Plagerism.

Quote from: John Davis on December 23, 2010, 04:26:25 PM

I was stating that in general if you agree to a set of rules it is unethical to break said rules.

Even if the rules are unethical? Would sticking to a promise of being unethical, be ethical?

Btw, I would consider it unethical to force a student to labor through a unnecessary rewrite of a 15 page report, simply because it could be used in parallel elsewhere.

If the rules are unethical it is unethical to agree to follow them.  Once you have agreed to them, its unethical to break that.  One would have to judge for themselves which is more important ethically at that point.

However, thats beside the point.  The rule in question is not innately unethical even if it doesn't represent what ethical conduct is.  The same way corporations call certain rules "ethical policy" when in reality they are more or less company policies.  Its not unethical to not reuse papers, even if tis unethical to force people not to reuse papers. 

Quote from: John Davis on December 23, 2010, 04:26:25 PM

Are you referring to British public schools or state schools?

Does it change your answer? I'll say... state schools.

Yes, it changes the answer, or at least the implications of the answer.  British Public schools are a different argument, in my eyes, because they are not compulsory, depending on the extent of law. They are akin to US private schools.  I was unsure of where you hailed from, so I thought I'd ask for clarification.

It being a state school brings the argument into the social contract realm.  Which I think we can all agree is different discussion.  One I'm happy to go down if you want.

In short, in the context we are talking about, you aren't forcing a student to do anything.  The student chooses to associate with whatever academic institution they wish and either agree to their rules or not. 

Quote from: Benocrates on January 02, 2011, 06:03:00 PM

As for the argument about real world and academia, we have to examine the purposes and rationale of 'real world' jobs and academic assignments. In the 'real world' the purpose of assignments are, presumably, results. Results in the sense of achieving the ends of whatever company they work for. This could be profit, in the sense of a business, or safety, in the sense of law enforcement, etc. In academia the purpose is education and evaluation. I think you can see the difference between the two.

Certainly your definition on the purpose of academic work depends on the level of education you are currently in, right?

Academic in the sense of receiving grades. Academic research self-plagiarism is a different and more subtle debate.

The goal of mowing the lawn is to have the lawn shorter than before.

Right. Here, the goals are the same.

If both of your parents only wanted the lawn mowed, you would be right. [...] The first goal was to have the lawn mowed, the second was to punish you through labour.

In school, different goals imply different assignments. Teachers don't assign duplicate homework to unnecessarily punish students. The duplicate assignments stem from them both having the same goal of teaching you something.

Quote

I believe we are disagreeing about the point of school. I'd say the evaluation is supposed to be an evaluation of the student's 'results'. Advancing their education is the goal. I contend that school expects you to _[1] learn, _[2] demonstrate that knowledge, and sometimes _[3] demonstrate the ability to apply that knowledge critically. I see effort as a personal issue not a school issue.

Don't get me wrong; encouraging effort in the classroom is virtually always a good thing, but consider the students that are capable of doing perfect work with less effort. Is it right for them to be punished for not spending more unnecessary time on it? Grading kids on effort would artificially handicap the ones who are the most learned and capable, while rewarding the people who struggle more to learn the same material or produce the same results. Being part of the workforce doesn't account for effort. Do grades serve some non-work related function I'm overlooking?

I'd also say that grades should be as unbiased as possible, and attempting to evaluate the effort of students can be very subjective. If it were up to me, teachers would be blind to whose assignments they were grading. I contend their education and work-quality are the important variables, while effort is consequential to the rest of the world.

Nowhere have I argued that effort should be used as a grading criteria, beyond the fact that effort was demonstrated.

I see them as implicitly connected. If you contend that it is immoral to get good grades for reusing work because you exert less effort, that must mean you think effort must be a factor in grades. Is that inaccurate?

Anyways, to clarify, you are just looking for some effort, but not a specific level? As long as they tried, as opposed to not doing anything?

Additionally, as for the purpose of post-secondary education, you are simply incorrect. I don't know if you are in enrolled in a post-secondary institution or not, but I can tell you that one of the key purposes is to demonstrate the creation of new knowledge.

1. That is not in opposition to what I said. It actually perfectly meshes with my perspective of school goals.
2. Where did you get "post-secondary" eduction from? I don't even see it mentioned above. (And yes, I used to be in post-secondary)

This doesn't simply mean discovering new facts or cures for things, etc., but rather to demonstrate an independent analysis of whatever is being studied. In high-school, for example, the primary criteria is the learning of established knowledge. In university the goal is to have a student analyze a situation, phenomena, etc., and produce unique thought on it. The key there is unique, in that it was created by the individual receiving the grade.

1. Many college classes here do not require a completely original perspective (Math for instance), but being able to demonstrate understanding from a perspective is one of my contentions.
2. In self-plagiarism, the individual receiving the grade is definitionally responsible for using his own work.

using the example of the genius that needs to put in virtually no effort, consider the following. Imagine being a grade school teacher and discovering one of your students is stunningly brilliant and is flying through the work without any effort or challenge. Would you simply be satisfied that they're completing all the assignments, or would you suggest they be moved up a grade or more? This happens all the time, where we see children as young as 15 achieving a university degree. We do this because the purpose of education is not simply to complete assignments, but to create and discover knowledge.

I would agree that they should constantly be challenged and moved up accordingly, but assigning the student more advanced material is very different from assigning him busy work. Making the student do more work just to keep him occupied and exert more effort seems nonsensical to me.

The bottom line point is that each class requires an independent piece of work that demonstrates the goal of the class: learning and creation of knowledge. Copying an online article or another student's work is obvious plagiarism. Why? Because it demonstrates that the student did not create a personal and independent piece of work. Submitting two identical assignments to two independent classes also fulfils the criteria that made the classic forms of plagiarism unethical.

The criteria for the other forms of plagiarism is that the student didn't write the paper...
When they don't do the assignments themselves, they don't learn nor create new knowledge, nor their their own innovative ideas, et cetera.

Never forget that the goal of a university assignment is not the same as a 'real world' goal.

The only goal you mentioned above isn't influenced by self-plagiarism, unless you directly involve effort.

Quote from: John Davis on January 07, 2011, 02:50:43 PM

Quote from: Benocrates on January 02, 2011, 06:03:00 PM

As for the argument about real world and academia, we have to examine the purposes and rationale of 'real world' jobs and academic assignments. In the 'real world' the purpose of assignments are, presumably, results. Results in the sense of achieving the ends of whatever company they work for. This could be profit, in the sense of a business, or safety, in the sense of law enforcement, etc. In academia the purpose is education and evaluation. I think you can see the difference between the two.

Certainly your definition on the purpose of academic work depends on the level of education you are currently in, right?

Academic in the sense of receiving grades. Academic research self-plagiarism is a different and more subtle debate.

My point is even in undergrad saying that the only purposes are education and evaluation  is incorrect.  Results are important even in some undergrad classes.  For example, in engineering professions;  I've had classes where I've had to build software or hardware that is to be used in real world applications.  I imagine a distinction should be made in this entire argument between classes of these sorts and classes meant for education/placement.  

However, I really just wanted clarification.

Quote from: Benocrates on January 07, 2011, 03:25:57 PM

Quote from: John Davis on January 07, 2011, 02:50:43 PM

Quote from: Benocrates on January 02, 2011, 06:03:00 PM

As for the argument about real world and academia, we have to examine the purposes and rationale of 'