the results. Student responses were generally well-aligned with the values of the academy. As with the citation section, both those who had

108

read the syllabus and those who had not scored the same. In fact, students who reported they had not read the syllabus actually scored higher on seven of the 11 questions. Interpretation: It appears students did not learn much if anything from the syllabus prior to the class; its utility as a tool to ameliorate defective citation knowledge and promote academy values prior to class appears to have been negligible.
Table 5.6. - Syllabus results for pre-quiz questions qA-qK Q Question m (#) = mode (number) avg/5 = average score on a 1-5 Likert-like scale * = Relevant to academic literacy, but less relevant to plagiarism at TTC (5) or (1) in question indicates highest alignment with academy value qA* TTC intends that assignments, such as research essays, book reports, and exam questions be ways for me to develop critical thinking skills (5) qB* Writing essays and book report assignments give me a chance to develop my critical writing skills (5) qC* Providing citations for my sources is a good way to show the instructor the research I have done (5) qD I only need to cite sources if I think the instructor will catch me if I dont (1) Read N=15 m (#) avg/5 5 (13) 4.8 5 (12) 4.6 5 (8) 4.1 1 (9) 1.8 qE It is better for me to submit something I wrote, even with some spelling and grammar errors, than to submit someone elses words and phrases as if they were my own (5) qF Submitting work expressed in my own words gives me a chance to develop my own academic writing voice (5) qG If a student uses material without citing it, and the instructor fails to notice this, it gives him or her an unfair advantage over other students (5) qH It is important for instructors to check for referencing violations to ensure all students are treated fairly (5) 5 (10) 4.5 4 (7) 3.8 4 (7) 4.0 5 (11) 5.0 5 (5) 3.6 5 (9) 4.8 5 (11) 4.4 NotR N=11 m ( #) avg/5 5 (9) 4.9 5 (10) 4.9 5 (9) 4.8 1 (10) 1.3 5 (8) 4.7

109

Question m (#) = mode (number) avg/5 = average score on a 1-5 Likert-like scale * = Relevant to academic literacy, but less relevant to plagiarism at TTC (5) or (1) in question indicates highest alignment with academy value

Read N=15 m (#) avg/5 5 (10) 4.5 4.5 (10) 3.7 5 (9) 4.6

NotR N=11 m ( #) avg/5 5 (8) 4.5 4 (4) 3.5 5 (6) 4.4

qI

For me to receive an honest grade, it is important that what I submit is my own work written in my own words (5)

qJ*

I learned about academic writing standards, including how to cite sources, prior to coming to TTC (5)

qK

Regardless of what I may have been taught prior to coming to TTC, when I came to TTC I was taught about academic writing standards, including how to cite sources (5)

Avg

4.3

4.2

Plagiarism In The Book Reviews I detected five instances of plagiarism among the 27 students when marking the book reviews and one later when marking the essays, for a total of six. Table 5.7 consists of plagiarizing students and select non-plagiarizing students who are included in the discussion below. Table 5.7 indicates those who plagiarized, the nature of their plagiarism, the grades received, and their wrong answers to the syllabus quiz. An R in the student ID indicates a regular student; a D indicates a Decopro student. Five of the six plagiarizing students indicated they had not read the syllabus. Interpretation: This may indicate poor study habits or a disinclination to read based on poor English reading skills.

110

Appendix table A.J.1 contains the full student data. Examination of table A.J.1 suggested no straightforward, linear correspondence between (lack of) citation knowledge and plagiarism.
Table 5.7. Plagiarism in book reviews mapped to pre-quiz wrong answers Stud Rd Plag Plagiarism Assessment ent Syl BkR ? ? Rd Syl = Read Syllabus Plag BkR = Plagiarized Book Report R = Regular; D = Decopro BkR Gr/20 = Book review grade/20 D03 R04 R07 R08 R03 D01 N N N Y Y Y Y Plagiarized external sources Plagiarized room-mates paper Copied paragraph of friends paper Copied great swaths from book; used word attenuated D05 N Y Plagiarized external source; found when marking essay; assigned grade subsequently zeroed-out R18 N Y Plagiarized a paragraph and students paper contained same misspellings of names as another paper 12 6 14 17 18 23 25 27 12/0 3 17 25 27 N BkR # Gr/ Wro 20 ng Pre-Quiz Wrong Answers for 17 questions in citation portion of quiz (Q11-Q27)

10 9 9 0 15 12/0

2 10 9 5 8 10

24 25 11 15 16 17 18 20 23 24 25 26 11 14 17 18 19 23 25 26 27 14 15 17 18 23 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 23 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 25

All who plagiarized answered Q17, A paraphrase can be created by changing a few words here and there, wrong and all but one got Q18, When it comes to using direct quotes, the rule is, the more the better, wrong. However, this would not in itself result in plagiarism. More worrisome is the fact that all but one got the answers to Q23 citation standards for a book report are different than

111

those for a research essay wrong. However, none of the plagiarizing students I spoke to raised this as an objection or defense. The number of wrong answers varied widely among those who plagiarized (from three to ten) and those who did not (from zero to ten). For example, D03 and D05 both did very well on the pre-quiz; D03 plagiarized and D05 didnt; D01 and R04 both did poorly; D01 plagiarized and R04 didnt. Both groups showed similar ranges of wrong answers (see table A.J.1). Quiz questions Q21 through Q25 were especially pertinent to book reports. However, while many students on both sides of the plagiarism divide got Q25 wrong, copying un-cited information from a books back cover was not evident in the 2013 student submissions. Student Attitudes and Opinions Regarding Academic Literacy and Integrity - Pre-Quiz Results Student attitudes and opinions were assessed based on a 5-point Likertlike scale with (1) indicating strong disagreement and (5) indicating strong agreement. Table 5.8 summarizes the results for plagiarizing students and one other student who is discussed here. The quiz questions and scales are presented in Appendix C (annotated version) and Appendix D (as presented to students). Decopro vs. regular students are indicated by a D or an R in the Student ID. The chart indicates if they had read the syllabus, their book review grade, whether they plagiarized their book review, and how they responded to the questions. The Rd Syl? column shows whether a student indicated he or she had 112

read the syllabus. Since most indicated they had, I indicate with an N those who reported they had not. Since most student responses were positive, the chart shows exceptions; that is, answers indicating a low alignment with an academy value. The label qJ-2, for example, indicates a student gave an answer of 2, indicating Disagree, for question qJ, I learned about academic writing standards, including how to cite sources, prior to coming to TTC. Table A.J.2 shows the full set of data for all students. I could discern no pattern in the responses that would account for the plagiarism.
Table 5.8. Select students mapped to low alignment to qA-qK answers and student comments Rd Syl? BkR Gr/ 20 9 Plag BkR Y Low Align qA-qK qH-2 Its not a delibalate thing when ever an instructor see that the student has forgotten to cite the work. At times R08 N 0 Y qG-1 students improve as they find time to go through the at their own time. This one is a very good thing for me because I can see R03 N 15 Y qI-1 the interest of this cours Thanks for opening my mind. Basically, this portion of the quiz is well arranged in the way that it has reminded me about research and writing. D01 N 0 Y qG-1 Credit goes to the lecturer and I would recomend that this kind should be coming every beginning of the term. [book report plagiarism was found during marking of D05 R18 N N 12/0 12 Y Y qJ-2 essays and grade was subsequently zeroed] qJ-2

Stdnt R07

qL - Student Comments

113

The low agreement shown by plagiarizing students to three questions, however, possibly indicates a mis-alignment of these students attitudes with academy values. The three questions were: qG - if a student uses material without citing it, and the instructor fails to notice this, it gives him or her an unfair advantage over other students; qH - it is important for instructors to check for referencing violations to ensure all students are treated fairly; and qI - for me to receive an honest grade, it is important that what I submit is my own work written in my own words. However, as table A.J.2 indicates, some non-plagiarizing students also showed low agreement with these questions. Interpretation: These particular questions deserve full classroom airing and exploration to determine what students are thinking and their attitudes towards these questions. This should preferably be done in a first-year English class so that student values may be assessed and aligned with those of the academy early in their tertiary (i.e., postsecondary) academic career. R08s comment offers one of the few explanations for plagiarism offered by the 2013 students and is noteworthy for that reason. R08 says, Its not a delibalate thing when ever an instructor see that the student has forgotten to cite the work. At times students improve as they find time to go through the at their own time. R08 plagiarized his or her room-mates paper. Interpretation: R08 probably had something other than copying a room-mates paper in mind when offering his or her benign explanation for plagiarism.

114

Pre-quiz Student Comments Twelve of 26 students provided written comments. I coded based on common words or themes detected in the data. Student comments were positive, with students using words such as helpful, good, important, thanks, and recommend[ed]. Variations of forgotten and reminder appear. This suggests some students viewed the material as a review or re-visiting of what was covered in first year. Reaction: I get the impression from reading the comments the students are paying attention to the citation tutorial materials for the first time, via the quiz. This insight triangulates with the fact that students who indicated they had read the syllabus did no better on average than those who said that they did not. It appears both groups relied on past learning about citation standards rather than freshly acquired knowledge from reading the syllabus prior to class. The full set of pre-quiz student comments is found in table A.J.2 in Appendix J. Speaking With Students Who Plagiarized Their Book Reviews I provided written comments on each students book review, including those who plagiarized. I spoke individually with students who had engaged in serious plagiarism. R08 and R17 submitted very similar papers. I learned they were room-mates and confirmed R08 was the plagiarizing student. I asked R08 why he or she had done this. I also asked R17 if he or she knew his or her roommate had copied his or her paper. The response of both was stare-ahead, dead 115

silence. R08 asked for a chance to re-write his or her book review and I acceded to this request. Another two students book reviews resembled each others both were typed, and both contained the same mis-spelling of an authors name. When I spoke with them, I was told they were study partners and had used the same typist. Fair enough. The paragraph of one student matched that of the other. I let this student off with a collegial warning. Another students paper contained a plagiarism indicator or give-away the improbable word attenuated. I asked this student what it meant. My question was met with uneasy silence. After some squirming, the student said, its a typo. When I assured the student it was correctly spelled, the student offered, I meant antique. When this did not work, he or she stared into space. What he or she did not do was admit that he or she had copied it (as part of a plagiarized section) and he or she had no idea what the word meant. One of the plagiarizing students pleaded for the chance to re-do his or her book review, indicating he or she had never been given a zero before (while communicating the sense that he or she could not bear to live with such an outcome). I gave it to him or her. As indicated by figure 5.1, plagiarism rates on the book review were about three times prior years averages. When this data is triangulated with the data indicating students who reported reading the syllabus did no better on the syllabus

116

quiz than those who indicated they had not, it reinforces the emerging indication that handing out the syllabus tutorial prior to class was ineffectual in staunching plagiarism. Of course, there could be hidden factors at work that would nullify this conclusion. While six plagiarized, perhaps others did not because of the ameliorating influence of the syllabus. But there is nothing to indicate this was the case. And, for this scenario to work, it would mean that there were many who entered the class of 2013 who would have plagiarize but did not do so because of a syllabus tutorial, which resulted, on average, in no increased learning. While not impossible, I find this an improbable interpretation.
Figure 5.1. Detected plagiarism - Apologetics book review assignment - TTC 2004 - 2013.

No. of students

6 5 No. of students 4 3 2 1 0

3 2 2 2 1 2004 0 2005 0 2006 2008 2009 2010 2011

2012

2013

A further explanation would lie in instructor bias or subjectivity. Perhaps I unconsciously scrutinized the papers more carefully for plagiarism during 2013 or perhaps past classes have also plagiarized at high rates and I am simply becoming much better at detecting plagiarism. While these remain possibilities, I believe 117

they are unlikely for the following reasons. First, I set out to apply the same degree of diligence as in past years and made a point of not going beyond my usual due diligence. Second, it would have served my purposes better to have found diminished rates of plagiarism. I could then have argued that the syllabus tutorial was an explanatory factor. But this would have led towards a bias of examining the papers for plagiarism more lightly rather than more rigorously. While not impossible, I do not think either of these suggestions provides a sufficient explanation for the level of plagiarism detected in the class of 2013. When this data is triangulated with the data indicating students who reported reading the syllabus did no better on the syllabus quiz than those who indicated they had not, it reinforces the emerging indication that handing out the syllabus tutorial prior to class was ineffectual both in promoting citation learning and in staunching plagiarism. In-Class Engagements Some in-class engagements illuminated some of the issues raised in the course of this investigation. I describe these here. Underlining of Family Names Issue Part way through the seminar, I asked teams of students to review the portion of the syllabus dealing with formatting issues (some of which were covered by Q7-Q10) and report to the rest of the class. One of the presenters gently chided me over my request to underline family names, firmly stating they 118

had been instructed not to do this. However, as a concession to me (my words, not the students) they would do so. Later I asked Mrs. Ruth Kerr about this. She said the students had been taught not to underline words in the body of their papers but of course there was nothing wrong with asking them to underline their names on the cover page. Interpretation: This data triangulates with my experience with author names recounted in Chapter 1 where I marked students for presenting author names in inverted order (Doe John vs. John Doe) in the body of their papers and students insisted they had been told to present names this way. Interpretation: This indicates some inflexibility on the part of students in how they understand and process instructions. These anecdotal incidents suggest students may understand instructions superficially, and inflexibly, failing to grasp the underlying rationale, and lacking a sense of when and how they would apply. Plausibly, this might be a function of L2 second-language difficulties (e.g., Anglil-Carter 2000, 44-45, 92, 113) or perhaps C2 second-culture distances associated with the move from a rote-learning environment (e.g., Archer 2010, 528; Anglil-Carter 2000, 45) to an academic model of instruction and learning. Paraphrasing I briefly covered citation standards and the need to avoid plagiarism in class, pointing students to the syllabus for more instruction. I mentioned that paraphrases need to be cited. This seemed to come as a surprise to many students even though it is covered in first-year classes and was included in the syllabus

119

tutorial that most indicated they had read. During the tea-break a student caught up outside the classroom and asked, are you saying we are supposed to cite paraphrases?! I affirmed they were. Interpretation: The lack of knowledge about paraphrasing expressed in class is consistent with (and helps triangulate) the syllabus pre-quiz results showing low scores for Q16 and Q17. The syllabus fully covered paraphrasing. The fact that students still did not grasp this suggests the syllabus had been read superficially or without comprehension. The fact that these students had successfully reached fourth year should indicate decent levels of written English comprehension. Because of this, I believe it is more likely the syllabus had been read in a cursory or superficial manner, if read at all. Like some of the other questions where there were issues of student comprehension or attitudes, the issue of citing paraphrases warrants a full airing in the classroom. The Christs Resurrection Class Exercise During class I asked the students to break into groups and identify Christian doctrines which logically follow from Christs resurrection. Although there was no written handout for this question, I went over the assignment verbally three times. One of the teams answered the wrong question. They reported on evidences the resurrection is true, which we had just covered in class. Reaction: This caused perplexity. How could an entire team fail to

120

understand the question, not ask for clarification, and answer a question quite different from the one asked? I had occasion to speak to a student privately about this. He or she offered the following (paraphrased) explanation: the students arent used to thinking critically; they are used to echoing back what they have just been taught. Interpretation: This comment is consistent with the rote-learning hypothesis I made earlier with regards to students resisting my instruction on how to present author names in essays or book reviews (John Doe vs. Doe John). His or her opinion certainly has explanatory power and I have no reason to dispute what he or she said. However it is by itself just a single data point. I also mentioned that some students had plagiarized their book reviews and asked the student what he or she thought was going on. He or she said students often do not have or do not take the time to read the assigned book. They skim through the back cover or table of contents to put something together. Interpretation: The students observation (it was presented as fact, based, presumably, on observational knowledge, rather than speculation) was consistent with many of the reviews I had read which offered superficial analysis of the book including some in which I detected no plagiarism per se. Reflecting further, I remembered two or three students from prior years had indicated that there were students who reported they had read assigned readings who had not actually done so.

121

In an informal email correspondence dated June 21, 2013, the student offered a recap and further insights: REASONS FOR THE UNSUAL FAILURE(in the last course u taught us) 1)Failure to understand the question& demands of the question. 2)English: Communication barrier during lectures(for some students).most students are able to understand english but sometimes it an accent issue. (Canadian accent) 3)Time limit for study of books during intensive classes.most students donot manage to complete reading assignments so they end up using only the table of contents and the cover page summary to write book reports. No wonder the poor content of certain papers. 4)Loss of concentration: intensive classes are really toxic&demandingbeing in class from 8:00hrs -13:00hrs can be too much sometimes so we end up really tired and lose concentration. The students views are valuable. However, I present them as one persons views, and not, without corroborating evidence, as representative or definitive. The Syllabus Post-Quiz Results By the post-quiz all students indicated they had read the syllabus except three, two of whom indicated they had still not read the syllabus, one of whom changed his have read response in the pre-quiz to have not read in the postquiz. At this point in the analysis I change the comparisons from syllabus read versus not read to pre-quiz versus post-quiz results.

122

Pre/Post Quiz - Preliminary Questions Q1-Q10 Results Q3-Q6. Since the pre-quiz and post-quiz asked identical questions, questions Q3 through Q6, dealing with students backgrounds with the English language, were answered twice by the students. I expected students to give the same answers on the post-quiz as the pre-quiz. However, there was a high degree of changes among student answers. This is reflected in the averages to these questions, presented in table 5.9. While half as many students in the post-quiz indicated their parents spoke English, twice as many indicated they learned to speak English at home. Interpretation: I suggest three possible explanations. First, some of these questions were relatively complex. Q3 contains three complexities namely, (a) parents versus caregivers, (b) present- versus past-tense, and, (c) two places where the student could respond with an X. This may have lead to comprehension issues. Second, some were ambiguous. Students may have understood learned English (Q4) in the sense of formal learning as opposed to learning at home. Students may have understood first language (Q5) in the sense of being of first importance rather than as being a mother tongue. Third, some of the switching may have resulted because of where these questions were positioned in the quiz and their unexpected nature. The questions came at the start of the quiz. For the pre-quiz, the students had just been told that formal research was taking place but not been told the exact nature of the research. I noticed at the 123

time of the pre-quiz that the students exhibited the kind of tense anxiety one sees in students facing the unknown of a final exam. I did not observe this same degree of tension when the students re-did the quiz at the end of class. The answers in the pre-quiz showed better cohesion, and, on balance, I put more confidence in them because of this. However, because of these problems, I did not create an English Advantaged/Disadvantaged score as I had planned, and I made little use of this data in the subsequent analysis and reporting. However, the inconsistencies in the data are themselves interesting data. They indicate, or raise issues, such as, (a) the difficulties with quiz question construction, (b) the unexpected results that can obtain when one asks the same questions twice, (c) the need to go over questions in class and check for student comprehension when administering quiz questions where it is known comprehension may be an issue, and (d) possibly, student English comprehension issues. With regards to this latter point, it is noteworthy that, unlike the complexities and ambiguities associated with Q3-Q5 (discussed earlier), Q6 is relatively unambiguous and less complex. There was less student movement on this question.

124

Table 5.9. Syllabus Pre/Post-Quiz questions Q1-Q6 Q Quiz Question Read = Syllabus Read - % correct (or preferable) responses NotR = Syllabus Not Read - % correct (or preferable) responses Y (yes) in question indicates correct (or preferable) response Q1 Q2 Decopro or Regular Student. Have you read the syllabus. (Y) My parents/caregivers: speak (spoke) English (Y) OR do not (did not) speak Q3 English ( ) Q4 I learned to speak English: at home growing up (Y); in school ( ). 8 20 62 30 PreQ N=26 %cor -58 PostQ N=27 %cor -89

Q5

English is (Y) is not ( ) one of my first or primary languages. The language of instruction in my high school was: English (Y); English and

42

26

Q6

another language or languages ( ); another language ( ); I did not attend high school ( )

63

64

I conferred with fellow-missionary and second-language, second-culture L2-C2 researcher Nancy Whytock about this. In an email response dated January 8, 2014, she offered the following response: I can't get away from the nagging feeling that they are telling us how difficult it is to study in a second language! There is a LOT of guess work involved and frankly I think many students, certainly my students, become very accustomed to giving questions their "best guess". That could explain a lot of these contradictory answers... students simply couldn't remember what their best guess was the last time you asked them these questions. Maybe the language barrier is far bigger than we realize. My students go a lot by gestures and voice intonation in a listening/speaking setting. These markers are not available in a reading/writing scenario. However, while offering insight, this is a single opinion and cannot be viewed as representative without further substantiation. 125

Questions Q7-Q10 (table 5.10) dealt with minor formatting issues.

Table 5.10. Syllabus Pre/Post-Quiz questions Q7-Q10 Q Quiz Question Read = Syllabus Read - % correct (or preferable) responses NotR = Syllabus Not Read - % correct (or preferable) responses Y (yes) in question indicates correct (or preferable) response Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 written work. (Y) I should leave a 1-2 cm margin around each page of submitted work. (Y) I should break my writing into paragraphs of about a page in size each. (N) I should single-space my submitted work. (N) The instructor has asked me to underline my family name whenever I submit 31 100 PreQ N=26 %cor 88 35 46 PostQ N=27 %cor 100 33 67

By the post-quiz 100% of students correctly indicated I wanted them to underline their family names on their submissions. However, only four actually did so. Interpretation: The context to this request in the syllabus was student papers submitted for grading, so it is possible that students reasoned that this did not apply to the quiz, either because it was not written work, or because it was not being submitted for grading. However, the syllabus included the rationale, To help me figure out who you are and to locate you in my list, always underline your family name, e.g., Richard Ball. I had reinforced this rationale in class, and indicated verbally that it applied to everything they handed in to me. So, while a possible explanation is that students were aware of the rule but narrowly reasoned it did not apply to the quiz, I think it more likely they simply did not make the connection between the rule and the behaviour, that is, they knew the answer to give on the quiz, but did

126

not think to apply it to the quiz. This at least suggests a possible disconnect in students minds between answers one gives on a quiz and behaviour. If so, this has implications for plagiarism and the utility of testing for plagiarism knowledge. However, further investigation would need to be done before reaching any conclusions or acting on this. Q11-Q27 - Academic Citation Standards - Pre/PostQuiz Results Table 5.11 shows students responses to questions that contribute to citation literacy but which are less important as potential causes of plagiarism. Questions Q14, Q19, and Q20 dealt with the issue of common knowledge. The responses to these questions should have been cohesively aligned; for example, a student who indicated common knowledge does not have to be cited (Q14) should have also indicated that Zambia is a country in Africa (Q20) does not need to be cited, but that Q19 Zambia had a population of 5.2 million in 1978, does. In fact, fewer than 40% of the students aligned these responses correctly. Interpretation: Once again there are indications students may lack either knowledge or comprehension. Alternatively, this may indicate weakness in linking abstract ideas (Q14) to concrete examples (Q19 and Q20). Putting these questions adjacent to each other on the quiz might stimulate more integrative thinking. In-class discussion is needed to determine what students were thinking when they answered these questions and to provide remedial instruction as warranted.

127

Table 5.11. Syllabus Pre/Post Quiz questions Q11-Q20 - Less important to plagiarism

Quiz Question Read = Syllabus Read - % correct (or preferable) responses NotR = Syllabus Not Read - % correct (or preferable) responses T (true) or F (false) in question indicates correct (or preferable) response A purpose of citation is to distinguish my words and phrases from the words and

PreQ N=26 %cor 92

PostQ N=27 %cor 96

Q11 phrases of others. (T) Q12 A purpose of citation is to distinguish my ideas from the ideas of others. (T)

100

96

Q14 I do not need to provide a citation for something that is common knowledge. (T)

58

46

Q18 When it comes to using direct quotes, the rule is, the more the better. (F) The statement Zambia had a population of 5.2 million in 1978 requires a Q19 citation. (T) Q20 The statement Zambia is a country in Africa requires a citation. (F)

46

48

77

88

69

63

Questions Q22, Q23, and Q25 related to book reviews. As table 5.12 indicates, the student scores for these questions improved dramatically, although half the class still believed that citation standards for book reviews differed from those for a research essay.

128

Table 5.12. Syllabus Pre/Post Quiz questions Q13-Q27 - Important to plagiarism - Book reviews Q Quiz Question Read = Syllabus Read - % correct (or preferable) responses NotR = Syllabus Not Read - % correct (or preferable) responses T (true) or F (false) in question indicates correct (or preferable) response If I am doing a book report I can copy from the book without citing it because Q22 since it is a book report the reader will know I got the material from the book. (F) Citation standards for a book report are different than those for a research essay. Q23 (F) I do not need to provide a citation for descriptive information taken from a books Q25 back cover. (F) 46 85 31 50 62 85 PreQ N=26 %cor PostQ N=27 %cor

Table 5.13 presents the remaining important-to-plagiarism questions and results. Consistent with the findings from the in-class conversation about paraphrasing, the correct student responses for Q16 the need to cite a paraphrase doubled. However, students still erroneously believed a paraphrase could be created by changing a few words here and there (Q17).

129

Table 5.13. Syllabus Pre/Post Quiz questions Q13-Q27 - Important to plagiarism - General Q Quiz Question Read = Syllabus Read - % correct (or preferable) responses NotR = Syllabus Not Read - % correct (or preferable) responses T (true) or F (false) in question indicates correct (or preferable) response Q13 Material found on the internet is public domain and does not have to be cited. (F) Q15 If material is not copyrighted I may use it without citing it. (F) If I re-express something in my own words (i.e., I paraphrase it) then I do not Q16 need to cite it. (F) Q17 A paraphrase can be created by changing a few words here and there. (F) I dont need to cite a source in the body of my paper as long as I have included it Q21 in my bibliography (reference list, list of sources). (F) Once I have cited a source in the body of my paper, I can then use it without Q24 citing it again. (F) It is OK to use other peoples study notes or essay as long as I re-express their Q26 material in my own words. (F) It is OK to take an essay that I wrote for one class and submit it for credit in Q27 another class. (F) 85 96 77 85 73 85 92 88 23 27 42 81 PreQ N=26 % cor 92 62 PostQ N=27 % cor 93 81

Questions Q7-Q27 Summary Results Formatting and Citation Rules On questions Q7-Q27 (which encompassed formatting and citation rules) students averaged 13 correct on the pre-quiz and 16 correct on the post-quiz, an average gain of three correct answers and a 23% improvement. Two students answers degraded, four remained the same, while 18 students answers showed improvement. Moreover, the maximum student degradation was one answer, while the maximum increase was seven. The deltas for the six lowest differentials between pre- and post-quizzes were -1, -1, 0, 0, 0, and 0, while the six highest 130

were 7, 7, 7, 6, 6, 6, and 5. Interpretation: While guessing at answers undoubtedly plays a role in the execution of many if not most quizzes of this nature, it seems unlikely such results could be attributed to luckier guessing on the part of students. The data supports the conclusion that the results are due to actual learning on the part of some, if not most, students. Questions Q11-Q27 Summary Results - Citation Rules Only On questions Q11-Q27 (the citation rules) students averaged 11 correct answers (out of 17) on the pre-quiz and 13 (out of 17) on the post-quiz. The mean was also 11 and 13 respectively. The relative improvement was 16%. Six students answers degraded, two remained the same, while 18 showed improvement. Students who improved their scores outnumbered those whose scores declined by three to one. Moreover, the maximum individual student decline was two wrong answers (-2), whereas the maximum increase was six (+6). The deltas for the six scores that slipped were one -2, -1, -1, -1, -1, and -1 (total -7), while the six highest improvements were +6, +5, +5, +4, +4, and +3 (total +27). This means that at the highest and lowest ends, the gainers outscored the decliners by a four to one margin. Interpretation: While the improvement in scores could be plausibly attributed to luckier guessing, and while some students undoubtedly were guessing on at least some questions in the pre-quiz and postquiz, the solid gains present in the data once again suggest actual learning on the

131

part of some, if not most, students. I would argue that the data supports more than that: considerable gains on the part of an appreciable number of students. Overall student averages for the citation portion of the quiz improved from 66% on the pre-quiz to 76% on the post-quiz, for a relative gain of 15%. However, although student scores improved from 66% to 76% between the prequiz and post-quiz, knowing 76% of citation basics is arguably not good enough. Scores of fourth-year students on basic citation matters should be 90% or higher for basic academic citation literacy which helps ensure academic integrity in students submitted works. Anything less means that students are operating with defective knowledge or understanding of what is expected by way of academic citations. Pre/Post-Quiz - Student Attitudes Re: Academic Integrity and Plagiarism Results Student responses to questions qA through qK continued to be generally highly aligned with those of the academy. Table A.J.3 in Appendix J shows the aggregate post-quiz student responses to qA-qK and compares these with their responses in the pre-quiz. As indicated by table 5.14, there was negative movement on qE dealing with students spelling and grammar but positive movement on qG dealing with the importance of instructors detecting plagiarism. Interpretation: The improvement reflected in qG is welcome. The slippage reflected in responses to question qE warrants classroom discussion to determine what students were thinking when they gave their responses. 132

Table 5.14. Syllabus Quiz questions qA-qK - Pre/Post Quiz results Q Question m (#) = mode (number) avg/5 = average score on a 1-5 Likert-like scale = Relevant to academic literacy, but less relevant to plagiarism at TTC (5) or (1) in question indicates highest alignment with academy value qE It is better for me to submit something I wrote, even with some spelling and grammar errors, than to submit someone elses words and phrases as if they were my own (5) qG If a student uses material without citing it, and the instructor fails to notice this, it gives him or her an unfair advantage over other students (5) 4.5 (20) 3.7 5 (12) 4.3 PreQ N=26 m (#) avg/5 5 (19) 4.5 PostQ N=27 m ( #) avg/5 5 (14) 3.8

Post-quiz student comments Students were again invited to offer written comments at the end of the post-quiz. Once again, I developed codes based on common words or themes detected in the data. A number of themes were evident. The first is that the quiz served as a reminder and reinforcement of previous learning (e.g., It is a good set quiz, for revising [i.e., revisiting] what is been taught). The second is its value as a teaching tool (e.g., the Quiz is not just a measurement instrument; it is in itself a teaching instrument that focuses the students' attention on these areas and requires some thoughtful reflection). The third is a recommendation that quiz use be expanded (e.g., This Progresive assersement of academic standard must start from first up to forth year, it will really make an impact). The fourth is praise to TTC for instructing students in academic literacy (e.g., My coming at TTC has caused me to improve my writing skill). The final theme has to do with

133

promoting student academic integrity (e.g., The quiz emphasizes an honest and respect for academic writings). The written comments were optional; students did not have to give them. They therefore have some weight over being asked to merely tick a box in answer to a question. The students enthusiasm for the syllabus and quiz, and learning about academic literacy and integrity, appears genuine. Since the enthusiasm was apparently genuine, the question becomes, since I did not seem to help them avoid plagiarism, in what way did the students think I helped them? I believe the answer to this may lie in differentiating between an increase in academic literacy and a decrease in plagiarism. Only a minority of students plagiarized; the majority who did not may have been expressing a sentiment that the syllabus had helped bring academic literacy and integrity to their attention and had increased their knowledge, at least somewhat. A good example of this would be with regards to the issue of paraphrasing. There is little doubt that students entered the class with a defective understanding of paraphrasing and left the class with a better, although still imperfect, grasp of its requirements. Table A.J.3 in Appendix J presents the full set of student comments. As with other student comments and writing in general, they provide evidence of student difficulties with English.

134

Plagiarism in the Essays Four of the students who plagiarized their book reviews went on to plagiarize their essays. Four additional students plagiarized, for a total of eight plagiarized essays. Table A.J.4 summarizes student pre-quiz and post-quiz errors along with whether they plagiarized. It shows the grade they received on the 15question apologetics exam administered at the end of the class. As with the book reviews, I found no detectable straight-line indicator in the data that certain wrong answers resulted in plagiarism. Plagiarizing students got some answers wrong, but so did non-plagiarizing students. Cases like non-plagiarizing students R06, R28, and plagiarizing student R03, however, show dramatic improvement. R03 went from eight wrong to only three; R06 from nine to three; and R28 from three to none. This data suggests these students were diligently applying themselves to the resources and instruction provided and suggests something more than guess-work on the part of these students. I compared the individual student pre- and post-quiz wrong-answer results to the qA-qK series of questions (designed to investigate student alignment with academy values). As with previous analysis, I could discern no explanatory pattern in the responses that would account for plagiarism. Results are found in table A.J.5 in Appendix J.

135

There were some positive results in addition to students who did not plagiarize at all. R07 and R08 plagiarized their book reviews but not their essays. Furthermore, R07 improved his score on the post-quiz by four more correct answers, reduced his or her wrong answers by one third. This suggests learning and diligence on his or her part. R08 on the other hand simply traded wrong answers. Having detected plagiarism in D05s essay, I went back and re-checked his or her book review. I found plagiarism there as well. I reversed his or her grade from 12 to zero. Three other students, R03, R18, and D01 (whom I allowed to redo his or her book review), plagiarized their essays as well as their book reviews. Reaction: These four plagiarized their book reviews, blew past the syllabus and quiz, as well as my oral and written admonishments, and went on to plagiarize their essays. Four students, R17, R04, R05, and R27, did not plagiarize their book reviews but did plagiarize their essays. Although they showed improvement in citation knowledge, this did not co-relate to non-plagiarizing behaviour. This incongruity is amplified by the comments these four students made on the postquiz. Two commended the quiz as a teaching instrument that should be repeated to improve the standard and maintain the standard of writing while at school. One praised TTC, stating, TTC has made me. I didn't know how to cite but now I can cite source and acknowledge other people's work. The other is R17 who

136

stated: It is a reminder to me, that I should be faithful in my accademic writing. Because to be a scholar you need to be accademically sound as we need to be theologically sound. R17 made this elegant statement the same morning he or she handed in an egregiously plagiarized essay. Interpretation: One of the themes of this thesis is distances, such as L2 language distances, C2 cultural distances, and academic distances between the education students may have received prior to attending TTC and the expectations TTC has for doing competent academic work. The distance between R17s statement and behaviour is striking and puzzling. Could there be compartmentalization going on, where knowledge and enthusiasm are one thing and actual behaviour another? While a follow-on interview with such a person would have be highly desirable and might yield valuable insights, that was not available to me. I will, however, return to consider R17s submissions in the context of my in-depth analysis of plagiarized students papers. The End-Of-Class Survey The syllabus tutorial and quiz instruments were supplemented with an anonymous end-of-class survey. The results were almost uniformly favourable, with students generally rating the utility of the syllabus and quiz highly. Table 5.15 provides partial results. Appendix table A.J.5 provides the full set of data. There was one noteworthy dichotomy in the data. Question sA - the syllabus contained useful citation information received the highest average response, 4.8

137

(mode 5, see table 5.15). However, two similar questions, sB - the syllabus contained useful citation which I did not already know, and sD - the syllabus contained useful other information which I did not already know, received the lowest responses, 3.9 and 3.9 (both mode 4), with two students rating sB as 2.0 (disagree) and 1.0 (strongly disagree). While an average of 3.9 (mode 4) still indicates agreement, this is weaker agreement than indicated for the other questions.
Table 5.15. End-of-Class Evaluation select questions sA-sG Q sA sB End-of-Class Evaluation Questions sA-sG The syllabus contained useful information about rules for citation The syllabus contained useful information about citation rules that I didnt already know sD Besides citation rules, the syllabus contained other useful info. about academic writing I didnt already know 4 (14) 3.9 Mode Avg. N=27 5 (23) 4 (13) 4.8 3.9

Interpretation: When these data are put together with student comments on the value of the quiz as a reminder of material learned earlier, the communal student voice regarding the value of the syllabus/quiz could be interpretatively expressed as we appreciate the review and reinforcement, but we already know this. While a few students did very well on the quiz, most did not. Reaction: My colloquial response to the students, collectively, would be, You dont know it as well as you think you do.

138

Table A.J.6 in Appendix J contains the final comments of the students. They were uniformly positive. Once again, I developed codes based on common words or themes detected in the data. Words and phrases such as good, helpful and eye opener repeat along with words such as reminder, recall, and revisit which reinforces the indications that many students viewed the syllabus and quiz as a recollection of what they had been taught earlier. Several students made a syllabus recommendation I characterize as expand its use. Interpretation: The enthusiasm I noted earlier for the syllabus and quiz shines through once again. L2 second-language issues are apparent in the comments and illustrate the distances students have with English. The high grades given to the various questions may be dismissed at least in part to desirability bias. However, several students took the time to express enthusiasm and appreciation in written comments, which were optional. I conclude from this that the enthusiastic student comments offered on the end-of-class evaluation were genuine. I also conclude that some if not many students genuinely felt they had been helped. The improved scores provide evidence that the students were right. End-of-Class Engagements There were two end-of-class engagements which illustrated some of the issues associated with teaching in the African/Zambian context.

139

The Apologetics Exam - A Late Arriver One of the non-plagiarizing students was late for the quiz-format apologetics exam. He or she arrived as I began going over the answers. I noticed him or her duly noting and writing down the answers. At the end, he handed them in to me with a look of evident satisfaction on his face. Unfortunately, with the flurry of activity associated with wrapping up the class I was not able to speak with him or her about this. Interpretation: It appeared that he or she expected me to mark his paper and assign a grade. If so, this may have indicated a fundamental lack of understanding about the nature of academic work and its attendant grading. This students behaviour reminded me of the student who submitted two book reviews that were nothing more than replicated extracts from the books (Chapter 1). A Final Request One of the students who had plagiarized his or her book review came up to me at the end of class indicating he or she wished to take a Masters degree in Canada. As I usually do in such situations, I directed him or her to speak with the Academic Dean. When I later marked the students essay, I ascertained he or she had plagiarized his or her essay as well. Reaction: As I reflected on his or her poor English and egregious plagiarism I realized that the distances involved in this young mans or young womans dream linguistic, academic, cultural, and yes, moral were vast.

140

This student clearly wants to succeed. His or her request helps an instructor like myself understand that I must do all I can to help students such as this one surmount these distances. Post-Engagement In-Depth Analysis of Plagiarized Student Papers Subsequent to my return to Canada I performed in-depth analysis of the plagiarizing students book reviews and essays. This post-engagement analysis confirmed the plagiarism in student submissions found in Africa and in most cases resulted in finding more. Four key insights emerged. The first is that student plagiarism took place in an immediate literary context of poor English and academic writing. Poor English was characterized by errors in spelling, grammar, vocabulary and syntax. Poor academic writing was characterized by improperly formed quotes, citations, and Works Cited entries. From poor English and poor academic writing it is a relatively small slide down into plagiarism. With regards to plagiarism itself, the second key insight was the emergence of identifiable plagiarism characteristics in the student writings. The third was the emergence of discernible plagiarizing student profiles. And the fourth was that the misrepresentations that students made in their essays went beyond plagiarism to fabrication.

141

Poor Writing The Immediate Literary Context for Plagiarism Among TTC Students It is evident from simply marking papers that student writing is characterized by both poor English and academic writing and strained efforts at doing proper citation. However, in-depth analysis deepened my insights in this area. This poor writing constitutes the immediate literary context for plagiarism and may be at least a partial pedagogical driver. While poor English and academic writing are also found in first-language, first-culture L1-C1 contexts, the problems are intensified and exacerbated in second-language, second-culture L2-C2 contexts. Here are some of the salient characteristics I found in the student writings. Poor English The following characteristics of poor English were evident: (a) spelling errors, (b) sentence fragments, (c) sloppy-copy, and (d) sloppy proof-reading or misuse of spell-check. They are discussed briefly here and then further examples will be given. Spelling Errors Student writings contained copious spelling errors. Examples are evident in the student writing presented in this chapter and Appendix J. The word vocabulary was misspelled on several students Vocabulary Table submissions. Interpretation: To spell vocabulary correctly, all a student needed to do was note

142

and copy the word from the syllabus to his or her paper. This seems to indicate inattention to detail. Sentence Fragments Students often wrote in sentence fragments. Positively, this indicated this was the students own writing. Sloppy-copy Whether plagiarized or cited as a quotation, copied passages usually contained mismatches to the original text. Examples will be given. Interpretation: Most of these mistakes appeared to be the result of careless copying rather than, for example, an effort to create a clumsy paraphrase. Imprecision or sloppiness emerged as a theme as I poured through the student writings. Sloppy Proof-reading or Misuse of Spell-check Most student papers are still hand-written, but each year more are typed. It was apparent R14 had spell-check set to auto-correct on his or her typed paper and did not proof-read it (or was unsuccessful if he or she did). Auto-correct at times led to amusing results such as I and the further are one and holy motion picture star wars. I saw British spellings in quotes by American authors published by American publishers. I inferred from this R14, or his typist, had auto-correct set to British English.

143

Poor Academic Writing The following characteristics of poor academic writing were evident: (a) sloppy-quote, (b) sloppy-cite, and (c) author misattribution. They are discussed briefly here and then further examples will be given. Sloppy-quote This is a variant of sloppy-copy. Sloppy-quoting was so pervasive it may be considered a characteristic of the students writing. As an example, The new international dictionary of the Bible (Tenney and Douglas 1987, 1037), says: There is one eternal God, the Lord, who is holy love. Through his selfrevelation he has disclosed to his people that he is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This was quoted by R14 (who did not plagiarize) as: the definition of the trinity has an implication of having one eternal God, the Lord, who is holy, through his self-revelation he has disclosed to his people that he is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Words are added, dropped, capitalization is lost (or added), and sentence structures are violated. Interpretation: In this particular example it looks like something the student intended to present as his own writing and instead presented as a quote. Sloppy-cite Both in-text and Works Cited entries are often sloppily done with various formatting errors present.

144

Author Mis-attribution Students mix up the author of a book with someone the author quotes in the book (or vice-versa); they mix up a books editor with the author of a particular chapter, and so on. R04, for example, wrote, Martin said that, our lord Jesus Christ is a God . Knowing that Walter Martin was an evangelical author, I wrote in my written response when marking the paper: did Martin really say this? During analysis I determined it was in fact Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovahs Witnesses, who said this. Interpretation: This is not plagiarism, but it does diminish the academic integrity of the submitted work. Non-plagiarizing students also submitted papers that evidenced poor English. Further in-depth study would be needed to determine whether these students also exhibited the manifestations of sloppy citation catalogued here without actually plagiarizing. That is beyond the scope of the present study. Plagiarism Indicators It is a short distance from poor English and poor academic writing, which may entail inadvertent misrepresentations, to plagiarism, which may be inadvertent or deliberate. I discerned five distinct plagiarism indicators in the student submissions. The first three I identified during marking; the remaining two emerged from in-depth analysis.

145

Plagiarism Indicators Identified During Marking The following plagiarism were identified during marking: (a) improbable vocabulary, (b) eloquent phrasing, and (c) does-not-follow connective. They are discussed briefly here and then further examples will be given. Improbable Vocabulary D01 used the word attenuated in his book review. Words such as this raise flags in the mind of an instructor because they appear to be beyond normal student writing abilities. Eloquent Phrasing Several of the plagiarizing students submissions contained material that looked too polished. This often turned out to be plagiarized. I will give examples. Does-not-follow Connective Connectives which did not follow from what preceded were common. One student wrote, Having pointed out, the power of God cannot be limited by any force, God controls everything. This had not been pointed out. My written comment to the student when marking was: Where/when did you point this out earlier. Another wrote, Therefore, if humans were entirely different . Nothing prior to the therefore warranted it beyond the fact that the therefore was on the Internet site the student used. Yet another wrote, The Jehovahs witnesses misses this important distinction . My written response was, What 146

important distinction? In each case the student had copied from an un-cited source that contained these connective phrases. Plagiarism Indicators Identified During In-depth Analysis The following two further plagiarism indicators were uncovered during indepth analysis: (d) dangling text-cite, and (e) dangling Works Cited entry (padding). They are discussed briefly here and then further examples will be given. Dangling Text-cite An in-text cite is not matched by a corresponding Works Cited entry. While this may just be a sloppy-cite, it may indicate a student has plagiarized a text containing citations which the student then fails to include in his Works Cited. Dangling Works Cited Entry (padding) This is the opposite of a dangling text-cite. Here the student has entries in the Works Cited that are neither cited nor plagiarized in the body of the paper. One dangling Works Cited entry in a short seven-page essay may be an honest mistake. However, when there are four or more, it suggests padding, or, perhaps, a misunderstanding of what belongs in a Works Cited. If deliberate, it is done, presumably, to impress the grader. It also suggests the student expects that grading will be superficially done. Regardless of whether the padding is inadvertent or 147

intentional, it is a misrepresentation, but it is not plagiarism. In fact, if plagiarism is characterized as failing to give credit, this is anti-plagiarism giving crediting where none is due. Interpretation: While not definitive, a student who goes to the effort of padding his Works Cited may also plagiarize. Padded Works Cited were certainly a characteristic of more than one plagiarizing students submissions. Further Plagiarism Characteristics Beyond the five indicators, what did the plagiarism and other academic misrepresentations look like in the student papers? The following additional insights emerged from the in-depth analysis. Sandwiching Some students plagiarized by wrapping a cited portion (i.e., a quote) with plagiarized material on either side of it. Interpretation: The student appears to be saying to himself: Ill copy-paste this first bit, embed the next bit as a quote, and now copy-paste some more. The resulting text looks outwardly good but lacks inner integrity. Stitching I define stitching as the presentation of two non-contiguous portions of a plagiarized authors text into a single plagiarized submission. In the following examples I insert a tilde (~) to indicate the point of stitching:

148

Therefore Christian should be on guard continually defending the Christian Faith against the Jehovahs witnesses proversion of Common biblical terms drawn from the Evangelical sources. ~Let us a waken to the Jehovahs witnesses to their perversions of scripture and stand fast in the Defense of the Christian Faith. The above is stitched together from Walter Martins Kingdom of the cults (1985, 120, 125), as plagiarized by R04. Sometimes stitching is done mid-sentence as in the following example. The following two passages were lifted from the United Church of Gods website by R05: [1] Little did Augustine realize he was doing his followers a grave disservice by viewing parts of the Bible as allegorical while simultaneously incorporating into his teaching the views of the Greek philosophers. [2] Professor Johnson critically examines the logic and reasoning evolutionists use in the debate. He likens the carefully protected theory to a warship that has sprung a leak: "Darwinian evolution . . . makes me think of a great battleship on the ocean of reality. Its sides are heavily armored with philosophical barriers to criticism, and its decks are stacked with big rhetorical guns ready to intimidate any would-be attackers. (United Church of God. 2013) When stitched together by R05 they came out looking like this (the added tilde indicates the stitch): Little did Augustine realize he was doing his followers a grave disservice by viewing parts of the Bible as allegorical while simultaneously incorporating into his teaching the views of the Greek~use in the debate. He likens the carefully protected theory to a warship that has sprung a leak

149

A careful reading of the United Church of God website reveals that the he preceding likens the carefully protected theory is Darwin critic Phillip Johnson, and not Augustine (United Church of God 2013). Un-consulted Works Cited D05 listed five sources in his Works Cited, included four by the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith. The actual source for these was a single un-cited Internet cite; there is no evidence he or she consulted any of the four sources cited in the body of his paper or in his Works Cited at the end. This is not plagiarism per se, but it is misrepresentation. Beneficial Word Insertion A few students added words into a text to make the plagiarized text appear more relevant (and therefore more beneficial to the student) than it would otherwise be. I will give examples. Quote-Enhancement With quote enhancement, a quote is altered to the students benefit. The student takes a quote, sloppy-copies it, and then performs beneficial word insertion to make it (more) relevant to the topic at hand. Here is an example from R04. John B. Noss, quoted Thomas Aquinas who said, that, In the endeavor to reconcile reason and revelation, philosophy, apologetics, and theology Aristole and Christ, he tried to show that natural reason and faith are lower and higher forms of apprehension that complematary to each other. 150

By itself human or natural reason, that is such reason as Aristole used, can go very far, not only in exploring the natural world but also in proving the existance of Christ as God. There are at least three things wrong with this quote from Mans religions (Noss and Noss 1984, 465). First, it is a sloppy-copy quote with wrong spellings and missing words. Second, it entails a mis-attribution; the quote is not from Thomas Aquinas; it is from the books author. Third, and more troubling, R04 has altered the quote, which in its original form was irrelevant to his argument. The first amendment is the gratuitous, beneficial insertion of the word apologetics in the second line; the second occurs at the end where R04 alters the original phrase proving the existence of God to proving the existance of Christ as God an argument Aquinas was not making. Reaction: I was shocked by this as it dawned on me what R04 had done and as it sank in; I sat silently experiencing cognitive dissonance at what I was seeing. This kind of malpractice goes beyond plagiarism. I believed I was familiar with the various forms of plagiaristic transgression, but felt I was in uncharted territory. Interpretation: This cannot be dismissed as poor workmanship; nor can it be dismissed as lack of voice the student is adding his voice to the quote. It has the earmark of something made up in the service of making the grade. It took sustained, time-consuming effort to track this down using laborious in-depth analysis time and effort most instructors do not have. But, by failing to doing, are we not in a sense letting students down? If we accept work that is in fact

151

unacceptable, or if we praise work that is in fact un-praiseworthy, do we not become part of the problem? Textual Re-purposing Students will sometimes take text and re-shape it to their purposes. D01, for example, took In the religious sphere man confronts God in three places from an un-cited Internet source and changed it into, In the religious sphere man confront God in the three persons. Meanwhile, R04 took the following from Moreys How to Answer a Jehovahs Witness: It is only common sense for pastors to know how to handle the many cultists who are continuously knocking at the front doors of their parishioners. Their people are going to be besieged by cultists at the airport and the local shopping malls. They need to be forewarned and prepared if they are to retain their orthodox beliefs in the present age of the cults and the occult. (Morey 1980, 2) and re-worked it into the following un-cited passage: It is only common sense for pastors to know apologetics and to know how to handle many cultist at different places when the meet them. Theres need to be apologetical If we to retain our and defend the Christian faith in the present age of the cults and the occult. Notice that R04 inserted the beneficial words apologetics and apologetical. In fairness to R04, there was a decent attempt here to paraphrase. Howard would probably consider this fair-use patchwriting.

152

Title Page - form vs. substance Student essay outlines included on their title page sometimes bore little or no correspondence to the body of the essay. For example, R05 offered the following impressive-looking outline: (i) Introduction (ii) Terms defined (iii) Assumptions around Evolution (iv) Theories (v) Creation or Evolution (vi) Conclusion The problem was, as my written comment to the student had indicated: This has no correspondence with the body of the essay. Interpretation: This is not plagiarism, and it may well not be deliberate, but it is misrepresentation. Impressive outward form unmatched with internal integrity and substance became an emerging theme. Relinquishment of Student Voice As much as African students may be tempted to yield their own voice to well-formed plagiarized words and ideas, it has been my observation that often even plagiarizing students revert at the end of their paper to a conclusion of their own making. Usually this takes the rhetorical form of proclamation, something at which, if my eleven years at TTC are any indication, Zambians excel. They step out of their fledgling academic voice as it were into their bold, more natural preaching voice. However, consider the case of R04, who wrote:

153

In conclusion, this synopsis of the misapplications and misinterpretations of Jehovahs Witnesses where Biblical terms and texts are concerned, the author feels constrained to state that by no means has has he thoroughly covered this vast subject and topics in this paper. The phrase The author feels constrained to state , and much of the rest, was lifted from Walter Martins The kingdom of the cults (1985, 125): Concluding this synopsis of the misapplications and misinterpretations of Jehovahs Witnesses where Biblical terms and texts are concerned, the author feels constrained to state that by no means has he thoroughly covered the vast subject. Interpretation: It is one thing to plagiarize the words and ideas of others; it is another to plagiarize first-person material and present it as ones own voice. Reaction: My heart sank when I saw that this student had outsourced his voice in this way. Citation Fabrication R27 lifted a quote from an Internet source, wrongly attributed it to Rene Dubos in the text of his or her essay, and then, in his or her Works Cited, wrongly indicated Dubos was the author of a book on apologetics bearing the same title as one by Peter Kreeft. As with quote enhancement and beneficial word insertion, this is more than mere plagiarism; in this case it entails falsely crediting someone with something he did not say and with a book he did not write. Like many of the other infractions cited in this section, it looked outwardly good but lacked inner integrity. Interpretation: It is difficult to dismiss this as a students best effort attempts at working with sources and citing, especially since the actual 154

Internet source apparently used is entirely unacknowledged by the student. It appears that something more intentional is going on. In another case, a student took Internet quotes that he or she attributed to a book he had just previously used and cited in his or her paper. When I looked up the quotes in the cited book, they were not there. I subsequently found them on the Internet associated with other people, but not in the book he or she cited. Interpretation: I consider these invented citations done for the sake of form external appearance over substance. Plagiarizing Student Profiles Apart from my on-site assessment of R03 as one who resorted to plagiarism while attempting honest work, the plagiarism I detected in Africa went largely undifferentiated; I had detected plagiarism and plagiarizing students, and that was about it. However, as I undertook the deep-reading of in-depth analysis, portraits of each plagiarizing student gradually emerged: I began to discern the plagiarizing students style and toolkit, that is, modus operandi (cf. Mallon 1989, 150). I found myself saying of one, this ones really good at plagiarism and of another, this ones not as good. I took this discernment of plagiarizing student portraits two steps further. First, I graded each students plagiarism, based on my assessment of their proficiency and zeal. From this I developed generic plagiarizing student profiles.

155

Three composites emerged from this interpretive analysis: A-grade, B-grade, and, C-grade. I sketch these profiles here. These sketches contain admittedly interpretive elements. They should be viewed in part as my reaction to the plagiarism I was seeing, and as indicators of how in-depth analysis informed and transformed my views. The B-grade Plagiarizing Student (The Bgrader) This is the most common profile of a plagiarizing student. The B-grade plagiarizing students typical modus operandi is to promiscuously copy-paste from accessible Internet sources and entirely avoid citing them. The B-grader is either seriously deficient in basic comprehension of citation expectations, incompetent, not committed to academic honesty, or some combination of the three. Other plagiarizing students are distinguished by the way they differ from the B-grader. The A-grade Plagiarizing Student (The Agrader) The A-grade plagiarizing student gives the appearance of being all-in. The quality of the A-graders un-cited Internet sources is above-average (e.g., student essays or journal articles rather than run-of-the-mill Internet sites) and often difficult to track down. The A-graders paper may include a made-up quote or two and a padded Works Cited list which gives the appearance of being designed to 156

impress. Where five pages are called for, the A-grader gives you ten (in fairness, some non-plagiarizing students do this as well). Many of the A-graders in-text cites will prove to be nothing more than cited quotes embedded in his or her plundered sources. The A-grader could probably pass the assignment without plagiarism if he or she applied himself or herself. Like the B-grader, his or her writing indicates the A-grader is either seriously deficient in basic comprehension of citation expectations, incompetent, not committed to academic honesty, or some combination of the three. In the case of the A-grader, however, incompetency is less likely. The C-grade Plagiarizing Student (The Cgrader) The C-grade plagiarizing student is more likely to plagiarize from library books and only the occasional Internet source. The C-grader includes the books he or she uses in the Works Cited. This means it is relatively easy to spot most of what the C-grader has done if one takes the time to look. Apparently beset with L2 second-language difficulties, the C-grader finds the plagiarism highway irresistible; it is much easier and smoother than the dirt roads he or she would travel if the C-grader attempted his or her own writing. The C-grader may attempt his or her own work but may yield to the temptation of plagiarism as a top-up strategy. The C-grader may be either a low-tech version of a B-grader, or someone struggling to do honest work.

157

Post Engagement With Students Based on the in-depth analysis of student papers, I sent customized followon letters to TTCs Academic Dean for distribution to plagiarizing students. This effort was covered by the research ethics described in Chapter 4 and in Appendix B. Each letter outlined the students plagiarism and invited further discussion. A sample letter template is included here: Sorry to have to once again give you [zero] for plagiarism, this time for your essay. I know it must be a disappointment to you as it was for me to have to give it. I would much prefer to reward students with good grades for good work! I want to give you a chance to respond; but first let me outline, based on analysis I did upon my return to Canada, the characteristics of your paper which resulted in the reduced grade. 1. [specific examples are given] 2. 3. Follow-on: [Student], as your instructor I would like to make this a positive learning experience for both of us. Perhaps it would be helpful for you to think through why you have plagiarized. It would certainly help me. Would you help me understand the phenomenon of plagiarism and improve my instruction by answering a few questions? Please note that this is part of my research project, and like all research, your participation is voluntary and the results will be reported anonymously. You can respond directly to me at rkballtyndale@gmail.com, or, if you prefer, respond on the back of these pages and return to either John or Ruth Kerr who will forward to me. Q1. Why did you use sources and fail to cite them, i.e., why did you plagiarize?

158

Q2. I covered academic writing, referencing, and the need to avoid plagiarism in the syllabus. Clearly, this wasnt enough to prevent you (and others!) from plagiarizing. What must I, as a visiting instructor, do to convince TTC students not to plagiarize? Q3. Is there anything else you would like to tell me or share with me? Finally, as part of my desire to create a positive outcome, I would like to offer my assistance to you going forward. If you have any questions about how to avoid plagiarism during the rest of your time at TTC, please contact me at rkballtyndale@gmail.com. May God bless you as you move forward in ministry and scholarship. The letter template is also available as Appendix G. I heard back via email from two students. A third student came to see me about his grades when I was onsite at TTC for the January 2014 engagement. I indicate my interactions with them here. In order to complete the picture based on the plagiarism profiles, I also include the profile of one of the A-grade plagiarizing students (from whom I did not hear back). R03 - a C-grader R03 was a C-grade plagiarizing student. Both R03s book review and essay were partially plagiarized. From getting to know him or her I knew R03 was English-disadvantaged, as R03s responses to quiz questions Q6-Q10 also indicated. R03 dramatically improved his or her score on the citation-portion of the syllabus quiz from nine (53%) to 14 (82%) correct (reducing the number wrong from eight to only three) and also scored well on the apologetics exam. Interpretation: In the pre-quiz comments R03 had offered: This one is a very 159

good thing for me because I can see the interest of this cours Thanks for opening my mind. The data indicate that despite being English-disadvantaged he or she applied himself diligently to both the syllabus contents and the apologetics material. I considered him or her to be a good student. I received the following email reply from R03, dated 10 May 2013: My pastor I m sorry for what you are from writing to me I make an effort not to be in the same issue an other time but from now whatever you would like to give me as work I m ready for it this is why I m under you trying to learn more once again sorry My response to him or her is found in Appendix K. It reads, in part, as follows: It is very tempting to copy/paste the thoughts and words of others in order to get a good grade! The problem is, this practice does not deserve a good grade -- it is not good academic workmanship. I build my "theology" concerning plagiarism around the following texts: 1. 2 Timothy 2:15: "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. Academic writing is a form of workmanship. Just like making good bricks, or good bread; we need to write essays that are structurally sound and made with the right ingredients; part of "getting it right" is honoring sources by citation. 2. Exodus 20: Don't "steal"; don't bear false witness; honor your parents, i.e., the sources, books you use. 3. Matthew 6:13: And do not lead us into temptation Plagiarism is a temptation we all face. We need to resolve to avoid it. 160

My [brother or sister], I covered many of these things in the syllabus for the course -- you might want to re-read it. Also, you might see if there is a book called Doing Honest Work in the TTC library. Also, see if the library has any books on plagiarism, such as the Quick Coach Guide to Avoiding Plagiarism.The MLA handbook would have a section on it. D01 - a B-grader I had allowed D01 to re-do his or her plagiarized book review. D01 was a B-grade plagiarizing student. D01s score on the citation-portion of the syllabus quiz improved dramatically from 7 (41%) to 11 (65%) correct, a relative gain of over 50%. However, D01 did poorly (6/15) on the apologetics exam administered at the end of the class. D01s comment on the pre-quiz was, Basically, this portion of the quiz is well arranged in the way that it has reminded me about research and writing. Credit goes to the lecturer and I would recomend that this kind should be coming every beginning of the term. On the post-quiz, D01 wrote, This quiz is a good way of evaluation and I recommend it highly. This should also be shared with other lecturers for use in the college. D01s improvement on the quiz indicates he or she was making an effort to develop as a student. In spite of this, D01 plagiarized his or her essay after having been given a second chance on his or her book review. I received the following reply from D01: Dear Rick,

161

Greetings in the wondeful name of our lord Jesus Christ. In this regard i would like to express my gratitude to you as a good instructor who is always aiming for the best from the student worldwide Zambia in particular.Therefore, may the lord continue to increase His grace upon your life, family and relations. As mentioned above, I regret of having a fail grade in Apologetics because it has also affected my graduation. The reason why i had pragalised was that i had more assignments to handin and the church to look after back home.Iam just asking for your help on how i should pass the course, the college management has requested me to Re do the course. Additionally, am asking if you can give me additional work for me up left my marks. It will be my sincere pleasure if only this mail shall meet your favourable consideration. Yours in His Service D01 Note that D01s concern was not that he or she had plagiarized but that he or she had received a failing grade. I spoke further with D01 subsequent to this exchange. D01 reiterated that he or she had important ministerial tasks to perform and this is why he or she had opted for plagiarizing his essay. Interpretation: D01 gave more weight and importance to ministry activities than to his or her studies. It is probable D01s ministry activities are a source of income, which would make them of paramount importance in a society where whether a person is earning enough to eat is a real concern. This would add to the temptation to plagiarize. It is noteworthy that D01 indicated he or she plagiarized not because he or she did not know better (i.e., lack of knowledge) but because of time-pressures.

162

Time is a recognized in the literature as a factor influencing plagiarism behaviours (e.g., Park 2003, 479; Williams et al. 2012, 10; Posner 2007, 89). Time straddles ability and motivation. If the instructor gives insufficient time to do a task, it is a matter of student ability. However, if a student fails to free up his or her schedule to give himself or herself sufficient time to do a task, it becomes a matter of motivation, and a moral issue. D05 - a B-grader D05 was a B-grade plagiarizing student who plagiarized both his or her essay and book review. D05 did very well on both the pre- and post-quizzes, getting only three questions wrong. However, his or her essay was extensively copied from an uncited Internet source, 4truth.net. For example, the comparison chart on 4truth.net authored by Tal Davis says: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon church) professes to be a Christian church. However, a careful comparison of basic doctrinal positions of that church to those of historical, biblical Christianity reveal many radical differences. (Davis) D05 wrote: The church of the latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon church) is not a Christian church at all. A careful look at some basic doctrinal positions of the Mormon church in comparison to those of historical, biblical Christianity reveals many radical differences. While this shows some effort at paraphrasing, the source was un-cited. As indicated by his or her response to Q17, D05 believed a paraphrase can be created

163

by changing a few words here and there. However, D05 correctly answered that a paraphrase needs to be cited, and this was also covered in class. Because I had detected plagiarism in D05s essay I went back and checked his or her book review. I found plagiarism there as well. As a consequence, I reversed the grade I had originally given D05 on his or her book review. D05s modus operandi was to plagiarize un-cited Internet sources. As an example, D05 wrote in his or her book review: The Case For Christ was written with a touch of exacting detail of an investigative scholar-reporter. Lee Strobel narrates his spiritual journey as he seeks to learn the truth about the case for Christ. He brings in rich detail from his crime reporting background This was derived from BookRags.com, which says: The Case For Christ is written with a touch of wit and elements of a fastpaced fictional thriller, along with the exacting detail of an investigative scholar-reporter. Lee Strobel chronicles his 2-month spiritual journey as he seeks to learn the truth about the case for Christ. He pulls in rich, relevant detail from his crime reporting background. (Case for Christ) D05s paper exhibited poor English and academic writing. For example, D05 misquoted a plagiarized passage. He or she wrote, The Holy Spirit is a parsonage of Spirit where it not so, rather than personage and were. Interpretation: This might indicate lack of comprehension of the plagiarized passage. However, I think it was more likely the product of carelessness, and, possibly, setting spell-check to auto-correct coupled with failure to proof-read. As an example of sloppy citing, D05 misattributed a plagiarized section of his or her essay to the Book of Mormon when in fact, according to the website 164

D05 took the material from, the source was Gospel Principles. Reaction: I felt like chiding D05 for sloppy plagiarism. D05 contacted me about his or her failing grade subsequent to my postengagement activities. As indicated by the D in D05s student ID, D05 was an offcampus Decopro student. D05 told me he or she had not received the letter sent plagiarizing students. D05 also indicated he or she had not received his or her essay back from TTC. I explained that he or she failed because he or she had plagiarized both his or her book review and essay. D05 indicated he or she had not realized he or she had plagiarized on his essay. D05 also indicated this was the first time he or she had crafted an essay from Internet sources. D05 did not protest or object to receiving the zero grades. D05 had correctly answered on the quiz that Internet sources are not exempt from citation requirements. Reaction: This was a puzzling exchange. It seemed to reinforce the idea that in students minds answering a quiz question was one thing and actual behaviour another. R17 - an A-grader R17 plagiarized his or her essay. I rated R17 among the A-grade plagiarizing students. R17 scored on the high side of the questions related to background in English: R17 indicated his or her parents spoke English, and R17s language of instruction in high school was English. R17s score on the citationportion of the quiz (Q11-Q27) was fair, but, unlike most others, his or her score did not improve over the course of the class; it was 11 correct (65%) on the pre-

165

quiz and 10 correct (59%) on the post-quiz. R17 also did very poorly (3/15) on the apologetics exam administered at the end of the class. The low scores would suggest R17 is a poor student; however in talking with TTC officials it became apparent this was not the case. Interpretation: The poor scores and plagiarism coupled with the comments from TTC indicate it is more likely R17 was not applying himself or herself to this course. Perhaps R17 thought submitting a plagiarized essay would be enough to get him or her across the finish line. While there was no evidence that R17 plagiarized his or her book review, his or her room-mate had plagiarized R17s. When I had asked R17 about this, his or her response had been one of stare-ahead, dead silence. R17s essay included the following: A perfect God, namely one that is Ominiscient, Ominipotent and wolly good [note the poor spelling], will weakly actualise [note the British spelling a flag as to the original source] the world that is completed with no moral evil. My thought upon reading this was, will weakly actualise the world are you kidding me?! On R17s paper I settled for, these are obviously not your words. During subsequent analysis, with considerable difficulty, I identified the source as Plantinga and the Problem of Evil by Geirsson and Losonsky, as published on the Iowa State website (Geirsson and Losonsky 2014). As I dug further I discovered that in-text citations in R17s essay were from other authors papers. For example, R17 cites authors Geisler, Little, and Trueblood. These citations were all plagiarized from an un-cited article The

166

Problem of Evil and Human Suffering by Edward P. Myers on the Apologetics Press website repository (Myers 2013). R17 demonstrated sloppiness in the course of plagiarizing these sources. For example, R17 attributed a quote to Brightman which he or she cited as Brightman (240-243). In fact it is a paraphrase of Brightman by Myers, which Myers cites as: (Brightman, 1946; cf. Trueblood, 1957, pp. 240-243). The page range in Myers citation thus refers to Trueblood, not Brightman. Similar examples of sloppy scholarship sloppy plagiarism, really were evident. R17 is the student who on the post-quiz commented, It is a reminder to me, that I should be faithful in my accademic writing. Because to be a scholar you need to be accademically sound as we need to be theologically sound. Interpretation: It is exceedingly difficult to reconcile R17s post-quiz comment with his or her submission. R17s essay is severely plagiarized and R17s habit of citing works he or she did not consult while conversely omitting to cite works he or she did consult (and plagiarized) points to deliberate deception rather than defective attempts at honest work. R17, like most of the others, did not respond to my letter which would have given R17 and the others a good opportunity to express puzzlement or innocence. While an argument from silence proves nothing, it seems that a person who was honestly attempting to do honest work and had just been dealt a zero grade might want to take the time to send an email

167

response. It seems that while this research perhaps solved some puzzles related to African academics and plagiarism, it unearthed more.

The Pretoria Bible College Consultation Conference I received an invitation to make a presentation of my research at the 2013 Bible College Curriculum Consultation held in Pretoria, South Africa. Following the consultation I communicated with two of the indigenous African participants via email. It had been suggested to me by North Americans that intellectual property, and therefore plagiarism, is a culturally foreign concept to Africans conditioned by Africans communal views towards property. I asked the participants about this. Here is an extract from a response I received dated November 29, 2013: I do not think that [view] is right. Plagiarism is an academic practice whether in the West or in Africa. It is true Africa has a communal culture but not across the board. Generalization sometimes can lead to wrong conclusions. This response echoed that of the African cultural advisor in Chapter 4 who, when asked to review the syllabus quiz for cultural appropriateness indicated, this is straight academics [paraphrased]. The second respondent cited cultural distances oral and communal culture as well as lack of both skills and resource materials among African students as contributing causes. In addition, in his email of December 23, 2013 he or she offered: 168

 Laziness also is a major contributing factor Yes i agree that plagiarism is a concept of the west not of the Africans, Africans they use someone's words/ideas and do not feel guilty,its fine even if they know they are cheating I considered this last point worth following up on and asked him or her: Can you tell me a bit more about this last point even if they know they are cheating. Would they feel the same way about cheating on an exam, do you think? Or is plagiarism different? In his or her email reply of December 29, 2013 he or she said: I think it is one and the same thing even cheating on an exam though i believe every exam is under close supervision . So i would say plagiarism is slightly different with an exam,in a research one is alone and not under someone's supervision. Taken at face value, this students comments echoed my literature review that suggested students in some cultures understand plagiarism is cheating, but dont view cheating itself as wrong. If this is the case, this may indicate there are M2 (second moral code) as well as L2 and C2 distances involved. As I indicated in Chapter 3, this warrants further study.

Trans-Africa Theological College 2014 My work with the class of 2014 represented a less formal follow-on to the research project. Although the 2014 class lay outside of the research project as first designed, I report briefly on it here to show how the syllabus tutorial and quiz and my approach to plagiarism-management evolved as a result of the research.

169

I updated the syllabus (see Appendix H) and as in prior years arranged for it to be distributed by hand in advance of the class to on-campus regular students. Since uncited copy-paste plagiarism persisted in 2013, I tried to make it even clearer in the 2014 syllabus that if a source is used, it must show up in the Works Cited and be cited in the text. I expressed this this way, with an emphasis on including used sources in the Works Cited. A citation stands on two legs. The first leg is to include every work you have consulted and used (i.e., your sources) in your Works Cited. I expect you to do this. Failure to do this will be viewed as plagiarism and cheating. There is no excuse for not doing this! The second leg is to accurately acknowledge your sources in the body of your work. You do this with in-text parenthetical citations . I also updated the syllabus quiz, changing some of the questions, improving the wording, and streamlining it (Appendix I). In the 2013 class I had generally downplayed the syllabus, quiz, and plagiarism in an effort to (a) minimize the research footprint, (b) not unduly tip my hand as to what the research was about, and, (c) to separate the research sufficiently from class activities so I would be able to honour any requests from students to be excluded from the research. For 2014 class I adopted a bolder stance: I stated upfront I would be checking for plagiarism, and indicated that if students intended to plagiarize, I would be [their] worst nightmare. By signaling in this way I would be checking for plagiarism, I hoped to dissuade them from doing so. 170

I also informed the students ahead of time that I would be quizzing and grading them on the syllabus citation tutorial. Presumably as a consequence, student scores on the in-class citation quiz were generally high. Moreover, inclass discussion seemed to indicate a good understanding of the requirements of citation and the issues involved. The students generally demonstrated good comprehension and understanding of the requirements of plagiarism as indicated by their verbal in-class responses. However, not every student spoke up in class, so there may have been some with lingering comprehension issues. In spite of my more transparent and aggressive stance in 2014, plagiarism persisted; in fact, the rate exceeded the 2013 highs. Use of un-cited Internet sources was once again the typical modus operandi. There were also two instances of collusion among two pairs of students. Figure 5.2 shows the results for 2014. The high plagiarism rate supports the finding that knowledge of citation rules, in and of itself, does not staunch plagiarism and makes it increasingly difficult to hold to the view that perhaps the syllabus was dissuading many from plagiarizing but this would not show up in the data.

171

Figure 5.2. Detected plagiarism - Apologetics book review assignment - TTC 2004 - 2014.

No. of Students

9 8 No. of students 6 5 3 2 0 2 2 2 1 2004 0 2005 0 2006 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

2014

I developed a You have been Flagged for Plagiarism form (Appendix L) informally based on the theories of investigative discourse analysis (also known as statement analysis), which advises investigators to ask open-ended questions and let those being investigated answer in their own words (Hyatt 2014). I tucked the form inside each plagiarizing students book review. The form indicated the type of suspected plagiarism and asked the student to provide an explanation. Students who had plagiarized from the Internet (or each other) denied doing so, sometimes strenuously, until confronted with the actual evidence. On the encouragement of TTC, I spoke with the students openly on the last day of class about the plagiarism in the class of 2014. I showed an Internet site on the screen, and then read a passage from an anonymous students book review. The students first-person writing (along the lines of, First I did this, then

172

I did that) matched the text on the Internet site, word-for-word. Once again, a student had out-sourced his or her first-person voice to an uncited, plagiarized source. Students expressed surprise bordering on shock which I felt, by the expressions on their faces and the way they spoke, was genuine. I asked them if they cared that other students were plagiarizing and whether they felt this might give those students an unfair advantage. They indicated they cared, and, again, by the emphatic nature of their responses, I felt this was genuine. As one student put it, it is not fair to us. This echoes one of the arguments I made in Chapter 2 concerning student plagiarism: it is unfair to the other students. Summary Several regular students indicated they had not read the syllabus by the start of class. Students who indicated they had read the syllabus did no better on the syllabus pre-quiz than those who indicated they had. It appears the syllabus had negligible effect on pre-class learning. Moreover, the average score on the citation portion of the quiz was only 66%. This indicates insufficient academic literacy to produce work characterized by academic integrity. Student scores on the citation portion of the quiz improved to 76% on the post-quiz, for a relative gain of 15%. I believe the data supports a conclusion that this was due to actual learning rather than, for example, merely more successful guessing. However, knowing 76% of what you need to know is still not sufficient.

173

The syllabus tutorial had no apparent effect on staunching plagiarism. In fact, detected plagiarism in the class of 2013 was double or triple that of the previous nine years. Moreover, there was no clear-line indicator between (lack of) citation knowledge and plagiarism; some students with deficient citation knowledge did not plagiarize, while some with excellent citation knowledge, did. Marking the papers and performing subsequent in-depth analysis on them revealed several characteristics associated with plagiarism. The immediate literary context of plagiarism is poor English and poor academic writing. Several plagiarism indicators were found in the students writings and several characteristics of plagiarized papers identified. More than one plagiarized paper contained alterations or fabrications of quotes and/or citations. The follow-on work of 2014 reinforced several of the findings of 2013, namely, that citation knowledge, of and by itself, is insufficient to prevent plagiarism. Use of uncited Internet sites is a typical modus operandi. The plagiarism rate in 2014 exceeded that of 2013. Incidents of plagiarism appear to be increasing.

174

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS I developed a tutorial in academic literacy and integrity. I embedded it in the class syllabus. I tested student knowledge via a syllabus quiz administered at the start and end of a seven day apologetics class taught January 2013 at TransAfrica Theological College (TTC) in Kitwe, Zambia. In this chapter I summarize the research findings associated with the syllabus, the quiz, and the in-depth analysis of plagiarizing students papers. I offer some suggestions going forward. The Syllabus and Quiz The two questions associated with the syllabus tutorial were these: would the syllabus tutorial promote learning, and would it dissuade plagiarism? Students who indicated they had read the syllabus by start of class did no better on the syllabus pre-quiz than those who indicated they had. When triangulated with enthusiastic student comments about the pre-quiz and the fact that students did better on the post-quiz, it appears students began paying attention to the contents of the syllabus after the class pre-quiz brought it sharply to their attention. Moreover, based on the high rates of plagiarism on the book reviews (submitted at the start of the class), it appears the distribution of the syllabus to regular students

175

a month before class did little or nothing to dissuade students from plagiarizing. I conclude the syllabus had negligible effect on pre-class learning and did nothing to dissuade students from plagiarizing. The syllabus quiz offered at the start and end of class was enthusiastically received, as indicated by the written comments on the pre- and post-quiz and the end-of-class evaluation. However, the average score on the citation portion of the pre-quiz was only 66%. This indicates insufficient knowledge to ensure work characterized by academic integrity. Student scores on the citation portion of the post-quiz improved to 76%, a relative gain of 15%. The data, when assessed, supports a conclusion that this gain was due to actual learning among the students rather than luckier guessing. This in turn supports a conclusion that, rather than serving as effective pre-course preparatory resources, the syllabus and pre-quiz served as modestly effective in-course resources. However, knowing 76% of what you need to know is still not sufficient. This finding is congruent with syllabus quiz research done by Raymark and Connor-Greene who concluded that the mere presentation of a syllabus quiz does not eliminate student misunderstandings (Raymark and Connor-Greene 2002, 286). I indicated throughout chapter 5 that robust classroom discussion is needed to clarify what students are thinking and to correct any misapprehensions. Neither the syllabus tutorial nor the pre-quiz had any detectable effect on staunching plagiarism. In fact, detected plagiarism for the book reviews was

176

double or triple that of previous years (see figure 5.1). Nor was there any discernible change in plagiarizing behaviours between the book review submitted on first day of class and the essay submitted at the end. This might lead one to question what kind of learning, if any took place, and what value, if any, the syllabus tutorial and quiz had. I believe the answer to this question lies in distinguishing between plagiarizing behaviours in particular and student learning in general. Only particular students plagiarized; the majority did not. The syllabus and quiz may have resulted in some learning among students in general while at the same time not serving as an effective plagiarism deterrent or stop-sign for a subset of students. Plagiarism and Citation Knowledge The project was designed primarily to improve and test the knowledge dimension associated with plagiarism. Plagiarism theorist Rebecca Moore Howard assumes that much of the plagiarism associated with failure to cite sources is due to ignorance: Let failure to cite describe the act of ignorance committed by students who do not know academic citation conventions, and let us cease to terrorize students who do not know those conventions. Instead, let us respond pedagogically to ignorance of citation systems, just as we do to the presence of comma splices or the absence of a thesis statement. (Howard 1999b, 166) My project was a pedagogical response. I was exploring a potential pedagogical factor for plagiarism. 177

The results indicated there was no one question or set of questions in the quiz data that suggested a linear, cause-effect explanation between (lack of) citation knowledge and plagiarism. Being a second-language L2 student did not mean a student would plagiarize and having citation knowledge (at least the kind indicated on a quiz) did not mean a student would not. Having L2 issues affecting writing ability, or having defective knowledge, may be contributing factors. But they do not present a sufficient explanation. Knowledge alone, at least the knowledge indicated by a quiz, is insufficient to explain plagiarism. Although it is outside the scope of this research, based on the extensiveness of the plagiarism and other misrepresentations I found, I suspect students who plagiarized brought previously formed tendencies into class and the syllabus and pre-quiz failed to function as an effective stop-sign. The Follow-On Work of 2014 The follow-on work of 2014 reinforced several of the findings from the research done in the class 2013. Citation knowledge, of and by itself, is insufficient to prevent plagiarism. Use of uncited Internet sites is a typical modus operandi. The plagiarism rate in 2014 exceeded that of 2013 (figure 5.2). Incidents of plagiarism appear to be increasing. An Instructors View of the Syllabus I found the syllabus useful in several ways. First, it meant I had put information in the students hands, which, if followed, would prevent the mutual 178

unpleasantness of giving and receiving a failing grade for plagiarism. Second, it assured me that the expectations for the course, including the need to cite and avoid plagiarizing, were communicated and in the hands of the students. This enabled me to grade and provide feedback to students with increased confidence. Third, I was able to point students to the syllabus for direction and clarification. I did so with regards to the issue of paraphrasing. Finally, as indicated in Chapter 1, in prior years I had received push-back from students suggesting they either had not been informed of what was expected of them or that I was wrong in my enforcement of certain academic writing rules (such as how an authors name should appear in a paper). There were no comments along these lines in either the 2013 or 2014 classes. However, not too much should be made from this argument from silence. Other classes in prior years had also voiced no objections along these lines. An Instructors View of the Quiz The quiz was designed and intended as a research tool. However, for two reasons I believe it demonstrated its worth as a pedagogical instrument. First, while the syllabus put citation information into the students hands, the quiz brought this information right into the classroom. Students who might have paid little attention to the syllabus or perhaps not even read it were exposed to its contents in the classroom. Second, it indicated to me areas of misunderstanding (e.g., paraphrasing) and knowledge or even behavioural gaps among the students.

179

I did not know, for example, that many students do not read the syllabus prior to class, or that students only knew roughly two thirds of essential citation knowledge. Nor did I know where the specific gaps were. However, knowledge as indicated on a written quiz may be one thing and actual comprehension, and a clear appreciation for the implications, another. It would have been better if the 2013 quiz were accompanied by vigorous in-class clarification followed by robust in-class discussion. (My reasons for not doing so are outlined in Chapter 4.) In the 2014 iteration I treated the quiz as integral to the class and not as a research instrument. Unlike the 2013 class, in 2014 I did not need to worry about organizing classroom conduct around the constraints of formal research consent which would be obtained, and therefore known, only at the end of the class. The Knowledge - Behaviour Gap Some data suggested a possible disconnect between student knowledge and behaviour. Students all knew by the post-quiz that they were supposed to underline their last name when submitting written work to me; few did so. A possible explanation is that students were aware of the rule but reasoned the quiz was not written work. For reasons presented in Chapter 5, I think it is more likely did not make the connection between the rule and the behaviour, i.e., they knew the answer to give on the quiz, but did not think to apply it to the quiz.

180

A knowledge-behaviour dichotomy appeared to exist with regards to plagiarism. A student might answer correctly that an Internet source was not exempt from citation requirements, but then use an Internet source and fail to cite it either in the in-text or end-of-text Works Cited. If there is a knowledge-behaviour gap, knowledge alone is not the answer. Discovering a knowledge-based pattern in the data would have been welcome because it would have been relatively easy to fix. However, finding no discernible pattern between citation knowledge and plagiarizing behaviour is itself significant because it indicates that factors other than straightforward (lack of) knowledge are apparently at work. Lack of Precision Student essays, book reviews and quiz responses all exhibited lack of precision in matters such as spelling, quoting, and citing. As argued in the theological framework in Chapter 2, precision is requisite for sound academic work. The Role of the Bibliography or MLA Works Cited in Plagiarism Assessment Most theorists focus on improper citation in the body of the paper. They stress the difficulties associated with paraphrasing, interacting with multiple sources, finding ones academic voice, and so on (e.g., Howard, Anglil-Carter,

181

McCulloch, Archer). They rarely, if ever, discuss the role of the end-of-text bibliography or Works Cited in assessing for plagiarism. A student may indeed find it difficult to properly use and cite sources in the body of his or her paper, but it is not that difficult to include a reference to that source, even if imperfectly done, in a bibliography or Works Cited. Unlike the body of the paper, where a student may be struggling to write, and plagiarism difficult to assess, the Works Cited provides a binary for assessing plagiarism: the source is either there or it is not. When a source is extensively used and a student fails to cite it either in the body of the paper or in the Works Cited, it looks intentional. The role of the end-of-paper bibliography or Works Cited in plagiarism assessment warrants more discussion in the literature than it has been getting. Time Three pieces of data scattered through the project indicate time may be a contributing factor to student plagiarism. The first is plagiarizing student R08s pre-quiz comment that failure to cite is not deliberate; it is a matter of not having the time to go back and check. The second is the TTC student who indicated students do not always read the books they are reviewing because they do not have the time. The third is D01, who indicated he or she plagiarized because he or she was busy with other responsibilities. Instructors must give students reasonable

182

workloads and reasonable time to do tasks. Students must carve out and take the time to do the work. Time is also a factor with instructors. It takes time to mark papers and look for plagiarism. It took time to do in-depth analysis on plagiarizing papers; this kind of time is not available to most instructors. It also takes time to follow up on suspected plagiarism and deal with it. Varying Academic Assignments: Group, Solo, Written, Oral Zambian students face second-language, second-culture L2-C2 challenges, as well as the challenge caused by possible deficiencies in primary and secondary educations leading up to tertiary (i.e., post-secondary) instruction. Given this, instructors should consider giving fewer formal academic assignments. When they are given, however, instructors should give themselves sufficient time to mark them thoroughly. Providing a mix of assignments will help L2-C2 and/or academically disadvantaged students to pass their courses without needing to plagiarize. In the 2013 class, I included both written and oral, as well as solo and group, assignments. For example, I broke the class into teams and asked them to design the topics for an apologetics conference. They reported-out verbally and received group grades for this. They then went on to produce their own papers. Further information is outlined in the 2013 and 2014 syllabi, found in Appendices E and G. 183

The Double Lens of Pedagogy and Morality In the literature, authors tend to address plagiarism from either a moral or pedagogical perspective. Both views have merit. Instructors and researchers need binocular vision, with both lenses in sharp focus and pulling equal weight. When assessing for plagiarism, unless there are clear-cut indications of either ignorance or fraudulent intent, one is dealing with probabilities. I envisage a sliding scale, with the far-left side indicating clearly pedagogical, and the far-right, clearly moral. The fact that plagiarism must be assessed based on probabilities indicates a further utility of the syllabus and quiz. There may be (as Howard suggests) innocent explanations for plagiarism rooted in ignorance. The first questions a visiting instructor must ask a plagiarizing student have to do with student knowledge. These questions would be along the lines of, were you aware you are expected to cite each source you use in the body of your paper, or, were you aware that (uncited) copy-paste is not allowed, or, were you aware that if you use a source in the body of your paper you are expected to list it in your Works Cited. The syllabus and quiz help ensure that the basic groundwork of providing this knowledge, and ruling out the excuse of ignorance, has been done. The Utility of In-Depth Analysis The in-depth analysis of plagiarizing students submissions resulted in much useful data and many valuable insights. I outline these issues here.

184

Poor Writing It was clear from analysis that the plagiarism took place in the twin contexts of poor English and poor academic writing. My work in this area represents a rudimentary taxonomy of poor writing characteristics among Zambian L2 students. More work could be done by linguistic researchers extending and refining this model. Plagiarism Indicators and Characteristics I identified rudimentary taxonomies of plagiarism indicators, or giveaways, as well as additional characteristics of plagiarism in the student writings. These will be useful to me as I assess for plagiarism in the future and may be useful to others. More work could be done extending and refining these models. Fabrication One of the surprising discoveries was that student misrepresentations at times went beyond plagiarism into fabrication. In some ways, fabrication may be viewed as the opposite of plagiarism. To wit, plagiarism is rooted in omission, fabrication in commission. Plagiarism entails inserting someone elses voice where yours belongs, fabrication inserting your own voice where it does not belong. More than one student altered a quote by beneficially inserting the word apologetics into it, presumably to make it appear more relevant. Material taken from an Internet site was attributed to one of the book-based sources found in the students Works Cited. I would look up in-text citations and they would not exist 185

in the work cited. It is more difficult to provide a pedagogical excuse for such behaviours. Its The Grade, What leads students to plagiarize and fabricate? Getting a good or better grade while saving time, or getting a better grade, are commonly cited factors in the literature (Park 2003, 479; Williams et al. 2012, 10). The basis in the literature for this conclusion is student self-reporting. I relied, rather, on in-depth analysis of the plagiarized student papers. Yet, I reached the same conclusion. Everything I saw in them was consistent with plagiarism and fabrication being driven by a desire to get a good or better grade. My findings from this in-depth analysis are detailed in chapter 5. Students plagiarized sources that came complete with impressive-looking internal citations. The students presented these as their own efforts and composition. Students enhanced the value of a quote through beneficial word insertion, sprinkling the word apologetics into quotes to, presumably, make the quote more relevant and therefore valuable. Students invented citations; when I took the time to look, the attributed citation was not anywhere in the cited work. Some students padded their Works Cited. One or more students forfeited his or her voice in an essays conclusion. As I progressed with the in-depth analysis, I kept asking myself, why is this student doing this. More generally, I asked myself, why are students copy-

186

pasting without attribution, fabricating citations, advantageously altering quotes, copying first-person narratives and presenting them as their own, and so on. While there may be other explanations, I believe the explanation indicated by the cumulative case data is this: this was done to impress the instructor, that is, the marker; this student is going for the grade. This is the most adequate and likely explanation I can come up with for submissions that have a generally impressive external form but lack inner integrity when one scratches below the surface. The conclusion has, I believe, persuasive explanatory power and is consistent with all the data. As I reflected on this, I realized this observation was consistent not just with what I found in the student papers themselves, but with the entire set of data derived from my interactions with plagiarizing students. And not just from the research class of 2013 and the follow-on class of 2014. This observation was consistent with all prior years as well. Students pleaded to be allowed to re-write a book review for which they had received a failing grade due to plagiarism. Students asked about the course implications of getting a failing grade for plagiarism on an assignment. Students expressed concern about the impact of a lower-than-expected grade on a students sponsorship. What these had in common was concern for grades. The concerns expressed by students were not, how do I develop my academic writing, or how do I achieve my academic voice, or how do I

187

develop my critical thinking skills, or how do I ensure the academic integrity of my submitted work. The concerns were much more prosaic, namely, how do I pass this course or, how can I get a good grade. Since the pedagogical approach stresses the former questions over the latter, this might indicate an instructor-student motivational dichotomy. This dichotomy might be characterized as a gap between instructors pedagogical concerns and assumptions about students, versus actual student attitudes and motivations. During the course of this study people suggested that plagiarism by Zambian students might result from cultural factors. However, if Zambian or African students plagiarize in order to save time or get a better grade, they are not unlike their North American counterparts, where the literature is well-established that these are important factors in student plagiarism (e.g., Park 2003, 479; Williams et al. 2012, 10; Posner 2007, 89). Perhaps the root-causes and factors associated with plagiarism have more to do with human nature, which is universal, than culture, which is particular. In stating that students may plagiarize because they are chasing grades, I am not advocating that grades be done away with. Evaluation is part of life. So is the character that comes from good grades achieved through honest means. Nor am I advocating that instructors should exclusively design assignments that make it impossible to plagiarize. While I believe contextual assignments that are more difficult to plagiarize are often desirable, I would not

188

eliminate assignments that do not require citation. First, students would not learn how to cite and interact with sources; it would impede development of academic literacy. Second, as indicated in chapter 2, Christian education is as much about developing character as competencies and content. Removing the temptation of chasing the grade is not necessarily a good thing when development of character is a prime educational objective. Knowledge - Ability - Motivation I used a working premise that plagiarism results from a deficiency of knowledge, ability and/or motivation. I found the distinctions inherent in the three useful. They provided a way of framing the issue. Knowledge Knowledge is, for the most part, pedagogical. If a student has been given no instruction in citation standards and plagiarism, the student cannot be held accountable for failing to cite or plagiarism. (An exception to this might be the most egregious kind of infraction such as stealing and/or handing in someone elses paper, in which an innate moral sense might indicate to the student that it would be wrong to receive credit for such an act.) The data indicated having knowledge did not guarantee a student would avoid plagiarizing. Conversely, it also indicated that imperfect knowledge did not mean a student would plagiarize. One might say knowledge is necessary, but not

189

sufficient. Because it is necessary, and because knowledge is the easiest of the three dimensions to address, knowledge is the right place to start. In order to promote academic literacy and integrity of workmanship among students, citation knowledge and plagiarism awareness should be stressed in the early days of a students education. Lack of knowledge should be ruled out as a factor by the end of a students first year. Perhaps students who pass first year quizzes dealing with citation knowledge, and exercises that demonstrate rudimentary citation skills, should receive certificates as apprentice-scholars qualified to write and submit academic papers for credit. This could serve a number of purposes, namely, (a) it would signal the importance of citation knowledge and plagiarism avoidance, (b) it would offer students a visible milestone of tangible achievement and perhaps help nurture their fledgling identify as apprentice-scholars, and (c), as a qualityassurance function it would ensure that students possess the basic knowledge and ability to do academic assignments. Ability Ability is also largely pedagogical and, as suggested in the previous paragraph, needs to be nurtured throughout a students four-year career. I envisage a four-year progression with students limited to doing book reviews or one source essays in the first year, dealing with two sources in the second, and then multiple

190

sources in the third and fourth years. There might also be a similar progression from simple quotes to more complex paraphrases and summaries. Motivation Motivation is closely associated with the moral dimension. Misdirected student motivation might be staunched by stern warnings and examples made of offending students. However, it is always desirable, especially in a Christian setting, to emphasize the positive development of moral virtues. This was my theme in the theological framework of Chapter 2. The first thing students should be told is not, dont plagiarize its stealing, but rather, generously acknowledge and honour sources its the right thing to do. Teach Christian virtues first, the values of citation and their consonance with Christian virtues second, and plagiarism-as-transgression third. Although it was outside of the scope of my project, I support the college honour codes movement promoted by McCabe. Instructor-student honour councils, and perhaps annual or semester-based honour chapels that relate academic integrity to biblical values might help, as might in-class devotions constructed around the virtues discusses in Chapter 2 and applied to issues of academic integrity. The Limitations of A Guest Instructors Role Plagiarism may be beyond a short-term guest instructors ability to do much about. A guest instructor teaching a seven-day intensive can help build the 191

knowledge dimension, and model desired attitudes and behaviours hoping to inspire by example. But there is little a guest instructor can do to address the pedagogical ability dimension. Nor, can he or she realistically expect to overcome ingrained habits of mind and action. Plagiarism is more likely systemic and rooted in something more stubborn than mere lack of knowledge of a few citation rules. If so, addressing plagiarism requires concerted effort by the whole faculty, administration, and, importantly, student body of a college. Keeping The Positive In View Focusing on plagiarism is intrinsically negative; over the long haul in a project like this it can be draining and even discouraging. It is important to remind oneself of the positives. The first is the positive context of promoting academic literacy and integrity: as educators we are cultivating precise, careful, academic truth-tellers. It is also important to keep positive student accomplishments in view. A non-plagiarizing student (R06) improved his quiz scores from nine wrong on the pre-quiz citation portion to only three on the post-quiz. R03 plagiarized but, unlike the other plagiarizing students, I sensed he or she was trying to do honest work but perhaps yielded to the temptation of plagiarism as a top-up strategy. R03 did magnificently in improving his or her score from eight wrong on the pre-quiz citation portion to only three on the post-quiz. A third student (R28) reduced his error-rate from three wrong on the pre-quiz to a perfect score of none

192

wrong on the citation portion of the quiz. These successes should be celebrated and kept in view. It is important to also keep in mind that most students did not plagiarize. Some combination of knowledge, however faulty; ability, however nascent, and motivation, however mixed, kept most students on the right track. Since the quiz and book reviews/essays data show that many of them shared the same gaps in knowledge and challenges in ability due to L2 language issues as those who plagiarized, I wonder if in the end motivation is the deciding factor. If so, this brings us full circle back to viewing plagiarism as a moral issue, albeit spurred on by pedagogical factors such as lack of ability and other factors such as fear of losing sponsorships if grades slip. Academic Literacy and Integrity: Every Instructors Responsibility It is apparent, from my own observations, the observations of TTC staff, and others, that student English literacy among Zambian students is slipping. Sliding further down this slope will make it even more difficult for African students to make the grade of academic success. Meanwhile, access to the Internet is increasing. It does not take much discernment to conclude that plagiarism will become more of a problem in the years ahead. As a result of this study, I believe that instructors who assign academic work in L2-C2 second-language, second-culture contexts must view promotion of academic literacy and integrity as an integral part of their jobs, regardless of the 193

subject matter. I also believe if we assign formal academic work, we are obliged to diligently look for plagiarism. It does no one good to go through the motions of grading papers and assigning grades if those grades are not earned and deserved. In fact, it does the students a disservice. Academic success is predicated on academic literacy and integrity. Archer characterizes academic literacy as a form of cultural capital (Archer 2012, 360). This means it opens the door to a better life. Meanwhile, Educator Ted Ward indicates the function of Christian education is to facilitate spiritual development and whatever other matters of learning and development are supportive to that end (Ward 1998, 12). I have shown in chapter 2 how academic integrity relates to spiritual development. Taken together, these sentiments mean academic literacy and integrity are both important to individual and perhaps societal well-being. Because of this, as educators, we need to equip students for the work of the academy. We need to do all we can to help them achieve academic literacy and integrity. We need to help them make the grade.

194

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY There are a number of acronyms, initialisms, terms, and word conventions employed in this study. They are listed here in alphabetical order. C1. First culture. Ones native culture. C2. Second culture. A foreign or acquired culture. Citation/Cite. Synonymous with referencing/reference. Decopro. Degree completion program. A part-time, continuing education program offered by TTC. (The) Engagement. All onsite interactions from the start of class to hand-over of grades to the Academic Dean. The research project encompasses preengagement, engagement, and post-engagement activities. End-of-class evaluation. A research instrument used at the end of class to obtain student evaluations of the syllabus, the syllabus quiz, and the class as a whole. ESL. English as a second language. The term is not used in this thesis to refer to a course or program of English language instruction but rather to those persons for whom English is an acquired language. Most of the TTC students would be classified as ESL in the sense of using English as a second language. See also L2. Instructor. The literature uses various terms to describe the person conducting a class and/or marking papers. For consistency, I use the term instructor. This term should be viewed as encompassing other commonly used terms such as educator, lecturer, professor, teacher, tutor, as appropriate. L1. First language. Ones native, mother-tongue language. 195

L2. Second language a foreign or acquired language. This is a generic term found in the academic literature for English as a second language. Most of the TTC students would be classified as L2. See also ESL. M-perspective. Those who stress the moral dimension of plagiarism. See also Mplagiarism and P-perspective. M-plagiarism. A moral construction of plagiarism. See also M-perspective and Pplagiarism. MLA. Modern Language Association. TTC uses the MLA standard of citation consisting of in-text parenthetical citations accompanied by an alphabetical end-of-text list of works cited (MLA Handbook 2009). See also Standard Model and Works Cited. P-perspective. Those who stress pedagogical factors in plagiarism. See also Pplagiarism and M-perspective. P-plagiarism. A pedagogical construction of plagiarism, often held by professional educators. See also P-perspective and M-plagiarism. Patchwriting. A term used by Rebecca Moore Howard to refer to copying from a source text and then deleting some words, altering grammatical structures or plugging in one synonym for another (Howard 1999b, xvii) with or without attribution. Howard argues that it is the only writing option available to many students and should not be considered plagiarism. It is discussed in Chapter 3. Pre-Quiz. See Syllabus Quiz. Post-Quiz. See Syllabus Quiz. Regular student. Full-time, on-campus students at TTC. Syllabus. The apologetics syllabus, which was the primary project innovation. Syllabus Tutorial. A tutorial on academic literacy and integrity, including citation requirements and the need to avoid plagiarism. This tutorial was embedded in the syllabus. The section dealing with citation rules reflected a standard model of citation that students should already have known. See also Standard Model. Syllabus Quiz. A quiz based on the syllabus tutorial administered at the start (the 196

pre-quiz) and end (the post-quiz) of class. This was the primary research instrument. Tier 1 vs. Tier 2 Plagiarism. Tier 1 refers to rudimentary citation failures such use of a source while failing to cite it, or citing it in the text but not in the Works Cited, or vice-versa. Tier 2 refers to more subtle and complex instances such as failed attempts to successfully inter-mix ones own voice with that of others. Standard model. I use this term to describe the citation rules promoted in the syllabus and tested for in the syllabus quiz. These are the rules one encounters again and again in documents dealing with plagiarism, for example, (a) cite ideas as well as words, (b) cite paraphrases as well as quotations, (c) common knowledge is an exception to citation rules. These generic rules govern both the writing of this thesis (Turabian 2007) and the MLA standard used at TTC (MLA Handbook 2009). TTC Students submitting academic essays and book reviews need to know these and well-informed students could be expected to know them without reading the syllabus tutorial. See also MLA and Syllabus Tutorial. TTC. Trans-Africa Theological College, located in Kitwe, Zambia. Works Cited. The MLA term for an end-of-text alphabetical list of works cited in the body of the paper. See also MLA.

197

APPENDIX B: RESEARCH ETHICS DESIGN AND EXECUTION Appendix B contains everything relevant to research ethics. This includes research ethics analysis, design, and execution, as well as research ethics forms and instruments used in the project. Ethical Considerations and Approach The project offered several potential benefits to participating students. These included the improved chance for good grades due to better communication of instructor expectations prior to start of class, the ongoing instructional benefits of a syllabus-based tutorial in citation standards and plagiarism avoidance, and the chance to participate in a formal research project which may inspire students to further studies and be helpful to them if they do. More broadly, the study offered the chance for the academy to hear African voices on academic standards and issues such as plagiarism. The risks were minimal. Almost all of what was planned was part and parcel of normal class engagement. There was a small risk that students might be embarrassed if their knowledge of citation standards and plagiarism proved

198

deficient, but this embarrassment would have been no greater than that routinely encountered when graded on an assignment. There was a further risk of student embarrassment if a student plagiarized and the research effort was not able to ensure student confidentiality. I addressed the issue of student research confidentiality in the following ways. First, I did not assess the quizzes, the end-of-class evaluation, or perform the in-depth research on plagiarizing papers while onsite at TTC. There was no chance of inadvertently breaching research confidentiality during the onsite engagement. Second, students were given anonymous IDs for all reporting. Third, I omitted identifying details, such as a students sex or home country when reporting results. Fourth, I reserved the right to alter minor, immaterial details to further protect confidentiality. Fifth, I password-protected the computer used to code the data and write this thesis. Sixth, I did not discuss plagiarism by any given student with any other students. Foremost to protecting the human rights and dignity of the participants was consent informed, free, and ongoing. I obtained the double written consent of TTC as an organization and the students as participants. The student consent process involved three stages: informal consent prior to the start of class, ongoing informal consent when embarking on specific research data collection actions, and the solicitation of formal, written consent at the end of the seminar.

199

Students were informed in writing of ethical safeguards. Specific issues are discussed below. Voluntariness Its hard to take a course and opt out of reading its syllabus and following its requirements. However there were two dimensions of the project that were specifically research data collection actions. These were the syllabus quiz and the end-of-class evaluation. Students were permitted to opt out of these. Anyone with a persistent concern would have been exempted from the class assignments and given alternate reading/reporting assignments outside of the research study. Informed Consent In order not to affect outcomes, I did not tell the students in advance about the syllabus quizzes at the start and end of class. I did, however, state in the syllabus that students were responsible for its contents, so testing for syllabus/ citation awareness would be fair game. Similarly, it's hard to tell them in advance that the subject of the research includes a citation/plagiarism component without skewing results. So, I more generally indicated it was a research project in instructional methods. I also obtained formal written consent at the end of the class when the students knew the research had to do with the syllabus innovation, including the need to cite sources and avoid plagiarism.

200

Instructor Power over Students The risk of implicit coercion to participate due to instructor power was a concern. I minimized this risk by incorporating the research actions into the normal course of classroom activities and work. Signing up for a course implies consent to be assessed and graded on ones work. I asked the Academic Dean, Dr. John Kerr, to open the class with a scripted message about the purpose of the project and its voluntary nature (see below). While asking the Academic Dean may have seemed like a step in the wrong direction since he had greater power than me, he is greatly respected and trusted by students, and he did not wield grading power for this particular class. In addition, I reviewed the proposed project with African advisors prior to implementation. Privacy and Confidentiality. Student sampling size was expected to be 25-30 students; this afforded good confidentiality. Results were tabulated anonymously. In the unlikely case that only a few or several students participated, results would have been summarized and/or composite students created to obscure identifying characteristics. Zambian Social Science Research Ethics Based on analysis of over 20 sources, I concluded that Zambias research ethics infrastructure is nascent and heavily weighted towards biomedical/health research. As of 2009 there were no statutes with legal force governing ethical 201

research in Zambia, including medical/health research (Kwibisa 2009, iv). There is a National Health Research Ethics Committee (NHREC) (Health Research Web 2011); this is apparently Zambias only national-level ethics review committee. The University of Zambia (UNZA) has a Research Ethics Committee (REC) for Humanities and Social Sciences; however, this is for providing oversight for collaborating researchers in which UNZA also has a research stake (University of Zambia 2009, 18). It is not clear if this institutional REC reports up to the national committee. My summary findings were as follows: 1. Research ethics follow Canadian/American guidelines very closely. They are presumably derived from Western sources. 2. The University of Zambia (UNZA)s Humanities and Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee was topically relevant to my research but jurisdictionally irrelevant because I am not a collaborating researcher. 3. The National Health Research Ethics Committee was jurisdictionally relevant because it is a national, but topically less relevant because its primary mandate is to assess biomedical/health research, although I understand it will examine non-medical research proposals. I contacted a Zambia-based colleague at Trans-Africa Theological College and an American missionary who recently completed an American D.Min. for a Zambian-based teaching project. The Zambian received his ethics approval for his present studies from South Africa only, and the American was not required to submit his work for ethical review.

202

Based on the above considerations I concluded it was sufficient to seek the formal ethics approval of the host institution, Trans-Africa Theological College.

203

Research Ethics Certification As part of my preparation to do ethical research, I completed the Canadian Panel on Research Ethics online course. Figure A.B.1. Panel on Research Ethics TCPS 2: CORE Certificate of Completion

PANEL ON RESEARCH ETHICS

Navigating the ethics of human research

TCPS 2: CORE

Certificate of Completion
This document certifies that

Richard Ball

has completed the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans Course on Research Ethics (TCPS 2: CORE)
Date of Issue:
13 November, 2011

204

Research Ethics Consent Forms and Scripts I provided formal consent forms both for TTC as an institution to sign prior to the research and for the students to sign at the end of class. I used a less formal consent form for email communications. I created and used pre-class and post-class scripts, a postcard-style invitation handed out to students prior to the start of class, and a business card which was intended to be used to elicit informed consent during opportunistic discussions with Africans. I gave the students these business cards as well. Research Ethics Institutional Consent Form Research Project Description: Trans-Africa Theological College (TTC) is invited to participate in a research project to be conducted by Mr. Richard Ball as part of the Doctor of Ministry program at Tyndale Seminary, Toronto. The project will take place during his delivery of his Apologetics seminar in January 2013. It will assess certain instructional methods used by a visiting guest instructor. While much of the research will take place within the usual course of delivering the seminar, there will be some specific research-associated activities. Participants will be asked to complete one or more quizzes and a course evaluation asking them about academic practices and instructional methods used and/or discussed in this class. Because of the integration of the research into the classroom activities, formal written consent, normally obtained prior to research, will be obtained at the end of the seminar. Informal consent will be obtained prior 205

to the class and as the project proceeds. I understand that to preserve the integrity of the research, it will be important to maintain confidentiality about its exact scope, nature and purpose until after the research has been conducted. Invitation To Participate. TTC is invited to participate in this research. Participation in research is voluntary; students may choose not to participate, and may withdraw their consent at any time prior to the conclusion of the project without any penalty or disadvantage to them. The research project is expected to generate data used in reports or published findings and may also be incorporated in the future in articles or books. Any data that the researcher extracts from the quizzes, course evaluation, or other classroom interactions will not, under any circumstances, contain names or identifying characteristics. TTC as well as participating students will have a right to ask to see a copy of the research results. If TTC authorities have any questions or concerns regarding possible ethical issues and wish to contact someone outside the research team, they may contact contact [sic] Dr. Mark Chapman of Tyndale Seminary: Dr. Mark Chapman, Assistant Professor of Research Methods Tyndale Seminary, 25 Ballyconnor Court, Toronto ON M2M 4B3, Canada (416) 226-6620 ext. 2208 http://www.tyndale.ca/seminary/dmin/ Mark Chapman <mchapman@tyndale.ca> Organizational Approval: On behalf of Trans-Africa Theological College (TTC) I approve TTCs participation in the research project specified above. I have read the Research Project Description and have had the project

206

explained to me to my satisfaction. I understand that agreeing to take part means that: Students agree to complete one or more quizzes and a course evaluation asking them about academic practices and instructional methods used in this class. Participation by students is voluntary; they may choose not to participate in part or all of the project, and they can withdraw at any point without being penalized or disadvantaged in any way. Any data the researcher extracts from the quizzes / course evaluation and other classroom interactions for use in reports or published findings will not, under any circumstances, contain names or identifying characteristics. Students will have a right to ask to see a copy of the research results and the researcher will tell them how to go about doing this by the end of the class. This research may be used in the future for other purposes such as articles or books and TTCs participation in the project implies its consent to this. I understand that to preserve the integrity of the research, TTC must maintain confidentiality about its exact scope, nature and purpose until after the research has been conducted.

TTC Authorized Name #1 ___________________________________________ Signature Title Date ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________

TTC Authorized Name #2 ___________________________________________ Signature Title ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________

207

Date

___________________________________________ Note: If at any time you have any questions or concerns regarding

possible ethical issues in the research and wish to contact someone outside the research team, please contact Dr. Mark Chapman of Tyndale Seminary: Dr. Mark Chapman, Assistant Professor of Research Methods Tyndale Seminary 25 Ballyconnor Court Toronto ON M2M 4B3 Canada (416) 226-6620 ext. 2208 http://www.tyndale.ca/seminary/dmin/ Mark Chapman <mchapman@tyndale.ca>

208

Research Ethics Information Card Figure A.B.2. Research ethics information card front/back

209

210

Research Ethics Script - Prior to Start of In-Class Research Dr. Kerr: "Good morning Muli shani! Rick is currently doing a Doctor of Ministry program at Tyndale Seminary in Toronto. As part of this program he has to conduct a research project and report the findings. He's been coming to TTC for ten years and has chosen to research his teaching methods here at TTC. This means you are invited to be part of the research! To conduct the research, he will observe and gather data about how you respond to his teaching methods and he has asked me to tell you you should just be yourselves and act as you normally would! Research activity is governed by the laws of Canada and Zambia; these laws require that researchers must obtain everyone's consent to do the research and use the research data. Rick will now pass out an invitation card and explain this process to you. Researcher: "Good morning Muli shani! The card I've given you goes over the basic research ground rules. [Go over card with students and answer any questions.] As they say, when anyone is involved in research, they must first consent to it, and their consent must be informed, voluntary, and ongoing. [Explain.] So, this means that this week and next we will be doing two things: we will be conducting a class as usual and we will be researching the effectiveness of my instruction. We do this by capturing your reactions and responses to my instruction. You will be expected to participate in class as usual, however, your participation in the research component is entirely voluntary. This means you still 211

have to do the assignments, and participate as you normally would, and be graded as you normally would, but you can indicate you don't want any of the data created from your involvement in the class used in the research findings. I can't tell you exactly what it is I'm researching because that would invalidate the results. But, I will be looking at normal type things in a class like: your response to quizzes, assignments, lectures, comments in class, grading issues, that sort of thing all the things a student normally does. Does anyone have any questions or concerns? [Answer any questions anyone has]. Dr. Kerr: "You'll be asked at the end of the class to sign a consent form which gives your consent for Rick to use the data gathered in class for research purposes, but, if any of you have any questions or concerns this week, please see me."

212

Research Ethics Script - Post-Class Research Consent Dr. Kerr: "The research has been about assessing the usefulness of the syllabus and the quizzes in communicating TTC/instructor expectations and promoting academic development in such matters as how to format assignments, and how to cite sources properly and avoid plagiarism. The data Rick has collected will be used to improve instructional methods here at TTC and hopefully elsewhere in Africa as well. As indicated in the invitation card, all results will be anonymous; nobody will be identified. The research results will be reported in his DMin thesis and may even show up down the road in articles or books! When the research is ready, Rick will provide a copy for the TTC Library. As Rick mentioned already, you can indicate you don't want any of the data created from your involvement in the class used as part of the research findings. Im going to ask the TTC student rep. to come now and gather the consent forms. TTC Student Rep: "I'll be passing out the consent forms and we'll go over them together. [Goes over consent form with students.] If you consent to being included in the research, print your name and sign the form; if not, just print your name and leave the signature line blank. Ill collect the consent forms and give them to Dr. Kerr who will keep them until Rick has submitted all his grades. Student rep gathers the consent forms and passes them to Dr. Kerr for safe-keeping until grades have been submitted. 213

214

Post-Research Student Consent Form Research Project Description: Trans Africa Theological College (TTC) has been participating in a research project conducted by Mr. Richard Ball as part of the Doctor of Ministry program at Tyndale Seminary, Toronto. The research took place during the delivery of his Apologetics seminar. It assessed instructional methods used by a visiting guest instructor. Participants were asked to complete one or more quizzes and a course evaluation asking them about academic practices and instructional methods used and/or discussed in this class. In addition, the research was ongoing during the course of delivering the seminar and included the capturing of student comments and reactions. Because participation in research projects is voluntary, a consent form is being used to obtain participants formal consent. Student Invitation to Participate. You were invited to participate in this research project. As you were informed, participation in research projects is voluntary; you could choose not to participate in part or all of the project, and you could withdraw at any time without being penalized or disadvantaged in any way. The research project is expected to generate data used in reports or published findings and may also be incorporated in the future into articles or books. Any data that the researcher extracts from the quizzes, course evaluations, or other classroom interactions will not, under any circumstances, contain names or identifying characteristics. You have a right to ask to see a copy of the research

215

results. If you have any remaining questions or concerns regarding possible ethical issues in the research, you may speak with the Academic Dean, Dr. John Kerr. Student Consent: I agree to take part in the research project specified above. I have read the Research Project Description and have had the project explained to me. I understand that agreeing to take part means that: I gave my informal consent to complete one or more quizzes and a course evaluation asking me about academic practices and instructional methods used in this class. I understand that research data may be derived from any and all seminar interactions, including quizzes, assignments, course evaluations, discussions, and comments made. I understand that, while I was responsible for doing the normal assignments associated with the seminar, my participation in the research aspect of the seminar was voluntary, that I could choose not to participate, and that I could withdraw from the research at any point without being penalized or disadvantaged in any way. I understand that any data the researcher extracts from the quizzes / course evaluation discussions and comments for use in reports or published findings will be confidential, that is, it will not, under any circumstances, contain names or identifying characteristics of individual students. I understand that I have a right

216

to ask to see a copy of the research results and that the researcher will tell me how to go about doing this. I understand that this research may be used in the future for other purposes such as articles or books. I understand that if I have any questions or concerns regarding possible ethical issues in the research and wish to contact someone outside the research team, I may contact the Academic Dean, Dr. John Kerr. Participants Name (print) _________________________________________

Participants Signature Indicating Consent________________________________ Date _____________________________________________________________

217

Correspondent Informal Consent Statement This consent statement was appended to email correspondence where I deemed appropriate. It was formulated for questions I might want to ask my African cultural advisors and others about e.g., their personal views on contributing factors to plagiarism. Research Consent: Consent to research must be voluntary, informed, and ongoing. I am researching instructional methods to benefit Africa. It concerns the issue of plagiarism. You may choose not to participate, or to discontinue. I may want to quote you as the source of an opinion or research data; however, you may ask for and get anonymity. The research project data will be used in reports, published findings, articles, books, etc. You may see the research results. Your participation indicates consent. If you have questions or concerns please contact Dr. Mark Chapman, Assistant Professor of Research Methods Tyndale Seminary, Toronto http://www.tyndale.ca/seminary/dmin/ <mchapman@tyndale.ca>.

218

Business Card Informal Consent Statement This card was intended for distribution prior, during or after informal discussion, interviews with on-the-ground Africans. Where appropriate, I intended to ask a participant to sign a card and give them a second card to keep. In fact, this card was not used for such purposes; instead, I handed it out to the students and anyone else I thought might be interested in having it. Figure A.B.3. Research ethics information card front/back

219

APPENDIX C: THE 2013 SYLLABUS QUIZ ANNOTATED This quiz was used at the start of the class (i.e., the pre-quiz) and again at the end (the post-quiz). The text of the quiz is shown in italics. I provide my explanatory comments in plain text. Where appropriate I indicate the correct or preferred answer. A. The first portion of this quiz identifies you and provides some background data. Student Name ____________________________________________________________ Student names were solicited so I could cross-reference syllabus quiz results to student behaviours. Mark an X beside the best answer(s). 1. I am a Decopro student ( ) a Regular student ( ). One of my research objectives was to determine whether Decopros might have a citation knowledge deficiency relative to the regular students because they may have missed one or more of the two first-year courses in English and academic writing. 2. I have ( x) have not ( ) read the syllabus for this course.

220

I added this question late in the quiz design stage. Since regular students are on-campus and continuing-ed Decopros are not, regular students received the syllabus and Decopros did not (mail is not an easy option in Zambia). I assumed regular students, having received the syllabus, would read it and Decopros would not. I intended the Decopros to serve as a comparison group for the regular students. In fact, as Chapter 6 will indicate, many regular students indicated they had not read the syllabus and one Decopro indicated he or she had. I therefore used those who had not read the syllabus as a comparison group to those who indicated they had. The next four questions tested for students connections with English. For each question I indicate what answer I think would lead to an English advantage 3. My parents/caregivers: speak (spoke) English ( x) OR do not (did not) speak English ( ). 4. I learned to speak English: at home growing up ( x); in school ( ). 5. English is ( x) is not ( ) one of my first or primary languages. This was testing for ESL (L2). 6. The language of instruction in my high school was: English ( x); English and another language or languages ( ); another language ( ); I did not attend high school ( ) B. SYLLABUS AWARENESS

221

The next four questions were created to address problems encountered in previous classes. A secondary purpose was to obscure the research focus on academic integrity/plagiarism. I did this so that students would not be able to guess what the research was about. If they guessed it was about plagiarism, this might have affected their behaviours and thus tainted the integrity of the research project. This portion of the quiz has to do with your awareness of the contents of the syllabus along with some other issues related to academic writing. If you are a Decopro student, or havent read the syllabus, simply indicate, based on your prior experience as a student, what you think the syllabus probably said. Circle either T (True) or F (False) to the right of each question. Examples: 0. Zambia is a country in Africa. (T) F 0. Canada is a country in Africa. T (F) According to the Syllabus: 7. I should leave a 1-2 cm margin around each page of submitted work. (T) F The syllabus actually said 2 cm; I corrected this for the post-quiz. 8. I should break my writing into paragraphs of about a page in size each. T (F) 9. I should single-space my submitted work. T (F) 10. The instructor has asked me to underline my family name whenever I submit written work. (T) F

222

As far as I know I am the only instructor who asks students to underline their family name on submissions. This request was therefore specific to me. The question served a second research purpose beyond the obvious test for syllabus knowledge: since students were asked to give their name on the quiz, I wanted to see if student knowledge would translate into behaviour in this small instance, that is, would students who answered the question correctly make the connection and and underline their name on the quiz? An integral aspect of academic writing is to document the sources we have used. We do this by referencing or citing our sources. TTC uses the MLA citation style. For the purposes of this quiz, the terms referencing/references and citing/citations refer to the same thing and should be viewed as synonyms (i.e., they mean the same thing). I developed questions Q11 through Q27 based on a standard model of plagiarism gleaned from my literature review, that is, the rules and regulations regarding citation that appear time and again in the literature. Questions Q11 through Q27 constitute a quiz on citation knowledge that could be used on a standalone basis. It is important to note that an informed student would not need the syllabus tutorial to do well on this quiz. The intent of the syllabus citation tutorial was not to present something new to students but rather to fill in any gaps in the knowledge they had acquired along the way. Thus, a student could walk into the syllabus quiz and ace it not having read the syllabus, if they knew the

223

material from prior learning (especially from taking Mrs. Ruth Kerrs introductory classes in English and academic writing). While the syllabus tutorial uses the term plagiarism, I avoided using it in the quiz for two reasons. First, based on my back-story experiences, I believe the term functions as a red flag that tends to elicit stock, expected answers from the students perhaps due to social desirability bias. Second, omitting the term might require the quiz-taker to think more about what was being asked. 11. A purpose of citation is to distinguish my words and phrases from the words and phrases of others. (T) F 12. A purpose of citation is to distinguish my ideas from the ideas of others. (T) F 13. Material found on the internet is public domain and does not have to be cited. T (F) My literature survey indicated this is a common excuse, although I had not heard it used at TTC. 14. I do not need to provide a citation for something that is common knowledge. (T) F 15. If material is not copyrighted I may use it without citing it. T (F) 16. If I re-express something in my own words (i.e., I paraphrase it) then I do not need to cite it. T (F) 224

17. A paraphrase can be created by changing a few words here and there. T (F) 18. When it comes to using direct quotes, the rule is, the more the better. T (F) 19. The statement Zambia had a population of 5.2 million in 1978 requires a citation. (T) F This is another way of asking question Q14. 20. The statement Zambia is a country in Africa requires a citation. T (F) As with Q19, this is another way of asking Q14. 21. I dont need to cite a source in the body of my paper as long as I have included it in my bibliography (reference list, list of sources). T (F) 22. If I am doing a book report I can copy from the book without citing it because since it is a book report the reader will know I got the material from the book. T (F) A prior class had insisted this was the case and that the academic rules for a book review were different from that of an essay. See also below. 23. Citation standards for a book report are different than those for a research essay. T (F) 24. Once I have cited a source in the body of my paper, I can then use it without citing it again. T (F)

225

25. I do not need to provide a citation for descriptive information taken from a books back cover. T (F) In a prior year students had copied paragraphs from the back cover page, which did the work of summarizing the book for them. 26. It is OK to use other peoples study notes or essay as long as I re-express their material in my own words. T (F) I left this purposely imprecise to see what kind of response it would elicit. The correct answer would be as long as I re-express their material in my own words and cite their work. 27. It is OK to take an essay that I wrote for one class and submit it for credit in another class. T (F) C. ACADEMIC WRITING AWARENESS AND ATTITUDES We want to know what you think about academic writing. Please circle one number for each question that best reflects what you think. The following questions were designed to elicit student views regarding academic writing. Using a Likert-like scale, they were designed to measure how student values align or mis-align with those of the academy. Where appropriate I bracket the desired response.

226

Example: ! I am presently doing a quiz for research purposes. 1..........2.........3............4........(5) strongly disagree neither agree agree strongly disagree nor disagree agree a. TTC intends that assignments, such as research essays, book reports, and exam questions be ways for me to develop critical thinking skills. 1..........2.........3............4......(5) strongly disagree neither agree agree strongly disagree nor disagree agree b. Writing essays and book report assignments give me a chance to develop my critical writing skills. 1..........2.........3............4......(5) strongly disagree neither agree agree strongly disagree nor disagree agree c. Providing citations for my sources is a good way to show the instructor the research I have done. 1..........2.........3............4.....(5) strongly disagree neither agree agree strongly disagree nor disagree agree d. I only need to cite sources if I think the instructor will catch me if I dont. (1).........2.........3..... .......4......5 strongly disagree neither agree agree strongly disagree nor disagree agree

227

e. It is better for me to submit something I wrote, even with some spelling and grammar errors, than to submit someone elses words and phrases as if they were my own. 1..........2.........3............4......(5) strongly disagree neither agree agree strongly disagree nor disagree agree f. Submitting work expressed in my own words gives me a chance to develop my own academic writing voice. 1..........2.........3............4......(5) strongly disagree neither agree agree strongly disagree nor disagree agree g. If a student uses material without citing it, and the instructor fails to notice this, it gives him or her an unfair advantage over other students. 1..........2.........3............4......(5) strongly disagree neither agree agree strongly disagree nor disagree agree h. It is important for instructors to check for referencing violations to ensure all students are treated fairly. 1..........2.........3............4......(5) strongly disagree neither agree agree strongly disagree nor disagree agree

228

i. For me to receive an honest grade, it is important that what I submit is my own work written in my own words. 1..........2.........3............4......(5) strongly disagree neither agree agree strongly disagree nor disagree agree j. I learned about academic writing standards, including how to cite sources, prior to coming to TTC: 1..........2.........3............4.........5 strongly disagree neither agree agree strongly disagree nor disagree agree k. Regardless of what I may have been taught prior to coming to TTC, when I came to TTC I was taught about academic writing standards, including how to cite sources: 1..........2.........3............4.........5 strongly disagree neither agree agree strongly disagree nor disagree agree l. Comments? If you have any comments about this quiz, please write them below.

229

APPENDIX D: 2013 SYLLABUS QUIZ The syllabus was optimized for printing on African-standard A4 paper and minor changes have been made to conform to Turabian style punctuation. As a consequence, the look and feel will differ slightly from the actual. TTC 2013 Apologetics Course - Syllabus PreQuiz - Cover Page
You may have noticed that the syllabus you received for this class was larger than usual. We want to ask you some questions about it for research purposes. You will not be graded on this! If you are a Decopro student, you probably have not had a chance to read the syllabus yet. Dont worry! a lot of these questions are about general knowledge you may already know and it will be interesting to see how you do. Remember, while the quizzes will be marked for research purposes, they will not form part of your academic grades.

As with all research activities, your participation in this quiz is voluntary. You do not have to do it if you do not want to. If you start it and decide you dont want to nish it, you may stop at any time. Please simply answer the questions as best you can and give your candid responses to opinion-type questions. At the beginning of the class we discussed privacy and data protection issues, and how

230

the data will used; we will come back to these issues and say more about them at the end of class.

TTC 2013 Apologetics Course - Syllabus PostQuiz - Cover Page You have probably guessed by now that this research project had something to do with the syllabus! We are going to repeat the quiz we did at the start of the class. As before, while the quizzes will be marked for research purposes, they will not form part of your academic grades.

As with all research activities, your participation in this quiz is voluntary. You do not have to do it if you do not want to. If you start it and decide you dont want to finish it, you may stop at any time. Please simply answer the questions as best you can and give your candid responses to opinion-type questions. At the beginning of the class we discussed privacy and data protection issues, and how the data will used; we will come back to these issues and say more about them at the end of class.

Note: The term work as used throughout this quiz refers to all academic assignments you write and hand-in for academic credit or other purposes at TTC. Also, for the purposes of this quiz, the terms referencing/references and citing/ citations refer to the same thing documenting your sources and should be viewed as synonyms (i.e., they mean the same thing).

ANY QUESTIONS?

231

TTC 2013 Apologetics Course - Syllabus Quiz

A. The rst portion of this quiz identies you and provides some background data. Student Name___________________________________________________________ Mark an X beside the best answer(s). 1. I am a Decopro student ( ) a Regular student ( ). 2. I have ( ) have not ( ) read the syllabus for this course. 3. My parents/caregivers: speak (spoke) English ( ) OR do not (did not) speak English ( ). 4. I learned to speak English:!at home growing up ( ); in school ( ). 5. English is ( ) is not ( ) one of my rst or primary languages. 6. The language of instruction in my high school was: English ( ); English and another language or languages ( ); another language ( ); I did not attend high school ( ) B. SYLLABUS AWARENESS This portion of the quiz has to do with your awareness of the contents of the syllabus along with some other issues related to academic writing. If you are a Decopro student, or havent read the syllabus, simply indicate, based on your prior experience as a student, what you think the syllabus probably said. Circle either T (T rue) or F (False) to the right of each question.

232

Examples: 0. Zambia is a country in Africa. (T) F 0. Canada is a country in Africa. T (F) According to the Syllabus: 7. I should leave a 1-2 cm margin around each page of submitted work. T F 8. I should break my writing into paragraphs of about a page in size each. T F 9. I should single-space my submitted work. T F 10. The instructor has asked me to underline my family name whenever I submit written work. T F An integral aspect of academic writing is to document the sources we have used. We do this by referencing or citing our sources. TTC uses the MLA citation style. For the purposes of this quiz, the terms referencing/references and citing/ citations refer to the same thing and should be viewed as synonyms (i.e., they mean the same thing). 11. A purpose of citation is to distinguish my words and phrases from the words and phrases of others. T F 12. A purpose of citation is to distinguish my ideas from the ideas of others. T F 13. Material found on the internet is public domain and does not have to be cited. T F 14. I do not need to provide a citation for something that is common knowledge. T F 15. If material is not copyrighted I may use it without citing it. T F 16. If I re-express something in my own words (i.e., I paraphrase it) then I do not need to cite it. T F

233

17. A paraphrase can be created by changing a few words here and there. T F 18. When it comes to using direct quotes, the rule is, the more the better T F 19. The statement Zambia had a population of 5.2 million in 1978 requires a citation. T F 20. The statement Zambia is a country in Africa requires a citation. T F 21. I dont need to cite a source in the body of my paper as long as I have included it in my bibliography (reference list, list of sources). T F 22. If I am doing a book report I can copy from the book without citing it because since it is a book report the reader will know I got the material from the book. T F 23. Citation standards for a book report are different than those for a research essay. T F 24. Once I have cited a source in the body of my paper, I can then use it without citing it again. T F

25. I do not need to provide a citation for descriptive information taken from a books back cover. T F 26. It is OK to use other peoples study notes or essay as long as I re-express their material in my own words. T F 27. It is OK to take an essay that I wrote for one class and submit it for credit in another class. T F C. ACADEMIC WRITING AWARENESS AND ATTITUDES We want to know what you think about academic writing. Please circle one number for each question that best reects what you think. Example:

234

" I am presently doing a quiz for research purposes. # $ $ 1..........2.........3............4......O strongly$ disagree $ disagree $ $ neither agree $ $ nor disagree$ $ agree $ $ $ strongly agree

a. TTC intends that assignments, such as research essays, book reports, and exam questions be ways for me to develop critical thinking skills. # $ $ 1..........2.........3............4......5 strongly$ disagree $ disagree $ $ neither agree $ $ nor disagree$ $ agree $ $ $ strongly agree

b. Writing essays and book report assignments give me a chance to develop my critical writing skills. # $ $ 1..........2.........3............4......5 strongly$ disagree $ disagree $ $ neither agree $ $ nor disagree$ $ agree $ $ $ strongly agree

c. Providing citations for my sources is a good way to show the instructor the research I have done. # $ $ 1..........2.........3............4......5 strongly$ disagree $ disagree $ $ neither agree $ $ nor disagree$ $ agree $ $ $ strongly agree

d. I only need to cite sources if I think the instructor will catch me if I dont. # $ $ 1..........2.........3............4......5 strongly$ disagree $ disagree $ $ neither agree $ $ nor disagree$ $ agree $ $ $ strongly agree

235

e. It is better for me to submit something I wrote, even with some spelling and grammar errors, than to submit someone elses words and phrases as if they were my own. # $ $ 1..........2.........3............4......5 strongly$ disagree $ disagree $ $ neither agree $ $ nor disagree$ $ agree $ $ $ strongly agree

f. Submitting work expressed in my own words gives me a chance to develop my own academic writing voice. # $ $ 1..........2.........3............4......5 strongly$ disagree $ disagree $ $ neither agree $ $ nor disagree$ $ agree $ $ $ strongly agree

g. If a student uses material without citing it, and the instructor fails to notice this, it gives him or her an unfair advantage over other students. # $ $ 1..........2.........3............4......5 strongly$ disagree $ disagree $ $ neither agree $ $ nor disagree$ $ agree $ $ $ strongly agree

h. It is important for instructors to check for referencing violations to ensure all students are treated fairly. # $ $ 1..........2.........3............4......5 strongly$ disagree $ disagree $ $ neither agree $ $ nor disagree$ $ agree $ $ $ strongly agree

236

i. For me to receive an honest grade, it is important that what I submit is my own work written in my own words. # $ $ agree j. I learned about academic writing standards, including how to cite sources, prior to coming to TTC: # $ $ agree k. Regardless of what I may have been taught prior to coming to TTC, when I came to TTC I was taught about academic writing standards, including how to cite sources: # $ $ agree l. Comments? If you have any comments about this quiz, please write them below. 1...........2...........3...........4........5 strongly$ disagree $ disagree $ $ neither agree $ $ nor disagree$ $ agree $ $ $ $ 1...........2...........3...........4........5 strongly$ disagree $ disagree $ $ neither agree $ $ nor disagree$ $ agree $ $ $ $ 1...........2...........3...........4........5 strongly$ disagree $ disagree $ $ neither agree $ $ nor disagree$ $ agree $ $ $ $

strongly

strongly

strongly

237

APPENDIX E: 2013 END-OF-CLASS EVALUATION The evaluation was optimized for printing on African-standard A4 paper and minor changes have been made to conform to Turabian style punctuation. As a consequence, the look and feel will differ slightly from the actual. TTC Apologetics 2013 - Syllabus/Course Evaluation
Congratulations you have been involved in a research project! Now you will be asked some nal questions regarding the class. In order to ensure the usefulness of the survey results, we once again ask for your candid opinions! As with all research, your participation is entirely voluntary, and you may decide not to do it or to stop at any point. T o help ensure candid responses, the instructor will step out of the room, and the responses will be collected in an envelope. Note: For the purposes of this survey, academic plagiarism may be dened simply as the use of others materials without proper citation. Here we go A. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SYLLABUS One of the innovations of this class was an expanded syllabus. Please help us evaluate this syllabus by providing your candid responses to the following questions. Circle one number per question. " I am presently doing a post-class syllabus/class evaluation. # $ $ 1........2.......3..........4......O strongly disagree $ disagree neither agree$ nor disagree $ $ agree$ $ strongly agree

238

a. The syllabus contained useful information about rules for citation: # $ $ 1........2.......3..........4...... 5 strongly disagree $ disagree neither agree$ nor disagree $ $ agree$ $ strongly agree

b. The syllabus contained useful information about citation rules that I didnt already know: # $ $ 1........2.......3..........4...... 5 strongly disagree $ disagree neither agree$ nor disagree $ $ agree$ $ strongly agree

c. Besides citation rules, the syllabus contained other useful information about academic writing: # $ $ 1........2.......3..........4...... 5 strongly disagree $ disagree neither agree$ nor disagree $ $ agree$ $ strongly agree

d. Besides citation rules, the syllabus contained other useful information about academic writing I didnt already know: # $ $ 1........2.......3..........4...... 5 strongly disagree $ disagree neither agree$ nor disagree $ $ agree$ $ strongly agree

e. The syllabus effectively communicated the instructors expectations for this class:

239

# $ $

1........2.......3..........4...... 5 strongly disagree $ disagree neither agree$ nor disagree $ $ agree$ $ strongly agree

f. In terms of helpfulness to me, compared with other syllabi I have used at TTC, this syllabus was: # $ $ 1........2.......3..........4...... 5 strongly disagree $ disagree neither agree$ nor disagree $ $ agree$ $ strongly agree

g. I would like to see more syllabi like this used in the future: # $ $ 1........2.......3..........4...... 5 strongly disagree $ disagree neither agree$ nor disagree $ $ agree$ $ strongly agree

B. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SYLLABUS QUIZ The class included a syllabus quiz at the beginning and end of the class. You can help us evaluate this quiz by giving your candid answers to the following questions. Note: the next four questions are closely related; please read all of them before answering. h. The syllabus quiz helped clarify academic standards about citation of sources: # $ $ 1........2.......3..........4...... 5 strongly disagree $ disagree neither agree$ nor disagree $ $ agree$ $ strongly agree

i. The syllabus quiz helped reinforce TTC expectations about citation of sources: # 1........2.......3..........4...... 5

240

$ $

strongly disagree $

disagree

neither agree$ nor disagree $ $

agree$ $

strongly agree

j. The in-class discussion on the syllabus quiz helped clarify academic standards about citation of sources: agree/disagree: # $ $ 1........2.......3..........4...... 5 strongly disagree $ disagree neither agree$ nor disagree $ $ agree$ $ strongly agree

k. The in-class discussion on the syllabus quiz helped reinforce TTC expectations standards about citation of sources: # $ $ 1........2.......3..........4...... 5 strongly disagree $ disagree neither agree$ nor disagree $ $ agree$ $ strongly agree

C. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COURSE AS A WHOLE l. The course as a whole syllabus, quizzes, discussions, assignments helped me better understand the underlying rationale (reason) for academic assignments such as essays and book reports # $ $ 1........2.......3..........4...... 5 strongly disagree $ disagree neither agree$ nor disagree $ $ agree$ $ strongly agree

m. The course as a whole syllabus, quizzes, discussions, assignments helped me better understand why providing proper citations is important to my development as a scholar # $ 1........2.......3..........4...... 5 strongly disagree neither agree$ agree$ strongly

241

disagree $

nor disagree $

agree

n. This course has helped me see how academic work relates to development of Christian character: # $ $ 1........2.......3..........4...... 5 strongly disagree $ integrity in my work: # $ $ 1........2.......3..........4...... 5 strongly disagree $ disagree neither agree$ nor disagree $ $ agree$ $ strongly agree disagree neither agree$ nor disagree $ $ agree$ $ strongly agree

o. This course has helped me resolve to achieve and/or maintain academic

p. If you have any comments about this survey, please write them below.

T H A T S I T T H A N K Y O U !

242

APPENDIX F: 2013 APOLOGETICS SYLLABUS The syllabus was optimized for printing on African-standard A4 paper and minor changes have been made to conform to Turabian style punctuation. As a consequence, the look and feel will differ slightly from the actual. Trans-Africa Theological College (TTC) Apologetics Syllabus 2013 Course: Apologetics. Credit Hours: 3. Instructor: Richard K. Ball. This will be my 10th year coming to TTC! I look forward to being with you in January and being built up together in mutual faith (Rom. 1:8-12). I have prepared this syllabus to communicate my expectations for the class. It is important that you read it all before starting written assignments. Description: An introduction to Christian apologetics with emphasis on practical issues and approaches in the African context. Objectives: 1. Cover major areas of Christian Apologetics: e.g., faith vs. reason; theodicy; the existence of God; the person of Christ; worldviews; holy books; science and faith; miracles. 2. Apply to African context. 3. Facilitate continued development of student critical thinking, reasoning, and writing skills. Required Texts: The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, Holman QuickSource Guide to Apologetics. Recommended Text: Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking by Geisler and Brooks.

243

Planned/Potential Activities: Lectures; discussions; in-class presentations by students Watch and critically review apologetics DVDs Letter-to-the-editor responses to contemporary African apologetical issues Review of the Alpha Course as an example of modern practical apologetics Course Requirements and Assignments: (read the entire syllabus for full instruction on assignments) 1. Pre-class assignments: Before the course begins: a. Read this syllabus. b. Read chapters 1, 5, and 14 from Holmans QuickSource Guide to Apologetics. This will be on reserve in the library. Note: Once classes start, priority will be given to Decopro students. Regular students should try to read before classes start. c. Read The Case For Christ 300 pages (there are sufficient copies in the library). d. Read The Case For Faith 300 pages (there are sufficient copies in the library). e. Write a 4-5 page book review of EITHER The Case For Christ OR The Case For Faith. Due: First day of class. 2. Attendance and participation at each days class. Because this is an intensive course it is important you attend each day. Up to a 5% grade reduction will be applied for each " day of unexcused absence. E.g., One day missed, marks achieved 75%; grade received 65%. Grading: Note: assignments are subject to change at the discretion of the instructor. I need some latitude some room during the seminar to improvise on the assignments and grading depending on the interests and aptitudes of the students and how the class is going.

244

Attendance and On-time Assignments 5%. If, as someone has said, 80% of life is simply showing up,90% of life is showing up and getting stuff done on time. You get 5 marks simply for showing up and handing assignments in on time. Spelling Table 5%. Produce a table of misspelled words with the correct spelling indicated. Another 5 marks! Vocabulary Table 5%. Produce a vocabulary table of new or important words you have learned as a result of your reading and in-class work. 15 marks and you havent even broken a sweat! Participation: 5%. Awarded at the discretion of the instructor. Try to ask or answer at least one question during the seminar. Better yet, aim to say something each day. Better still, challenge the instructor or say something controversial! Book Review 20%. The Case For Christ OR The Case For Faith. Essay 20% Letter to Editor 20% Final Exam 20% The final exam will be some quiz-type questions and a short essay question or two. Course Logistics and Student Study Habits This is an intensive course. You will need to keep on top of your work. Plan on devoting each day, including evenings and week-ends, to your course work, as necessary. Plan on handing assignments in on time. Review and preview are great ways to learn and retain knowledge. Plan on reviewing previous material and previewing upcoming material daily. The course runs from 8am. until regular end of class day. We will generally start each day with prayer, praise, and review. If I am late arriving, treat this time as a gift from me to you and use it to review your notes from previous day(s) and to read the present days materials. Redeem the time!

245

Work on your spelling and vocabulary tables, as well as specific assignments, daily. --Welcome to the Academy! Christian education has three goals: the development of content, character, and competencies the three Cs. Content means you leave TTC enriched, knowing more than when you arrived. Character means you develop morally and spiritually. Competencies means you grow in ministerial and academic abilities. We could say the goal is to leave TTC better able to prepare, preach, pray, praise, and practice righteousness! When you enter TTC, you see a sign, Enter to learn - go forth to serve. What a great motto! But what do you find when you step onto the grounds of TTC? You actually leave the surrounding culture and enter another world that of the world academy. There was an ancient academy in Africa at Alexandria, Egypt. The modern academy developed in the West but has become a world-wide phenomenon and standard for learning. Entering the academy is like initiation into a tribe, with its own rites and rules of association. You have to follow the rules and conventions to be a member in good standing! Rather than rote learning based on memorization and recitation, the academy is based on important ideas such as critical thinking, independent thought, and the formulation of arguments based on evidence and reasoning. Students are viewed as more than passive recipients of knowledge. You are an active participant in the learning process. You are a fledgling scholar with something important to say we call this voice; you are a potential contributor to knowledge. Just think. Where would we be today if Martin Luther had been a passive learner and not an active scholar whose voice thundered in the 95 theses?! In the academy we learn more than just facts; if our teachers do their job right, we learn how to think, how to reason, how to judge and weigh evidence, how to evaluate alleged facts. As students, we learn first, as we read, to listen and then, as we write, to speak (cf. Elihu in Job). We develop our academic voice and make our own contribution to the academy!

246

How do you acquire knowledge now? For example, how have you acquired your particular beliefs regarding baptism, e.g., immersion or sprinkling; believers or infant, regenerative, symbolic, or something in-between? You may believe what you believe because your parents told you, your pastor told you, or because the Bible teaches it. You may have been influenced by an important book you read. If you believe because of what your pastor or parents told you, your beliefs are based on trusted authority. This is not a bad thing! In fact, most of what we believe is based on this, one way or another. But the academys goal is to develop our thinking skills further. What if one person was told one thing and another person told something different? How do we judge? The academys response is to develop in us what is called critical thinking. So, take the issue of baptism. How could we go about formulating our beliefs on baptism? We could read and study the Bible carefully, practicing good hermeneutics and sound exegesis. We could study church history. We could reason about the issue. For example, we might reason God honors free will and infant baptism violates this principle. Or, we might reason, the offspring of Christian parents are privileged and declared holy in Scripture; this privilege and holy status is expressed in infant baptism. Or, we could reason, we are helpless in sin, God has to save us, and he does so through the rite of baptism. We have to be careful about reason it can take us in different directions! So, in the academy, of which TTC is an honorable member, we learn not just facts, but how to think, how to reason, how to sift, how to weigh, and, ultimately, how to decide what we believe. The assignments we are given are designed to help develop these skills in us. The academy is divided into various branches of learning. There are the sciences i.e., physics, chemistry, biology, as well as the social sciences dealing with human behavior. The primary sciences of physics, chemistry, and biology have been tremendously successful in the past 300 years mastering nature, with the results seen in things like life-saving medicines, airplanes, laptops and cell phones. There is philosophy, which is concerned with ideas about what life is all about, and what it means to be a good person living a good life. There is theology, which deals with the knowledge of God. Christian theology is rooted in a holy book, the Bible, and the role of the Holy Spirit in believers lives. Each academic discipline has its own internal rules and ways of thinking and expressing ideas using a distinctive 247

vocabulary. Each discipline, if followed, results in a trained mind. At TTC, you develop in theology and are exposed to philosophy and the social sciences. The academy may be thought of as an academic apprenticeship school, with you as the apprentice scholar, practicing the required skills. A student book review is similar to a book review found online, in a church magazine, or in an academic journal. An essay is like a journal article. A thesis compares with the thesis you write at the masters or doctors level. So, think of yourself as apprentice scholars in an academic apprenticeship program as well as ministers-in-training! Writing assignments such as essays and book reviews are designed to help develop and measure your growing critical thinking and writing skills. During the course of four years at TTC you may write 40 or more essays or book reports/ reviews. Your four years should be a progression; you should aim to get better with every essay you write and every exam you take. You should make a goal to improve your reading, critical thinking, writing, grammar, and spelling as you move through the program at TTC. Spelling Table. To help you with this, we ask that you start two things immediately. The first is a spelling table. When you receive an assignment back from an instructor, if there are spelling errors indicated, write the way you spelled it on the left side of the table, and the correct spelling on the right. If spelling issues come up in class, and you think you would benefit from them, write them down. If you are reading and note the particular way a word is spelled, write it down. Over time, you will create a personalized list of incorrectly/correctly spelled words. Correct spelling is evidence of a clear, attentive mind and is a way of communicating your status as a developing scholar to others. Vocabulary Table. Another thing you should start immediately is a vocabulary table or list. Not everyone can be rich in kwatcha, but everyone can be rich in vocabulary and someone with a rich vocabulary is a powerful person! If you want to be rich and powerful, start your vocabulary table today. For example, as you go through this paper, you may spot words you are unfamiliar with. Look them up in a dictionary, and add them to your vocabulary table: the word on the left, and a brief definition on the right. Ive been doing this for some time and am amazed to look back at the words I have come across and come to know.

248

Formatting. The academy has general expectations regarding the format that essays and book reports take. Each local academy (such as TTC) has its own particular standards, and individual instructors may have their own standards as well. Part of the culture of the academy is that work be submitted in the proper form and follows the rules, e.g., for referencing sources. Doing this ensures you will be a member in good standing of the academic tribe! TTC follows the MLA style of formatting. If you need to, consult an MLA style guide in the TTC library. Referencing. Over the years the academy has developed a method for acknowledging the contributions of past scholars and writers and for differentiating between the current writers thoughts, ideas, and writings and those of previous writers. The method is called referencing or citing (these words are synonymous). TTC follows the MLA style of referencing. There are two parts to referencing. The first is to create a Works Cited list at the end of your paper that lists all the sources you consulted and used. The second is to provide in-text parenthetical citations in the body of your paper at every point where you use another authors words or ideas. As participating members of the world-wide academy, you are expected to follow the referencing standards of the tribe. Failure to do so is considered sloppy work, and deliberately failing to do so is viewed as a serious violation known as plagiarism. Plagiarism. Plagiarism is a serious issue in Africa and around the world. Too many careless or dishonest students are copy/pasting material and presenting it as their own when it is not. This violates the biblical command against bearing false witness, and is to be entirely avoided at a Christian college. When done intentionally, it is considered as serious as cheating on tests. Doing Honest Work. As Christians, we should form the intent to do honest work the moment we enter the academy. If you have never thought about this, or never done so, do so now. If you have done so in the past, I would encourage you to renew your commitment to do honest work throughout college and beyond. Concluding Thoughts. The academy is a time away from your ministry or professional context. It is like a retreat a time to learn, reflect, absorb, develop, and then go back into your particular context. Enter to learn go forth to

249

serve. May you enjoy your time at the academy, growing in grace and abilities, and be blessed by God! Book Review - Guidelines 1. Objective of a Book Report. A book report should show the instructor you have read the book and are familiar with its contents. Beyond this, you want to engage and interact with the book what we call critical thinking and writing. 2. Interact with the book. Tell the reader: what are its strengths, weaknesses, how did it help you, what did you think of it, would you recommend it to others, how does it compare/differ from other books you have read, etc. 3. Structure. A book review should have three sections: introduction, body, and conclusion. 4. Planning. Lets say you are doing a five page book review. Is spending the first page describing the author who he is, what he has done, etc. a good idea? Thats 20% of the reviews content it is not a good idea. Tell the reader in a sentence or two about the author and then move on. Lets say the book has eight chapters. You can plan to spend # page one each chapter, # page on introduction and # page on conclusion. Dont spent four pages on the first four chapters and then try to cram the last four into a single page. 5. The Case For Faith (CFF). Since the book is about Eight Big Objections, you should try to touch upon each of these in your book report. As a minimum, it would be a good idea to identify each objection and provide at least one Christian response to it. 6. The Case For Christ (CFC). CFC has 14 chapters and also an introduction and conclusion. You would have to fit about three chapters per page of book report if you try to cover each chapter. Alternatively, CFC has three sections. You could plan on spending roughly a page and a half on each section generally describing the contents and interacting with it. 7. Your essays should follow TTCs MLA formatting and referencing standards.

250

Essay Guidelines 1. Objectives. An essay should show evidence of research done Ill be looking at your reference list to see what works you have identified and cited. You should show evidence of knowledge of the subject matter. You should show evidence of critical thinking youve thought about the subject and developed some ideas and opinions on it. You should show critical writing meaning you have a point of view expressed as an argument and you can interact not only with authors you agree with but also with authors you disagree with or who would disagree with you. 2. Structure. Just like a sermon, an essay should have a beginning, middle, and an end. Put another way, it should have an introduction, body, and conclusion. In the introduction you raise the issue at hand, in the body you address it, and in the conclusion you summarize your findings and state your conclusion. 3. Your essays should follow TTCs MLA formatting and referencing standards. Exam Questions When you answer an exam question, try to relate your answer to the subject matter you have just studied. Use the exam question to demonstrate you have paid attention in class and done your assigned readings. Incorporate the course content into your answer indicate how what you have heard or read in the course applies to the exam question you are answering. While there is always a place to show your instructor your general knowledge or cleverness even, the instructor is looking for evidence that you have understood the course contents and are able to integrate it into the tough questions of life and ministry. Academic Writing Standards Here are some of the specific things I will be looking for when reading and grading your papers. Many of these items are based on submissions from previous students. 1. To help me figure out who you are and to locate you in my list, always underline your family name, e.g., Richard Ball. 251

2. Leave a 2 cm. margin around the top, bottom, and sides of the paper. I realize the scribes who wrote the New Testament didnt do this, but I want you to. It leaves room for me to write notes to you and just looks better, like a picture frame. 3. Double-space your work. Again, the scribes didnt do this, but you are not scribes transcribing Scripture! Double-spacing helps make your work more readable and leaves room for instructor comments, etc. 4. Do not split words at the end of a line with a hyphen. If you cant fit the whole word on the line, treat yourself to a whole fresh new line and start on the line below. 5. Double-sided writing is OK. If you want to save paper by writing on both sides of the page, that is OK with me (but see the next rule). 6. Put a page number on each page of your paper. 7. Write legibly. How can I give you an A+ if I cant read your writing? (And where would Martin Luther be today if no one could read his 95 theses?!) 8. Use paragraphs. Paragraphs are a writers friend. I know, scribes didnt use paragraphs either but you should. There are two aspects to a paragraph. One, everything inside should belong there. We call this cohesion it all sticks together; its all related. Two, there should be a progression from paragraph to paragraph. The last sentence of the previous paragraph should lead into the first sentence of the next paragraph like links in a chain. A paragraph should be at least three sentences and probably not more than five or six about a half page at most. 9. Show proper names as first name - last name (e.g., Lee Strobel). The only place I want to see last name followed by first name is in the alphabetic Reference List at the end of your paper (e.g., Strobel, Lee). In the body of the paper, you could say Lee Strobel if it is the first time you use his name, and after that, simply Strobel. There is no point in continuing to repeat his first name. What I do not want to see is something like this: Strobel Lee says there are good 252

reasons for believing Jesus rose from the dead. If you write like this, Ball Richard will not be happy! (That was a joke in case you missed it.) 10. Watch your spelling. Note how words are spelled in the book you are reading. Is it resurection or ressurection or resurrection? What would you think if you got to heaven and above the gates was a large banner that said, Welcom to Heven?! If you want to be a sign-painter for God, you have to learn how to spell! Good spelling indicates a clear mind. Check out a dictionary from the library, keep it with you for the seminar, and bring it to class. Spelling counts! 11.Watch your grammar. Good grammar is tough. The best way to learn good grammar is to read a lot and observe the grammatical structures you come across as you read. There are good grammar books in the TTC Library. If your grammar could stand improvement, invest in yourself and check out a grammar book. Grammar counts! 12.Use possessives correctly. It is Gods book , not Gods book. It is Strobels opinion, not Strobels opinion. Got it? 13. Know how to read and use common Latin abbreviations used in academic writing: i.e. means that is; e.g. means for example; cf. means compare with. A final suggestion: Check your work against this list before submitting an assignment. Citing Sources (and Avoiding Plagiarism): A Biblical View Scholars are acquirers and users of knowledge; we build on the facts, information, and ideas of others. As someone said, we stand on the shoulders of giants. As users of facts and ideas, we need to let our readers know where we got them from. We do this by referencing or citing our sources (the words referencing and citing refer to the same thing). Citing serves a number of purposes:

253

a. It lets the reader know what sources we have identified in our research it helps us get good grades! b. It strengthens our argument by providing evidence and/or authority for our assertions this makes us good, careful scholars (and again helps us get a good grade!). c. It ensures that the originators and authors of facts, information, and ideas receive due recognition it is a way for us to give honor where honor is due; it is a way to pay a debt of recognition owing (Rom 3:17-8). d. It helps ensure we do not misrepresent someone elses ideas or writings as our own helping us to be truth-tellers (Psa. 51:6, Col. 3:9, Eph. 4:15) and to avoid bearing false witness (Ex. 20:16). e. It ensures we do not unfairly get credit for the work of others (1 Cor. 10:15), thus ensuring a level playing field (Proverbs 11:1) for all students competing for good grades. Failure to cite sources adequately can result in charges of plagiarism. Plagiarism is the act of presenting the ideas or words of another whether an established author or another student as your own. You can even self-plagiarize by resubmitting something you have written previously for academic credit. The original meaning of plagiarism is kidnapping, or stealing, but the actual meaning today is often more subtle. It entails bearing false witness, presenting something as our own original work when it is not. If undetected, it creates an unfairness, where a student may get undeserved credit for work that is really not his or her own. It means that a debt of recognition to original authors goes unpaid. Moreover, it means that the purpose of the academic assignment to build your critical thinking and critical writing skills is short-circuited or frustrated. You fail to develop the very skills you are at TTC to develop! For all these good reasons, TTC is strongly for proper citation of sources and strongly against plagiarism. TTC Citation Standards TTC follows the MLA standard for referencing, or citing. Citation has two main components. The first is a Works Cited page at the end of your paper. An entry should look something like this:

254

Ball, Richard. Apologetics Syllabus. Kitwe, Zambia: TTC, 2012. The second is in-text parenthetical citations. Author-page entries would look like this: According to Ball, we are supposed to cite our sources following MLA format (3), or Ball says we are supposed to cite our sources following MLA format (3), or We are supposed to cite our sources following MLA format (Ball, 3). For details, consult TTC MLA resources in the library. An online tutorial may be found at http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/2/11/. How to Cite Sources 1. The first rule is to include every work you have consulted and used (i.e., your sources) in your Reference List. There is no excuse for not doing this! 2. The second rule is to adequately and accurately acknowledge your sources in the body of your work. You do this by in-text parenthetical citations. Here are some further guidelines. Quoting. Quoting refers to the accurate use of the exact words or phrases of others you can quote me on this! Quotes can provide evidence and authority for your argument; you can even use quotes of those who would disagree with your position or view. But dont over-use direct quotes. Writing specialists suggest that only about 10% of our citations should be direct quotations (but Im flexible on this). Other ways of using a source are paraphrasing and summarizing. a. If you are using words directly, wrap them in quotation marks followed by an in-text citation. b. If the quotation is four lines or more, use an indented block quote, without quotation marks, like this: 255

Failure to cite sources adequately can result in charges of plagiarism. Plagiarism is the act of presenting the ideas or words of another whether an established author or another student as your own. You can even self-plagiarize by re-submitting something you have written previously for academic credit (Ball, 9). Paraphrasing. Paraphrasing entails substantially re-working what the author has said, re-expressing it in your own words. The size of a paraphrase will be roughly the same as the original. You do not produce an adequate paraphrase by consulting a thesaurus and changing a few words here and there. Put the book down, think about it, and re-express the ideas in your own words. Here is a bad, unacceptable paraphrase of the above paragraph: Paraphrasing entails considerably re-doing what the author has said, restating it in your own words. You do not produce a paraphrase by going to a book of synonyms and altering a few words here and there! Put the source down, think about it, and then re-write the ideas in your own words. Here is a good, acceptable paraphrase of the above paragraph: Paraphrasing must be more than a few cosmetic changes made by substituting synonymous words; it must be a substantial re-working and re-writing of the original authors ideas in the present authors own words. Paraphrasing is a skill; it takes practice; it is hard work. It is one of the skills of the tribe! And remember, when you paraphrase, you still need to cite. Summarizing: A paraphrase is usually about the same size as the original text; a summary is much shorter. You can summarize a book or articles main ideas in a page, or a paragraph, even! However, when you summarize, you still need to cite. For more on quotes, paraphrases, and summaries, refer to http:// owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/563/. An Exception to the Rule: Common Knowledge. 256

Material that is considered common knowledge does not have to be cited. For example, in a Christian theological context one could say, Paul the apostle preached salvation by faith alone without providing a citation as evidence; it is common knowledge. However, if someone has come up with a particularly memorable way of saying this, such as, Paul preached salvation by grace alone, by faith alone, and by Christ alone, and you used this, you would need to cite it, because it is a distinctive expression and you need to acknowledge the source. Some Common Misconceptions. If its on the internet, its public information and does not need to be cited. Not true. Regardless of where you got it, you need to cite it. (And, if its on the internet, you should make sure its a solid, reliable source before using and citing it!) If I include it in my Reference List I dont need to cite it in my paper. Not true. A citation always stands on two legs: the in-text citation, and the Reference List citation. To remind you of these two aspects, think of what it means 2cite. Once I have an in-text citation for a source, I can use the source from then on and without cite it again. Wrong. You cant just cite a source once and then keep using it as you write. Each time you use a source in the body of your paper, you need to acknowledge it via citation. Its OK to use another students study notes or paper as long as I change it around a bit, maybe change the font if Im typing it . Wrong. First, how are you going to develop your own critical thinking and writing skills if you rely on someone elses work? Second, youre submitting it for academic credit and presenting it as your own work, when it is not. Its OK to take something Ive done for one class and use it in another class. Wrong again! You cannot re-submit a paper, even a re-worked paper, for credit in another course. This negates the purpose of the assignment, which is that you do fresh research and writing.

257

Its OK to use material without citing it if a) Im short of time, b) Im not particularly interested in the subject matter, or c) I dont understand it. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Its OK to use material without citing it if my English is poor and this is the only way I can get a passing grade. I sympathize with you, but, again, the answer is no. Rather than copy and material without citing it, go to either Mrs. Kerr or the Librarian John Kalambo and discuss ways to develop your English skills. It is always better to submit something that is your own work with errors than to use another authors faultless work without citing it. As your instructor I will work with you in this area. One of the best ways of learning how to write is to learn how to read. By this I mean learn to observe the grammar, vocabulary, style, and citation practices of the authors you are reading. I only need to worry about citing sources if I think the instructor will catch me if I dont. Wrong are you sure you belong in a theological college?! Summary: It is unacceptable to copy something out of a book, newspaper, journal or any other printed or online source without citing it. It is important that the reader of your paper can tell what is yours, and what is someone else's. For short quotes, use quotation marks in the sentence. For a longer quote, indent it. Paraphrasing is fine, but it must be a good paraphrase, and you still need to cite. Summarizing is fine, but you still need to cite. If you need assistance with the writing of English, and/or with academic writing in general or the rules of citation in particular, seek help. If in doubt, ask your instructor. 258

APPENDIX G: MODEL FOLLOW-ON LETTER TO STUDENTS The follow-on letter was optimized for printing on African-standard A4 paper and minor changes have been made to conform to Turabian style punctuation. As a consequence, the look and feel may differ slightly from the actual. Personal note to Student Student, Sorry to have to once again give you [zero] for plagiarism, this time for your essay. I know it must be a disappointment to you as it was for me to have to give it. I would much prefer to reward students with good grades for good work! I want to give you a chance to respond; but first let me outline, based on analysis I did upon my return to Canada, the characteristics of your paper which resulted in the reduced grade. 1. [specific examples are given] 2. 3. Follow-on: Student, as your instructor I would like to make this a positive learning experience for both of us. Perhaps it would be helpful for you to think through why you have plagiarized. It would certainly help me. Would you help me understand the phenomenon of plagiarism and improve my instruction by answering a few 259

questions? Please note that this is part of my research project, and like all research, your participation is voluntary and the results will be reported anonymously. You can respond directly to me at rkballtyndale@gmail.com, or, if you prefer, respond on the back of these pages and return to either John or Ruth Kerr who will forward to me. Q1. Why did you use sources and fail to cite them, i.e., why did you plagiarize? Q2. I covered academic writing, referencing, and the need to avoid plagiarism in the syllabus. Clearly, this wasnt enough to prevent you (and others!) from plagiarizing. What must I, as a visiting instructor, do to convince TTC students not to plagiarize? Q3. Is there anything else you would like to tell me or share with me? Finally, as part of my desire to create a positive outcome, I would like to offer my assistance to you going forward. If you have any questions about how to avoid plagiarism during the rest of your time at TTC, please contact me at rkballtyndale@gmail.com. May God bless you as you move forward in ministry and scholarship.

260

APPENDIX H: 2014 APOLOGETICS SYLLABUS The syllabus was optimized for printing on African-standard A4 paper and minor changes have been made to conform to Turabian style punctuation. As a consequence, the look and feel may differ slightly from the actual. The bottom-ofpage footer contained the page number and Read and bring to class each day.

Trans-Africa Theological College (TTC) Apologetics Syllabus 2014 Course: Apologetics. Credit Hours: 3. Instructor: Richard K. Ball. Course Description: An introduction to Christian apologetics with emphasis on practical issues and approaches in the African context. Course Objectives: 1. Cover major areas of Christian Apologetics: e.g., faith vs. reason; theodicy; the existence of God; the person of Christ; worldviews; holy books; science and faith; miracles. 2. Apply to African context. 3. Continue to develop student critical thinking, reasoning, and writing skills. Required Texts: The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith. Recommended Texts: Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking by Geisler and Brooks. Holman QuickSource Guide to Apologetics.

261

Planned/Potential Activities: Lectures; discussions; in-class presentations by students Watch and critically review apologetics DVDs Review of the Alpha Course as an example of modern practical apologetics

Course Requirements: 1. Pre-class assignments. Before the course begins: a. Read this syllabus. b. Read The Case For Christ 300 pages (there are sufficient copies in the library). c. Read The Case For Faith 300 pages (there are sufficient copies in the library). d. Write a short, 4-5 page book review of EITHER The Case For Christ OR The Case For Faith. Due: First day of class. e. Consider: What are the challenges to the Christian faith in Africa? What beliefs compete for the hearts and minds of Africans? How should we address these? 2. Attend and participate in each days class. Because this is an intensive course it is important you attend each day. Up to a 5% grade reduction will be applied for each " day of unexcused absence. E.g., One day missed, marks achieved 75%; grade received 65%. 3. Complete assignments. Assignments. Book Review 15%. The Case For Christ OR The Case For Faith. DUE first day of class.

262

Attendance and On-time Assignments 5%. If, as someone has said, 80% of life is simply showing up, 90% of life is showing up and getting stuff done on time. You get up to 5 marks simply for showing up and handing assignments in on time. Spelling Table 5%. Produce a table of misspelled words with the correct spelling indicated. Another 5 marks! Vocabulary Table 5%. Produce a vocabulary table of new or important words you have learned as a result of your reading and in-class work. 15 marks and you havent even broken a sweat! Participation: 10%. Awarded at the discretion of the instructor. Try to ask or answer at least one question during the seminar. Better yet, aim to say something each day. Better still, challenge the instructor or say something controversial! Apologetics Conference Design 10%. You will be designing an Apologetics Conference. This will be an in-class team exercise. Implications of the Resurrection 10%. What follows logically from the resurrection? If the resurrection is true, what other Christian doctrines logically follow from it? What other Christian doctrines are supported or strengthened or more likely to be true if the resurrection is true? In what ways does Christian belief stand or fall on the resurrection? This will be an in-class team exercise. Apologetics Conference Paper (Essay) 20%. DUE last day of class. Final Exam 20% The final exam will be some quiz-type questions. I may decide to split this in two and do at mid-point and end of class. Course Logistics and Student Study Habits This is an intensive course. You need to keep on top of your work. Plan on devoting each day, including afternoons, evenings and week-ends, to your course work. Plan on handing assignments in on time. Review previous material and preview upcoming material daily. The course runs from 8am. until regular end of class day. We will generally start each day with prayer, praise, and review. If I am

263

late arriving, use the time to review your notes from previous day(s) and to read the present days materials. Redeem the time! Work on your spelling and vocabulary tables, as well as specific assignments, daily. --Welcome to the Academy! Christian education has three goals: the development of content, character, and competencies the three Cs. Content means you leave TTC enriched, knowing more than when you arrived. Character means you develop morally and spiritually. Competencies means you grow in ministerial and academic abilities. We could say the goal is to leave TTC better able to pray, prepare, praise, preach, and practice righteousness! When you enter TTC, you see a sign, Enter to learn - go forth to serve. What a great motto! But what do you find when you step onto the grounds of TTC? You actually leave the surrounding culture and enter another world that of the world academy. There was an ancient academy in Africa at Alexandria, Egypt. The modern academy developed in the West but has become a world-wide phenomenon and standard for learning. Entering the academy is like joining a new tribe, with its own rites and rules of association. You have to follow the rules and conventions to be a member in good standing! In the academy the emphasis is not on rote learning based on memorization and recitation what someone has called the jug to mugs approach. Rather, it is based on ideas such as critical thinking, independent thought, and the formulation of arguments based on evidence and reasoning. Students are viewed as more than passive recipients of knowledge. You are an active participant in the learning process. You are a fledgling scholar with something to say we call this voice; you are a potential contributor to knowledge. Just think. Where would we be today if Martin Luther had been a passive learner and not an active scholar whose voice thundered in the 95 theses?! In the academy we learn more than just facts; if our teachers do their job right, we learn how to think, how to reason, how to judge and weigh evidence, how to evaluate alleged facts. As students, we learn first, as we read, to listen and 264

then, as we write, to speak (cf. Elihu in Job). We develop our academic voice to make our own contribution to the academy! How do you acquire knowledge now? For example, how have you acquired your particular beliefs regarding baptism, e.g., immersion or sprinkling; believers or infant, regenerative, symbolic, or something in-between? You may believe what you believe because your parents told you, your pastor told you, or because the Bible teaches it. You may have been influenced by an important book you read. If you believe because of what your pastor or parents told you, your beliefs are based on trusted authority. This is not a bad thing! In fact, most of what we believe is based on this, one way or another. But the academys goal is to develop our thinking skills further. What if one person was told one thing and another person told something different? How do we judge? The academys response is to develop the skill called critical thinking. So, take the issue of baptism. How could we go about formulating our beliefs on baptism? We could read and study the Bible carefully, practicing good hermeneutics and sound exegesis. We could study church history. We could reason about the issue. For example, we might reason God honors free will and infant baptism violates this principle. Or, we might reason, the offspring of Christian parents are privileged and declared holy in Scripture; this privilege and holy status is expressed in infant baptism. Or, we could reason, we are helpless in sin, God must save us, and he does so through the rite of baptism. We have to be careful about reason it can take us in different directions! So, in the academy, we learn not just facts, but how to think, how to reason, how to sift, how to weigh, and, ultimately, how to decide what we believe. The assignments we are given are designed to help develop these skills in us. The academy is divided into various branches of learning. There are the sciences i.e., physics, chemistry, biology, as well as the social sciences dealing with human behavior. The primary sciences of physics, chemistry, and biology have been tremendously successful in the past 300 years mastering nature, with the results seen in good things like life-saving medicines, airplanes, laptops and cell phones. There is philosophy, which is concerned with ideas about what life is all about, and what it means to be a good person living a good life. There is theology, which deals with the knowledge of God. Christian theology is rooted in a holy book, the 265

Bible, and the role of the Holy Spirit in believers lives. Each academic discipline has its own internal rules and ways of thinking and vocabulary used to express ideas. Each discipline, if followed, results in a trained mind. At TTC, you develop in theology and are exposed to philosophy and the social sciences. Academic learning may be thought of as apprenticeship, with you as the apprentice scholar, practicing the required skills. A student book review is similar to a book review found online, in a church magazine, or in an academic journal. An essay is like a journal article. A TTC fourth-year is like a thesis you would write at the masters or doctors level. So, think of yourself as wearing two hats that of apprentice scholar as well as ministers-in-training! Writing assignments such as essays and book reviews are designed to help you develop your growing critical thinking and writing skills. During the course of four years at TTC you may write 40 or more essays or book reports/reviews. Your four years should be a progression; you should aim to get better with every essay you write and every exam you take. Make a goal of improving your reading, critical thinking, writing, grammar, and spelling as you move through the program at TTC. Spelling Table. To help you with this, we ask that you start two things immediately. The first is a spelling table. When you receive an assignment back from an instructor, if there are spelling errors indicated, write the way you spelled it on the left side of the table, and the correct spelling on the right. If spelling issues come up in class, and you think you would benefit from them, write them down. If you are reading and note the particular way a word is spelled, write it down. Over time, you will create a personalized list of incorrectly/correctly spelled words. Correct spelling is evidence of a clear, attentive mind and is a way of communicating your status as a developing scholar to others. It is the mark of an educated individual. Vocabulary Table. Another thing you should start immediately is a vocabulary table. Not everyone can be rich in kwatcha, but everyone can be rich in vocabulary and someone with a rich vocabulary is a powerful person! If you want to be rich and powerful, start your vocabulary table today. For example, as you go through this paper, you may spot words you are unfamiliar with. Look them up in a dictionary, and add them to your vocabulary table: the word on the 266

left, and a brief definition on the right. I do this and am amazed to look back at the words I have come across and come to know. Formatting. The academy has expectations regarding the format that essays and book reports take. Each local academy (such as TTC) has its own particular standards, and individual instructors may have their own standards as well. Part of the culture of the academy is that work be submitted in the proper form and follows the rules, e.g., for referencing sources. Doing this ensures you will be a member in good standing of the academic tribe! TTC follows the MLA style of formatting. If you need to, consult an MLA style guide in the TTC library. Referencing. Over the years the academy has developed a method for acknowledging the contributions of past scholars and writers and for differentiating between your thoughts, ideas, and writings and those of previous writers. The method is called referencing or citing (these words are synonymous). TTC follows the MLA style of referencing. There are two parts to referencing a citation stands on two legs. The first leg is the Works Cited at the end of your paper. The Works Cited lists all the sources you consulted and used. The second leg is an in-text parenthetical citation for each use of another authors words or ideas, including paraphrases. As participating members of the world-wide academy, you are expected to follow the referencing standards of the tribe. Failure to do so is considered sloppy work, and deliberately failing to do so is viewed as plagiarism. Plagiarism. Plagiarism is a serious issue in Africa and around the world. Too many careless or dishonest students are copy/pasting material and presenting it as their own when it is not. By doing this you bear false witness with regards to your work; it is to be entirely avoided at a Christian college. When done intentionally, it is considered a form of cheating. In the past students have received zero grades because of this. Do not become one of them! Doing Honest Work. As Christians, we should form the intent to do honest work the moment we enter the academy. If you have never thought about this, or never done so, do so now. If you have done so in the past, I would encourage you to renew your commitment to do honest work throughout college and beyond. Remember: An Honest C is Better Than A Dishonest A. 267

Concluding Thoughts. The academy is a time away from your ministry or professional context. It is like a retreat a time to learn, reflect, absorb, develop, and then go back into your particular context. Enter to learn go forth to serve. May you enjoy your time at the academy, growing in grace and abilities, and be blessed by God! Book Review - Guidelines 1. Objective of a Book Report. A book report should show the instructor you have read the book and are familiar with its contents. Beyond this, you want to engage and interact with the book what we call critical thinking and writing. 2. Interact with the book. Tell the reader: what are its strengths, weaknesses, how did it help you, what did you think of it, would you recommend it to others, how does it compare/differ from other books you have read, etc. 3. Structure. A book review should have three sections: introduction, body, and conclusion. 4. Planning. Lets say you are doing a five page book review. Is spending the first page describing the author who he is, what he has done, etc. a good idea? Thats 20% of the reviews content it is not a good idea. Tell the reader in a sentence or two about the author and then move on. Lets say the book has eight chapters. You could plan to spend # page one each chapter, # page on introduction and # page on conclusion. Done! Dont spent four pages on the first four chapters and then try to cram the last four into a single page. 5. The Case For Faith (CFF). Since the book is about Eight Big Objections, you should try to touch upon each of these in your book report. As a minimum, it would be a good idea to identify each objection and provide at least one Christian response to it. 6. The Case For Christ (CFC). CFC has 14 chapters and also an introduction and conclusion. You would have to fit about three chapters per page of book report if you try to cover each chapter. Alternatively, CFC has three sections. You

268

could plan on spending roughly a page and a half on each section generally describing the contents and interacting with it. 7. Your book must should follow TTCs MLA formatting and referencing standards just like any other academic submission. If you use material from the book, ensure that it is adequately referenced via in-text and end-text citations. Essay Guidelines 1. Objectives. An essay should show evidence of research done Ill be looking at your Works Cited entries to see what works you have identified and used. You should show evidence of knowledge of the subject matter. You should show evidence of critical thinking youve thought about the subject and developed some ideas and opinions on it. You should show critical writing meaning you have a point of view expressed as an argument and you can interact not only with authors you agree with but also with authors with whom you disagree or who would disagree with you. 2. Structure. Just like a sermon, an essay should have a beginning, middle, and an end. Put another way, it should have an introduction, body, and conclusion. In the introduction you raise the issue at hand, in the body you address it, and in the conclusion you summarize your findings and state your conclusion. 3. 4. Your essay must follow TTCs MLA formatting and referencing standards. Exam Questions When you answer an exam question, try to relate your answer to the subject matter you have just studied. Use the exam question to demonstrate to the instructor you have paid attention in class and done your assigned readings. Incorporate the course content into your answer indicate how what you have heard or read in the course applies to the exam question you are answering. While there is always a place to show your instructor your general knowledge or cleverness even, the instructor is looking for evidence that you have understood the course contents and are able to integrate it into the tough questions of life and ministry.

269

Academic Writing Standards Here are some of the specific things I will be looking for when reading and grading your papers. Many of these items are based on submissions from previous students. 1. To help me figure out who you are and to locate you in my list, I ask that you always underline your surname (last name, family name) on all written submissions e.g., Mathieu Mufika. 2. Leave a 2-3 cm. margin around the top, bottom, and sides of the paper. This leaves room for me to write notes to you and just looks better, like a picture frame. 3. Double-space your work. Double-spacing helps make your work more readable and leaves room for instructor comments, etc. 4. Do not split words at the end of a line with a hyphen. If you cant fit the whole word on the line, treat yourself to a fresh new line and start on the line below. 5. If you want to save paper by writing on both sides of the page, that is OK with me. 6. Put a page number on each page of your paper. 7. Write legibly. How can I give you an A+ if I cant read your writing? (And where would Martin Luther be today if no one could read his 95 theses?!) 8. Use paragraphs. Paragraphs are a writers friend. There are two aspects to a paragraph. One, everything inside should belong there. We call this cohesion it all sticks together; its all related. Two, there should be a progression from paragraph to paragraph. The last sentence of the previous paragraph should lead into the first sentence of the next paragraph like links in a chain. A paragraph should be at least three sentences and probably not more than five or six about a half page at most. However, this is a guideline and not a fixed rule.

270

9. Show proper names as first name - last name (e.g., Lee Strobel, not Strobel Lee). The only place I should see last name - first name is in the Works Cited at the end of your paper (e.g., Strobel, Lee). In the body of the paper, you could say Lee Strobel if it is the first time you use his name, and after that, simply Strobel. There is no point in continuing to repeat his first name. What I do not want to see is something like this: Strobel Lee says there are good reasons for believing Jesus rose from the dead. 10. Watch your spelling. Note how words are spelled in the book you are reading. What would you think if you got to heaven and a large banner above the gates said, Welcom to Heven?! If you want to be a sign-painter for God, you have to learn how to spell! Good spelling indicates a clear mind and is the sign of an educated mind. Check out a dictionary from the library, keep it with you for the seminar, and bring it to class. Spelling counts! 11.Watch your grammar. Good grammar is tough. The best way to learn good grammar is to read a lot and observe the grammatical structures you come across as you read. There are good grammar books in the TTC Library. If your grammar could stand improvement, invest in yourself and check out a grammar book. Grammar counts! 12.Use possessives correctly. It is Gods book , not Gods book. It is Strobels opinion, not Strobels opinion. 13. Know how to read and use common Latin abbreviations used in academic writing: i.e. means that is; e.g. means for example; cf. means compare with. 15. Quote carefully and exactly. Accurate representation is a key value of the academy. Precision when quoting is essential. When quoting, you function like a biblical scribe. It is essential you quote accurately. With certain allowable exceptions, a quotation should be an exact replica of the original. Exceptions: If you modify a word for syntax, indicate you have done so by enclosing the modified portion in square brackets, i.e., copy vs. copy[ing]. If you wish to add a clarification, do so in square brackets, e.g., [italics in original], or [emphasis mine]. If you wish to omit a phrase, sentence, or portion of a quotation, indicate with three dots if it is a phrase not ending in a 271

sentence, i.e., and four dots if there is an end of sentence in the omitted portion. 14. Proof-read your work. Check for spelling and grammar errors. Ask a fellowstudent to proof-read your paper. This is fine as long as the work submitted in the end is your work and not his or hers. If you have typed your paper with spell-check on, proof-read it. If you have gotten someone else to type it, proof-read it. You are responsible for what you submit. 15. A final suggestion: Check your work against this list before submitting an assignment. Citing Sources (and Avoiding Plagiarism): A Biblical View Scholars are acquirers and users of knowledge; we build on the facts, information, and ideas of others. As someone said, we stand on the shoulders of giants. As users of facts and ideas, we need to let our readers know where we got them from. We do this by referencing or citing our sources (the words referencing and citing refer to the same thing). Citing serves a number of purposes: a. It lets the reader know what sources we have identified in our research it helps you get good grades! b. It ensures that the originators and authors of facts, information, and ideas receive due recognition it is a way for us to give honor where honor is due; it is a way to pay a debt of recognition owing (Rom 3:17-8). c. It strengthens our argument by providing evidence and/or authority for what we say this makes us good, careful scholars (and again helps you get a good grade!). d. It helps ensure we do not misrepresent someone elses ideas or writings as our own helping us to be truth-tellers (Psa. 51:6, Col. 3:9, Eph. 4:15) and to avoid bearing false witness (Ex. 20:16).

272

e. It ensures we do not unfairly get credit for the work of others (1 Cor. 10:15), thus ensuring a level playing field (Proverbs 11:1) for all students competing for good grades. Failure to cite sources adequately can result in the instructor viewing what you have handed in as plagiarism. Plagiarism is the act of presenting the ideas or words of another whether an established author or another student as your own. You can even self-plagiarize by re-submitting something you have written previously for academic credit. The original meaning of plagiarism is kidnapping, or stealing, but the actual meaning today is often more subtle. It entails bearing false witness, presenting something as our own original work when it is not. If undetected, it creates an unfairness, where a student may get undeserved credit for work that is really not his or her own. It means that a debt of recognition to original authors has gone unpaid. Pay your debts cite your sources! Moreover, it means that the purpose of the academic assignment to build your critical thinking and critical writing skills has been short-circuited you fail to develop the very skills you are at TTC to develop! For all these good reasons, TTC is strongly for proper citation of sources and strongly against plagiarism. TTC Citation Standards TTC follows the MLA standard for referencing, or citing. Citation has two main components. The first is a Works Cited page at the end of your paper. An entry should look something like this: Ball, Richard. Apologetics Syllabus. Kitwe, Zambia: TTC, 2013. The second is in-text parenthetical citations. Author-page entries would look like this: According to Ball, we are supposed to cite our sources following MLA format (3), or Ball says to cite our sources following MLA format (3), or

273

We are supposed to cite our sources following MLA format (Ball, 3). For details, consult TTC MLA resources in the library. An online tutorial may be found at http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/2/11/. How to Cite Sources A citation stands on two legs. 1. The first leg is to include every work you have consulted and used (i.e., your sources) in your Works Cited. I expect you to do this. Failure to do this will be viewed as plagiarism and cheating. There is no excuse for not doing this! 2. The second leg is to accurately acknowledge your sources in the body of your work. You do this with in-text parenthetical citations. Here are some further guidelines. Quoting. Quoting refers to the accurate use of the exact words or phrases of others. Quotes provide evidence and authority for your argument; you can even use quotes of those who would disagree with your position or view. But dont over-use direct quotes. Writing specialists suggest that only about 10% of our citations should be direct quotations. Other ways of using a source are paraphrasing and summarizing. a. If you are using words directly, wrap them in quotation marks followed by an in-text citation. b. If the quotation is four lines or more, use an indented block quote, without quotation marks, like this: Failure to cite sources adequately can result in charges of plagiarism. Plagiarism is the act of presenting the ideas or words of another whether an established author or another student as your own. You can even self-plagiarize by re-submitting something you have written previously for academic credit (Ball, 9). Paraphrasing. When you re-work and use someone elses words, you are paraphrasing. A paraphrase still must be cited. Proper paraphrasing requires that 274

you substantially re-work what the author has said, re-expressing it in your own words. You do not produce an adequate paraphrase by consulting a thesaurus and changing a few words here and there. Put the book down, think about it, and reexpress the ideas in your own words. Here is a bad, unacceptable paraphrase of the above paragraph: Paraphrasing requires that you substantially re-do what the author has said, re-stating it in your own words. You do not produce a good paraphrase by going to a book of synonyms and altering a few words here and there! Put the source down, think about it, and then re-write the ideas in your own words. Here is a good, acceptable paraphrase of the above paragraph: Paraphrasing must be more than a few cosmetic changes made by substituting synonymous words; it must be a substantial re-working and re-writing of the original authors ideas in the present authors own words. Paraphrasing is a skill; it takes practice and it is hard work. And remember, when you paraphrase, you still need to cite. Summarizing: A paraphrase is usually about the same size as the original text; a summary is much shorter. You can summarize a book or articles main ideas in a page, or a paragraph, even! However, when you summarize, you still need to cite. For more on quotes, paraphrases, and summaries, refer to http:// owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/563/. Common Knowledge. Material that is considered common knowledge does not have to be cited. For example, in a Christian theological context one could say, Paul the apostle preached salvation by faith alone without providing a citation as evidence; it is common knowledge. However, if someone has come up with a particularly memorable way of saying this, such as, Paul preached salvation by grace alone,

275

by faith alone, and by Christ alone, and you used this, you would need to cite it, because it is a distinctive expression and you need to acknowledge the source.

Some Common Misconceptions. If its on the internet, its public information and does not need to be cited. Wrong. Regardless of where you got it, you need to cite it. (And, if its on the internet, you should make sure its a solid, reliable source before using and citing it!) If I include it in my Works Cited I dont need to cite it in my paper. Wrong. A proper citation stands on two legs: an in-text citation, and an end-text Works Cited entry. Once I have provided one in-text citation for a source, I can then keep using it as I write without citing it again. Wrong. Each time you use a source in the body of your paper, you need to acknowledge it via citation. Its OK to use another students study notes or paper as long as I change it around a bit. Wrong. First, how are you going to develop your own critical thinking and writing skills if you rely on someone elses work? Second, youre submitting it for academic credit and presenting it as your own work, when it is not. Its OK to take something Ive done for one class, change it around a bit, and use it in another class. Wrong. You cannot re-submit a paper, even a re-worked paper, for credit in another course, without the permission of the instructor. This negates the purpose of the assignment, which is that you do fresh research and writing. Its OK to plagiarize material if a) Im short on time and have important ministry duties this weekend, b) Im not particularly interested in this subject, or c) I really need to get an A on this assignment. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

276

Its OK to plagiarize material if my English is poor and I think this is the only way I can get a passing grade. I sympathize with you, but, again, the answer is no. I have designed the assignments to make it possible to have poor English skills and still pass the course. Rather than copy material without citing it, go to either Mrs. Kerr or the Librarian and discuss ways to develop your English skills. It is always better to submit something that is your own work with errors than to use another authors faultless work without citing it. Better an Honest C Than a Dishonest A. As your instructor I will work with you in this area. One of the best ways of learning how to write is to learn how to read. By this I mean learn to observe the grammar, vocabulary, style, and citation practices of the authors you are reading. I only need to worry about citing sources if I think the instructor will catch me if I dont. Wrong. Are you sure you belong in a theological college?! Citation Summary: It is unacceptable to copy, paraphrase, or summarize something you have read in a book, newspaper, journal or any other printed or online source without acknowledging it via citation. It is important that the reader of your paper can tell what is yours, and what is someone else's. For short quotes, use quotation marks in the sentence. For a longer quote, indent it. Paraphrasing is fine, but it must be a good paraphrase, and you still need to cite. Summarizing is fine, but you still need to cite. If you need assistance with the writing of English, and/or with academic writing in general or the rules of citation in particular, seek help. When in doubt, ask your instructor.

277

If you have any questions about this syllabus, or the upcoming course, please contact me at rkballtyndale@gmail.com. I look forward to seeing you in January!

278

APPENDIX I: 2014 SYLLABUS QUIZ

A. The rst portion of this quiz identies you and provides some background data. Student Name __________________________________________________________ Mark an X beside the best answer(s). a. I am a Decopro student ( ) OR I am a Regular student ( ). b. I have read the syllabus ( ) OR I have not read the syllabus ( ) for this course. c. My mother tongue is: $ $ $ $ $ Other than English ( ) ___________________________________ English and another language ( ) ___________________________________ English ( ) Spoke English in the home when I was growing up ( ) Did Not speak English in the home when I was growing up ( )

d. My parents:

e. I rst learned to speak English:! $ $ At home growing up ( ) In school ( )

f. I rst learned to write English:

279

$ $

At home growing up ( ) In school ( )

g. The language of instruction in my high school was: $ $ $ $ English only ( ) English and another language or languages ( ) Another language other than English ( ) I did not attend high school ( )

h. Growing up, there were books in my home I used to learn to read: $ $ $ No books ( ) A few books ( ) Many books ( )

B. SYLLABUS AWARENESS - NOTE THIS SECTION WILL BE GRADED! This portion of the quiz has to do with your awareness of the contents of the syllabus along with some other issues related to academic writing. If you have not read the syllabus, simply indicate, based on your prior experience as a student, what you think the syllabus probably said. Circle either T (T rue) or F (False) to the right of each question. Examples: 0. Zambia is a country in Africa. (T) F 0. Canada is a country in Africa. T (F) According to the Syllabus: An integral aspect of academic writing is to document the sources we have used. We do this by referencing or citing our sources. TTC uses the MLA citation style. For the purposes of this quiz, the terms referencing/references and citing/ citations refer to the same thing and should be viewed as synonyms (i.e., they mean the same thing).

280

3. A purpose of citation is to distinguish my words and phrases from the words and phrases of others. T F 4. A purpose of citation is to distinguish my ideas from the ideas of others. T F 5. A purpose of citation is to leave a trail for other readers/scholars to follow. T F 6. Material found on the internet is public domain and does not have to be cited. T F 7. I do not need to provide a citation for something that is common knowledge. T F 8. The statement Zambia had a population of 5.2 million in 1978 requires a citation. T F 9. The statement Zambia is a country in Africa requires a citation. T F 10. I dont need to cite a source in the body of my paper as long as I have included it in my Works Cited. T F 11. The ideas of others need to be cited as well as their words. T F 12. If material is not copyrighted I do not have to cite it. T F 13.A valid citation consists of two parts: an in-text parenthetical and an end-text Works Cited entry. T F 14. If I paraphrase something, i.e, re-express it in my own words, I do not need to cite it. T F 15. A valid paraphrase can be created by changing a few words here and there. T F 16. If I am doing a book report I can copy/paste from the book without citing it because the reader already knows I got the material from the book. T F

281

17. Once I have cited a source in the body of my paper once, I can then freely use the source again without needing to cite it again. T F

18. I do not need to provide a citation for descriptive information taken from a books back cover. T F 19. It is OK to use other students study notes or essays as long as I re-express their material in my own words. T F 20. It is OK to take an essay I wrote for one class and submit it for credit in another class. T F C. ACADEMIC WRITING AWARENESS AND ATTITUDES NOT GRADED! We want to know what you think about academic writing. Please circle one number for each question that best reects what you think. Example: " I am presently doing a syllabus quiz. # $ $ 1..........2........3...........4.......O strongly$ disagree $ disagree $ $ neither agree $ $ nor disagree$ $ agree $ $ $ strongly agree

282

i. I only need to cite sources if I think the instructor will catch me if I dont. # $ $ 1..........2........3...........4....... 5 strongly$ disagree $ disagree $ $ neither agree $ $ nor disagree$ $ agree $ $ $ strongly agree

j. It is better for me to submit something I wrote, even with spelling and grammar errors, than to submit someone elses un-cited words and phrases as if they were my own. # $ $ 1..........2........3...........4....... 5 strongly$ disagree $ disagree $ $ neither agree $ $ nor disagree$ $ agree $ $ $ strongly agree

k. If a student plagiarizes his or her paper, and the instructor fails to notice this, it gives him or her an unfair advantage over other students. # $ $ 1..........2........3...........4....... 5 strongly$ disagree $ disagree $ $ neither agree $ $ nor disagree$ $ agree $ $ $ strongly agree

l. It is important for instructors to check for plagiarism to ensure all students are treated fairly. # $ $ 1..........2........3...........4....... 5 strongly$ disagree $ disagree $ $ neither agree $ $ nor disagree$ $ agree $ $ $ strongly agree

m. For me to receive an honest grade, it is important that what I submit is my own labor and composition.

283

# $ $

1..........2........3...........4....... 5 strongly$ disagree $ disagree $ $ neither agree $ $ nor disagree$ $ agree $ $ $ strongly agree

n. It is better to get an honest C than a dishonest A. # $ $ 1..........2........3...........4....... 5 strongly$ disagree $ disagree $ $ neither agree $ $ nor disagree$ $ agree $ $ $ strongly agree

o. Comments? Please tell me your thoughts about this quiz.

284

APPENDIX J: DATA TABLES This appendix contains several tables associated with the research reporting of Chapter 5. Some of the tables are full versions of abridged versions offered in Chapter 5; others are tables that appear only here. Table A.J.1. Plagiarism in book reviews mapped to pre-quiz wrong answers Table A.J.1 provides the full data for abridged table 5.7. It indicates those who plagiarized, the nature of their plagiarism, the grades received, and their wrong answers to the syllabus quiz. An R in the student ID indicates a regular student; a D indicates a Decopro student. Examination of this table suggested no straightforward, linear correspondence between (lack of) citation knowledge and plagiarism.

285

Table A.J.1. Plagiarism in book reviews mapped to pre-quiz wrong answers Stud Rd Plag BkR ent Syl BkR Gr/ ? ? 20 R06 D07 R02 D06 D04 R11 R10 R21 R16 D03 R15 R28 R20 R19 R09 R12 R14 Ric R05 R04 R17 R27 R07 Y N N N N N N 13 15 15 9 10 9 12 9 11 10 10 15 18 13 10 14 14 11 9 12 13 9 # Wro ng 9 4 3 3 4 9 3 5 2 7 3 8 5 6 2 7 5 10 6 7 9 Pre-Quiz Wrong Answers for 17 questions in citation portion of quiz (Q11-Q27) Plagiarism Assessment 14 16 17 18 20 22 23 24 25 15 22 23 26 16 18 23 14 17 18 16 18 23 25 14 16 17 18 20 22 23 25 26 15 17 20 15 17 19 23 24 [did not take pre-quiz] 24 25 14 15 16 17 19 22 25 13 16 24 16 17 19 22 23 25 26 27 16 18 21 23 25 14 15 16 17 22 23 17 25 16 17 20 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 20 23 11 15 16 17 18 20 23 24 25 26 14 17 18 20 22 24 15 16 17 19 22 23 26 11 14 17 18 19 23 25 26 27 Plagiarized external sources R08 N Y 0 5 14 15 17 18 23 Plagiarized room-mates paper

286

Stud Rd Plag BkR ent Syl BkR Gr/ ? ? 20 R03 N Y 15

# Wro ng 8

Pre-Quiz Wrong Answers for 17 questions in citation portion of quiz (Q11-Q27) Plagiarism Assessment 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 23 Copied paragraph of friends paper

D01

12/0

10

14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 25 Copied great swaths from book; used word attenuated

D05*

12/0

17 25 27 Plagiarized external source

R18

12

14 17 18 23 25 27 Plagiarized a paragraph * book review plagiarism found when marking essay; initial grade zeroed-out

Table A.J.2. Student book review grades and plagiarism mapped to low alignment qA-qK answers and student comments Table A.J.2 summarizes the affective assessment portion of the quiz for the full set of students. An abridged version of this table (5.9) is discussed in Chapter 5. Decopro vs. regular students are indicated by a D or an R in the Student ID. The chart indicates if students had read the syllabus, their book review grade, whether they plagiarized their book review, and how they responded to the questions. The Rd Syl? column shows whether a student indicated he or she had read the syllabus. Since most indicated they had, I indicate with an N those who reported they had not. Since most student responses were positive, the chart shows exceptions; that is, answers indicating a low alignment with an academy value. qJ-2, for 287

example, indicates the student gave an answer of 2, indicating Disagree, for question qJ, I learned about academic writing standards, including how to cite sources, prior to coming to TTC. Table 5.7, in Chapter 5, lists the questions. Interpretation: I could discern no pattern in the responses that would account for the plagiarism.
Table A.J.2. Student book review grades/plagiarism mapped to low alignment qA-qK answers and student comments Std nt R06 D07 R02 D06 D04 R11 R10 R21 R16 D03 N N N excellence 12 9 11 10 10 R15 qJ-2 qJ-2 qC-2 qE-1 qF-1 qJ-2 Reflective quiz: It helps give a reflection of academic writting standards taught in first year at TTC in research and writting. This quiz has helped me to rivise some important things I have forgotten, concerning academic writting standard N 15 9 10 9 qG-1 qJ-1 This quiz is good because it is a reminder to acedamic Rd Syl? BkR Plag Gr/ BkR 20 13 15 qC-2 qH-2 writing skills. The quiz has been helpful. Low Align qA-qK qB-1 qE-2 Thank you! This has been a good reminder to my research

Student Comments

288

Std nt

Rd Syl?

BkR Plag Gr/ BkR 20 15

Low Align qA-qK

Student Comments I think that just from this quiz one can tell how well a

R28

qC-2 qG-1

research paper, an essay, or a book report will eventually come out. Good exercise.

R20 R19 R09 R12 R14 R05 R04 R17

18 13

qD-4 qJ-2 qG-1 qI-2 Though at times instructions are in conflict.

10 14 14 11 9 12

This quiz has reminded us to be professionals when it comes to writing a research.

13 R27 qG-2 qH-1

This quiz is important to you and to us as students because it has reminded us about other ?rules? which we forgot. TTC has provided the necessary information we needed.

R07

9 0

qH-2 Its not a delibalate thing when ever an instructor see that the student has forgotten to cite the work. At times students

R08

qG-1 improve as they find time to go through the at their own time.

15 R03 N 0 D01 N Y qG-1 Y qI-1

This one is a very good thing for me because I can see the interest of this cours Thanks for opening my mind. Basically, this portion of the quiz is well arranged in the way that it has reminded me about research and writing. Credit goes to the lecturer and I would recomend that this kind should be coming every beginning of the term.

D05

12/ 0

qJ-2

289

Std nt R18

Rd Syl? N

BkR Plag Gr/ BkR 20 12 Y

Low Align qA-qK qJ-2

Student Comments

290

Table A.J.3. Student comments - Post-quiz Thirteen of 27 students offered written comments at the end of the postquiz. Table A.J.3 presents the full set of student comments. As with other student comments and writing in general, they provide evidence of student difficulties with English. Coding was done based on emergent themes or keywords gleaned from reading the comments. Several themes are present; they are discussed in Chapter 5.
Table A.J.3. Student comments - Post-quiz Plg BR/ Ess

Stdnt

Student Comments - Post-Quiz This quiz has been good to me, because it has opened my eyes to see a

Codes Good; Eyeopener Improve; Good; Expand Use Reminder; [i.e., revisiting] Good; Expand use;

R06 lot of things that I did not see in the past. D07 R02 should also be shared with other lecturers for use in the college. R21 D03 R15 up to forth year, it will really make an impact. good. The quiz emphasizes an honest and respect for academic writings. good R19 evaluation. Though sometimes instructors differ on specific requirements on R12 writing standards My coming at TTC has caused me to improve my writing skill. R08 BR Praise for TTC Improve; Good Acad Integrity; It is a good set quiz, for revising what is been taught. Good way of evaluation both the instructor and the student. This Progresive assersement of academic standard must start from first Thank you for the opportunity given to me to improve my writing skills. This quiz is a good way of evaluation and I recommend it highly. This

291

Stdnt

Plg BR/ Ess

Student Comments - Post-Quiz I have the feeling that the Quiz is not just a measurement instrument; it is in itself a teaching instrument that focuses the students' attention on

Codes Teaching instrument;

R05

Ess

these areas and requires some thoughtful reflection

I therefore recommend this to be repeating even to every class once in a R04 Ess while. to improve the standard and maintain the standard of writing while at school. It is a reminder to me, that I should be faithful in my accademic writing. Because to be a scholar you need to be accademically sound as we need R17 Ess to be theologically sound.

Expand use;

Reminder;

TTC has made me. I didn't know how to cite but now I can cite source R27 Ess and acknowledge other people's work.

Praise for TTC

Table A.J.4. Student plagiarism mapped to wrong post-quiz answers Table A.J.4 presents the individual student pre- and post-quiz wronganswer results to the qA-qK series of questions (designed to investigate student alignment with academy values). As with previous analysis, I could discern no explanatory pattern in the responses that would account for plagiarism. The Plag BR column indicates students who plagiarized their book review. The Plag Ess column indicates students who plagiarized their essay. The column on the right, Apol G/15 refers to the grade the student received on the end-of-class apologetics exam, which was out of 15.

292

Table A.J.4. Student plagiarism mapped to wrong post-quiz answers Std nt R06 D07 R02 D06 D04 R11 R10 R21 R16 D03 R15 R28 R20 R19 R09 R12 R14 R07 R08 R05 R04 R17 R27 R03 D01 D05 Y Y Y Y Y Plag BR PreQ Wrong Answers 14 16 17 18 20 22 23 24 25 15 22 23 26 16 18 23 14 17 18 16 18 23 25 14 16 17 18 20 22 23 25 26 15 17 20 15 17 19 23 24 24 25 14 15 16 17 19 22 25 13 16 24 16 17 19 22 23 25 26 27 16 18 21 23 25 14 15 16 17 22 23 17 25 16 17 20 22 23 24 25 11 14 17 18 19 23 25 26 27 14 15 17 18 23 16 17 18 20 23 11 15 16 17 18 20 23 24 25 26 14 17 18 20 22 24 15 16 17 19 22 23 26 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 23 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 25 17 25 27 N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 14 16 19 20 23 25 26 17 18 14 23 17 23 26 15 16 17 18 20 21 23 24 25 14 17 22 23 25 27 14 16 17 18 20 23 17 18 20 22 23 14 17 18 20 24 25 14 16 17 20 22 23 24 15 17 18 23 14 19 21 14 16 17 18 20 26 17 23 26 Plag Ess PostQ Wrong Answers 14 18 20 13 15 23 24 25 14 16 17 14 17 21 14 17 18 20 26 14 17 18 19 15 17 18 11 12 13 17 20 17 22 23 14 15 17 18 24 Apol G/15 14 7 5 8 5 8 4 12 0 7 11 11 14 11 3 11 4 6 13 3 10 3 11 12 6 8

293

Std nt R18

Plag BR Y

PreQ Wrong Answers 14 17 18 23 25 27

Plag Ess Y

PostQ Wrong Answers 17 18 23

Apol G/15 14

Table A.J.5. End-of-class evaluation questions sA-sG The syllabus tutorial and quiz instruments were supplemented with an anonymous end-of-class survey. The results were almost uniformly favourable, with students generally rating the utility of the syllabus and quiz highly. Table 5.20 provides partial results. Table A.J.5 provides the full set of data.
Table A.J.5. End-of-class evaluation questions sA-sG Q sA sB End-of-Class Evaluation Questions sA-sG The syllabus contained useful information about rules for citation The syllabus contained useful information about citation rules that I didnt already know sC Besides citation rules, the syllabus contained other useful information about academic writing sD Besides citation rules, the syllabus contained other useful info. about academic writing I didnt already know sE sF The syllabus effectively communicated the instructors expectations for this class In terms of helpfulness to me, compared with other syllabi I have used at TTC, this syllabus was sG sH sI sJ I would like to see more syllabi like this used in the future The syllabus quiz helped clarify academic standards about citation of sources The syllabus quiz helped reinforce TTC expectations about citation of sources The in-class discussion on the syllabus quiz helped clarify academic standards about citation of sources 5 (13) 5 (14) 4 (15) 4 (15) 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.4 5 (17) 4 (16) 4.6 4.3 4 (14) 3.9 5 (16) 4.6 Mode Avg. N=27 5 (23) 4 (13) 4.8 3.9

294

Q sK

End-of-Class Evaluation Questions sA-sG The in-class discussion on the syllabus quiz helped reinforce TTC expectations standards about citation of sources

Mode Avg. N=27 4 (19) 4.2

sL

The course as a whole syllabus, quizzes, discussions, assignments helped me better understand the underlying rationale (reason) for academic assignments such as essays and book reports

4 (17)

4.4

sM

The course as a whole syllabus, quizzes, discussions, assignments helped me better understand why providing proper citations is important to my development as a scholar

5 (14)

4.5

sN

This course has helped me see how academic work relates to development of Christian character

5 (15)

4.5

sO

This course has helped me resolve to achieve and/or maintain academic integrity in my work

5 (20)

4.7

sP

If you have any comments about this survey, please write them on the back of this page

Table A.J.6. Student comments - End-of-class evaluation Table A.J.6 contains the final written comments of the students. They are uniformly positive. Words and phrases such as good, helpful and eye opener repeat along with words such as reminder, recall, and revisit which reinforces the indications that many students viewed the syllabus and quiz as a recollection of what they had been taught earlier. Several students made a syllabus recommendation I characterize as expand its use. Coding was done based on emergent themes or keywords gleaned from reading the comments.

295

Table A.J.6. Student comments - End-of-class evaluation Student Comments This quiz has been good to me, because it has opened my eyes to see a lot good; opened eyes of things that I did not see in the past. Thank you for the opportunity given to me to improve my writing skills. This quiz is a good way of evaluation and I recommend it highly. This good; expand its use should also be shared with other lecturers for use in the college. It is a good set quiz, for revising what is been taught. Good way of evaluation both the instructor and the student. This Progresive assersement of academic standard must start from first up to forth year, it will really make an impact. good. The quiz emphasizes an honest and respect for academic writings. good evaluation. It was more on the research and writing side than apologetics [Comment refers to end-ofclass evaluation, not course itself] The Apologetics course has taught me alot especially the syllabus. I have learnt alot on the syllabus especially on citation and academic integrity. Keep it up for the good work, Richard Ball! Wishing well! Very happy for you. You have every information for it, this is good for this cours, and make it be important Very helpful. What I think is this syllabus should start from 1st year so that as you progress with the years at TTC then you we be better in academic writting and that is what is need at TTC. Thank you sir for this wonderful knowledge you have brought to us. Essential for good scholarly work. No Comment. good; helpful; expand its use good; good; improve/learn good; [i.e., re-visiting] good; reminder good; good; expand its use improve/learn Codes

296

Student Comments Thanks for this survey, to me it is an ey opener on academic work. May our good Lord richely bless our instructor Richard Ball with much blessings to carry on this survey higher and higher.

Codes eye-opener; expand its use. [Note use of word survey here taken from the EoC evaluation and used to refer to the syllabus and/or syllabus quiz]

The survey was so accademically and it has helped me to improve my writing skills.

helpful; learn/improve. [This person also used word survey to refer to the syllabus/quiz]

A reminder to academic standard of writting. [note that reminder indicates temporal distance] Reccommended for all classes in order to bif up academic standard We needed more time to cover up all the answered question. However, it had been so helpful. Good lecturer. Wish you the best. I has been very helpful to me as one who is doing academics and just to recall what was taught some time back. [note that recall and some time back indicate temporal distance]

reminder

expand its use helpful;

helpful; reminder

297

APPENDIX K: MY RESPONSES RE: LETTERS TO STUDENTS After the engagement I did post-engagement in-depth analysis of plagiarizing students papers. I sent these students letters, via the TTC Academic Dean, Dr. John Kerr. Two students responded. Their responses are found in Chapter 5. Here I indicate my email responses back to them. Response to R03 Hi R03, Sorry to take so long to respond to you. I am getting ready for a two-week student intensive at the seminary where I am studying. It is very tempting to copy/paste the thoughts and words of others in order to get a good grade! The problem is, this practice does not deserve a good grade -- it is not good academic workmanship. I build my "theology" concerning plagiarism around the following texts: 1. 2 Timothy 2:15: "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. Academic writing is a form of workmanship. Just like making good bricks, or good bread; we need to write essays that are structurally sound and made with the right ingredients; part of "getting it right" is honoring sources by citation. 2. Exodus 20: Don't "steal"; don't bear false witness; honor your parents, i.e., the sources, books you use.

298

3. Matthew 6:13: And do not lead us into temptation " Plagiarism is a temptation we all face. We need to resolve to avoid it. My brother, I covered many of these things in the syllabus for the course -- you might want to re-read it. Also, you might see if there is a book called Doing Honest Work in the TTC library. Also, see if the library has any books on plagiarism, such as the Quick Coach Guide to Avoiding Plagiarism.The MLA handbook would have a section on it. As I recall, you did pass your course, so no further action is required by you. However, if you want to make up for it and upgrade your marks further, you could write a brief reflection on "doing honest academic work, which would cover what is wrong with plagiarism and why it must be avoided. Otherwise, no further work on your part is required. If I get back to TTC next January, I hope to see you then. May God's Spirit be with yours. Response to D01 Hello D01, Sorry to take so long to respond to you. I am getting ready for a two-week student intensive at the seminary where I am studying. Thank you for providing me with your reason for plagiarizing, which I understand to be the time pressures of other TTC assignments and church duties back home. It is important that you leave yourself enough time to do your assignments. It is very tempting to copy/paste the thoughts and words of others in order to get a good grade! The problem is, this practice does not deserve a good grade -- it is not good academic workmanship. I build my "theology" concerning plagiarism around the following texts: 1. 2 Timothy 2:15: "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth." Academic writing is a form of workmanship. Just like 299

making good bricks, or good bread; we need to write essays that are structurally sound and made with the right ingredients; part of "getting it right" is honoring sources by citation. 2. Exodus 20: Don't "steal"; don't bear false witness; honor your parents, i.e., the sources, books you use. 3. Matthew 6:13: And do not lead us into temptation " Plagiarism is a temptation we all face. We need to resolve to avoid it. My brother or sister, I covered many of these things in the syllabus for the course -- you might want to re-read it. Also, you might see if there is a book called Doing Honest Work in the TTC library. Also, see if the library has any books on plagiarism, such as the Quick Coach Guide to Avoiding Plagiarism.The MLA handbook would have a section on it. At this point there is nothing further we can do, since you plagiarized both assignments. The best you can do is to resolve not to plagiarize going forward. If you are still at TTC next January, I look forward to see you then and hearing about your progress. May God bless your ministry. -Rick. PS -- Can you provide me with any further insights into why you plagiarized? Was it just assignments and the church to look after back home? Were there any other reasons or any other factors or things going on that contributed to this? This would be very helpful to me in trying to understand the problem. Thanks.

300

APPENDIX L: 2014 FLAGGED FOR PLAGIARISM FORM In 2014 I developed a you have been flagged for plagiarism form which I tucked inside the book reviews of students suspected of plagiarizing. The form was inspired in part by the theories of statement analysis (Hyatt 2014), which indicate that an interviewer should ask a person an open-ended question and let them respond. Here is the text of the form I used: Follow-Up With Student Student:_____________________________________________________ Your paper was flagged for plagiarism: ( ) The paper you submitted contained verbatim sentences and/or sections from the book that were not covered by citation ( ) The paper you submitted was similar/identical in places to another students paper ( ) You plagiarized from one or more unacknowledged internet sources ( ) You plagiarized from an unacknowledged internet source, or copied from another student who plagiarized from an unacknowledged internet source

301

Before I assign a grade, please provide an explanation for the plagiarism in the space below. Thank you.

302

REFERENCE LIST Adebisi, Pius Ademola, Obawale Simeon Adebisi, and Kayode Kingsley Arogundade. 2012. Academic corruption and the challenge of unemployable graduates in Nigeria: implications for entrepreneurship development and economic growth. The Journal of Commerce 4, no. 1 (January): 1-12. Ademola, Ebenezer. 2012. Alleged plagiarism: Sanusi denies writing the paper. WorldStage. April 25. http://www.worldstagegroup.com/ worldstagenew/index.php?active=news&newscid=4593&catid=40 (accessed November 28, 2012). Alexander, David E., and Kent Eilers. 2012. Evil in the classroom: Deception and desire. theotherjournal.com. August 6. http://theotherjournal.com/ 2012/08/06/evil-in-the-classroom-deception-and-desire (accessed April 6, 2014). Anglil-Carter, Shelley. 2000. Stolen language? Harlow, England: Pearson Education ESL. Archer, Arlene. 2010. Challenges and potentials for writing centres in South African tertiary institutions. South African Journal of Higher Education 24, no. 4: 495-510. . 2012. Changing academic landscapes: Principles and practices of teaching writing at the University of Cape Town. In Writing programs worldwide: Profiles of academic writing in many places. ed. Thaiss, Chris, Gerd Bruer, and Paula Carlino. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.

303

Babu, M. Ramesh and Indrasenan, N. 2009. Contemporaneous consideration of ethics and its codes in the teaching profession. Proceedings of the third annual multi-disciplinary research conference of Alpha University College, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. July 17-18. http:// www.alphauniversitycollege.edu.et/Proceedings%20of%20the %20Third%20Annual%20Multi-Disciplinary%20Research %20Conference%20of%20Alpha%20University %20College.pdf#page=35 (accessed November 27, 2012). Baylor. 2014. Intentional and unintentional plagiarism. Baylor School. March 25. http://mail.baylorschool.org/~jstover/plagiarism/intent.htm (accessed March 25, 2014). Benven, Susan. 2010. Towards a more authentic approach to assessment: An innovative response to large class assessment. In Teaching and learning beyond formal access: Assessment through the looking glass, Special issue, Higher Education Monitor no. 10 (August): 1-20. BookRags. 2014. The Case for Christ chapter summary and analysis introduction: Reopening the investigation of a lifetime summary. BookRags. March 9. http://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-the-casefor-christ/chapanal001.html (accessed March 9, 2014). Bradburn, Norman M., Brian Wansink, and Seymour Sudman. 2004. Asking questions: The definitive guide to questionnaire design--for market research, political polls, and social and health questionnaires. Rev. ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (Kindle edition: ASIN B001C4PHWY). Burgess, John P. 2014. Christian ethics - Class readings and cases: Chapter 9 Calvin's third use of the Law: An assessment of Reformed explications of the Ten Commandments. Samford University. February 17. http:// faculty.samford.edu/~whbunch/Chapter9.pdf (accessed February 17, 2014). Clarke, Caro. 2014. Plagiarism. Caro Clarke writer. March 10. http:// www.caroclarke.com/plagiarism.html (accessed March 10, 2014).

304

Dadzie, Perpetua S. 2011. Rethinking information ethics education in Ghana: Is it adequate? The International Information and Library Review 43, no. 2 (June): 63-69. Doi: 10.1016/j.iilr.2011.04.002. (accessed November 26, 2011). Dahlberg, Lena, and Colin McCaig. 2010. Introduction to research and evaluation basics. In Practical research and evaluation: A start-to-finish guide for practitioners, ed. Lena Dahlberg and Colin McCaig, 13-28. Los Angeles: Sage. Davis, Tal. 2014. Comparison chart - Mormonism and Christianity. 4Truth.Net. March 9. http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbnew.aspx? pageid=8589952801 (accessed March 9, 2014). Douglass, Richard L. 2011. Commentary: Scholarly writing, plagiarism and academic corruption. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition, and Development 11, no. 2: page nr. http://www.ajfand.net/Volume11/ No2/commentaryDouglass.html#Douglass (accessed November 27, 2012). Editor-in-chief AJFAND. 2011. Commentary comments on plagiarism. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition, and Development 11, no. 2: page nr. http://www.ajfand.net/Volume11/No2/ commentsonplagiarism.html (accessed November 27, 2012). Fernie, Scott, and Karen Smith. 2010. Action research. In Practical research and evaluation: A start-to-finish guide for practitioners, ed. Lena Dahlberg and Colin McCaig, 95-110. Los Angeles: Sage. Fink, Susan B. 2012. The many purposes of course syllabi: Which are essential and useful? Syllabus 1, no. 1: 1-12. Geirsson, Heimir, and Michael Losonsky. 2014. Plantinga and the problem of evil. Iowa State University Public Homepage Webserver. March 18. http:// www.public.iastate.edu/~geirsson/pdf/Plantinga%20and%20the %20Problem%20of%20Evil,%20World%20Congress.pdf (accessed March 18, 2013).

305

Goussot, Michel. 2012. Syllabus: Structures and crisis in the Middle East selected items. IEP de Paris. November 29. http://formation.sciences-po.fr/ sites/default/files/enseignement/2012/AAFF1655A_mgoussot.pdf (accessed November 29, 2012). Government of Zambia. 2006. The Electoral (Code of Conduct) Regulations. Lusaka: Government of Zambia. http://www.parliament.gov.zm/ index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=50 (accessed November 28, 2012). Graham, Douglas Weir. 2010. Pulpit plagiarism. DMin diss., Reformed Theological Seminary. Guinan, Michael D. 2014. Christian spirituality: Many styles one Spirit. American Catholic. March 25. http://www.americancatholic.org/ Newsletters/CU/ac0598.asp (accessed March 25, 2014). Habanek, Darlene V. 2005. An examination of the integrity of the syllabus. College Teaching 53, no. 2 (Spring): 62-64. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/27559222 (accessed November 29, 2012). Haviland, Carol Peterson, and Joan A. Mullin. 2009a. Introduction. In Who owns this text?: Plagiarism, authorship, and disciplinary cultures, ed. Carol Peterson Haviland and Joan A. Mullin, 1-19. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. . 2009b. Conclusion. In Who owns this text?: Plagiarism, authorship, and disciplinary cultures, ed. Carol Peterson Haviland and Joan A. Mullin, 156-177. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. Hayes, Niall, and Lucas D. Introna. 2005. Cultural values, plagiarism, and fairness: When plagiarism gets in the way of learning. Ethics and Behavior 15, no. 3: 213-31. http://philpapers.org/rec/HAYCVP (accessed November 28, 2011). Health Research Web. 2011. Zambia: Regulation and ethics review of research. Health Research Web. December 12. http:// www.healthresearchweb.org/en/zambia/ethics (accessed December 12, 2011).

306

Howard, Rebecca Moore. 1995. Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English 57, no. 7: 788-806. . 1999a. The new abolitionism comes to plagiarism. In Perspectives on plagiarism and intellectual property in a postmodern world, ed. Lise Buranen and Alice Myers, 87-96. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. . 1999b. Standing in the shadow of giants: Plagiarizing students, authors, collaborators. Volume 2 of Perspectives on writing. Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Hyatt, Peter. 2014. Statement Analysis. March 10. http://statementanalysis.blogspot.com (accessed March 10, 2014). Kangai, Caleb V., and Tichaona Mapolisa. 2008. Citation analysis of research projects submitted by Bachelor of Education (EAPPS) students [sic] (2000- 2004) to the Department Of Education at the Zimbabwe Open University. The African Symposium, 8, no. 1 (June): 33-45. http:// www.ncsu.edu/aern/TAS8.1/TAS8.1.pdf (accessed November 28, 2011). Kwibisa, Liywalii. 2009. A situational analysis of the health research environment in Zambia: [Submitted to the National Health Research Advisory Committee]. Zambia: no publisher. http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/ dspace/bitstream/10625/46554/1/133054.pdf (accessed December 13, 2011). Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lin, C. S., and L. M. Wen. 2007. Academic dishonesty in higher education a nationwide study in Taiwan. Higher Education, 54: 85-97. DOI 10.1007/s10734-006-9047-z Mallon, Thomas. 1989. Stolen words: Forays into the origins and ravages of plagiarism. New York: Tickner & Fields.

307

Mande, S K. 2011. Academic integrity V plagiarism. Dear Zambia. February 25. http://www.zambia.co.zm/dearzambia/viewtopic.php? f=14&t=2205&start=0&sid=6af49bcdf2f1e22625bd755b6bcb747e (accessed November 28, 2012). Martin, Walter. 2003. The kingdom of the cults. rev., updated, and expanded ed. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House. McCabe, Donald L., and Linda Klebe Trevio. 1996. What we know about cheating in college: Longitudinal trends and recent developments. Change 28, no. 1: 28-33. http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/ 257516/original/What_we_know_about_cheating.pdf (accessed March 8, 2014). McCabe, Donald L., Linda Klebe Trevio, and Kenneth D. Butterfield. 2001. Cheating in academic institutions: a decade of research. Ethics and Behavior 11, no. 3: 219-32. . 2002. Honor codes and other contextual influences on academic integrity: A replication and extension to modified honor code settings. Research in Higher Education 43, no. 3 (jun): 357-78. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/40196458 (accessed November 27, 2011). McCulloch, Sharon. 2012. Citations in search of a purpose: Source use and authorial voice in L2 student writing. International Journal for Educational Integrity 8, no. 1 (July): 55-69. McDonald, Jeanette, Gillian Siddall, Deena Mandell, and Sandy Hughes. 2010. Two sides of the same coin: student-faculty perspectives of the course syllabus. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching 3: 112-18. Merriam-Webster. 2003. Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. 11th ed. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc. Michalska, Anna. Student plagiarism and national differences across Europe. Paper presented at the 5th International Plagiarism Conference, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, July 16-18, 2012. http:// archive.plagiarismadvice.org//documents/conference2012/finalpapers/ Michalska_fullpaper.pdf (accessed December 11, 2012).

308

Miller, Patrick D. 2009. The Ten Commandments. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. MLA. 2009. MLA handbook for writers of research papers. 7th ed. New York: Modern Language Association of America. Mohler, R. Albert Jr. 2009. Words from the fire: Hearing the voice of God in the Ten Commandments. Chicago: Moody Publishers. Morey, Robert A. 1980. How to answer a Jehovah's Witness. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship. Murphy, Rex. 2010. Shun those who steal the goods and labour of good men. National Post. October 9. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/ 2010/10/09/rex-murphy-those-who-steal-the-goods-and-labour-ofgood-men-should-be-shunned/ (accessed December 5, 2012). Myers, Edward P. 2013. The problem of evil and human suffering. Apologetics Press. March 18. http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Problemof-Evil-and-Human-Suff.pdf (accessed March 18, 2013). Nicholson, Greg. 2012. Frankie's vs. Woolworths: Good old-fashioned Davidand-Goliath battle. Daily Maverick. February 1. http:// dailymaverick.co.za/article/2012-02-01-frankies-vs-woolworths-goodold-fashioned-david-and-goliath-battle (accessed March 11, 2014). Nnamdi, Felix. 2012. Plagiarism: Nigerias central bank governor sued. PMNews. April 23. http://pmnewsnigeria.com/2012/04/23/plagiarism-nigeriascentral-bank-governor-sued/ (accessed November 28, 2012). Northeastern. 2014. Academic integrity policy. Northeastern University. March 27. http://www.northeastern.edu/osccr/academicintegrity/ (accessed March 27, 2014). Noss, David S., and John Boyer Noss. 1984. Man's religions. 7th ed. New York: Macmillan. Obinna, Chioma. 2012. Nigeria: Plagiarism, bane of Nigeria's educational devt Provost. allAfrica. September 20. http://allafrica.com/stories/ 201209200813.html (accessed March 9, 2014).

309

Onchana, Esther Nyaiyaki. 2011. Plagiarism: Court issues injunction against university in plagiarism suit. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition, and Development 11, no. 2: page nr. http://www.ajfand.net/ Volume11/No2/plagiarismcase.html (accessed November 27, 2012). OSISA. 2014. Zambia. OSISA Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa. April 6. http://www.osisa.org/keywords/zambia. (accessed April 6, 2014). Oxford Dictionaries. 2014a. Honour. Oxford Dictionaries. March 26. http:// www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/honour?q=honour (accessed March 26, 2014). Oxford Dictionaries. 2014b. Plagiarism. Oxford Dictionaries. March 26. http:// www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/plagiarism? q=plagiarism (accessed March 26, 2014). Oxford University. 2014. What is plagiarism? University of Oxford. April 15. http://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/goodpractice/about/. (accessed April 15, 2014). Park, Chris. 2003. In other (people's) words: Plagiarism by university students literature and lessons. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 28, no. 5: 471-88. Pennycook, Alistair. 1996. Borrowing others' words: Text, ownership, memory and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly 30, no. 2 (Summer): 201-30. Posner, Richard A. 2007. The little book of plagiarism. New York: Pantheon Books. Punch, Keith F. 2005. Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Purdue University. 2014a. Overview and contradictions. OWL Purdue Online Writing Lab. March 14. http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/ 589/01/ (accessed March 11, 2014). Purdue University. 2014b. Quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing. OWL Purdue Online Writing Lab. April 13. https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/ resource/563/01/ (accessed April 13, 2014).

310

Raymark, Patrick H., and Patricia A. Connor-Greene. 2002. The Syllabus Quiz. Teaching of Psychology 29, no. 4 (Oct 1): 286-88. doi: 10.1207/ S15328023TOP2904_05 (accessed April 15, 2014). reason [pseud.]. 2011. Academic Integrity V Plagiarism. Dear Zambia. February 25. http://www.zambia.co.zm/dearzambia/viewtopic.php? f=14&t=2205&start=0&sid=6af49bcdf2f1e22625bd755b6bcb747e (accessed November 28, 2012). Ruwe, Field. 2012. Post newspaper accused of plagiarism. Zambian Watchdog. January 30. http://www.zambianwatchdog.com/2012/01/30/postnewspaper-accused-of-plagiarism/#comments (accessed March 9, 2014). Tenney, Merrill C., and J. D. Douglas. 1987. The new international dictionary of the Bible. pictorial ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Regency Reference Library, Zondervan. Thompson, Blair. 2007. The syllabus as a communication document: Constructing and presenting the syllabus. Communication Education 56, no. 1: 54-71. TTC. 2009. Trans-Africa Theological College Prospectus. 2009-2010. TTC. 2014a. Programs. TTC. March 11. http://www.ttczambia.org/programs/ (accessed March 11, 2014). TTC. 2014b. TTC. March 11. http://www.ttczambia.org (accessed March 11, 2014). Turabian, Kate L. 2007. A manual for writers of research papers, theses, and dissertations: Chicago style for students and researchers. 7th ed. Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. United Church of God. 2013. Creation or evolution: Does it really matter what you believe? United Church of God. March 17. http://www.ucg.org/ booklet/creation-or-evolution-does-it-really-matter-what-you-believe/ science-bible-and-wrong-assumpt/ (accessed March 17, 2013).

311

University of Zambia. 2009. Research policy and international property rights. Lusaka: Directorate of Research and Graduate Studies. http:// www.unza.zm/index2.php? option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=75&Itemid=73 (accessed December 15, 2011). University of Zambia. 2012. University of Zambia. November 28. http:// www.unza.zm/index.php? option=com_docman&task=cat_view&Itemid=73&mosmsg=You +must+login+and+be+authorized+to+access+this+document (accessed November 28, 2012). Ward, T. 1998. Forward. In Nurture that is Christian: Developmental perspectives on Christian education, ed. J. Wilhoit and J. Dettoni, 7-18. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. Williams, Steve, Margaret Tanner, Jim Beard, and Georgia Hale. 2012. Academic integrity on college campuses. International Journal for Educational Integrity 8, no. 1 (July): 9-24. Youth Challenges. 2008. library. Youth Challenges. January 4. http:// wwwmutame.blogspot.com/2008/01/library.html (accessed March 11, 2014).

312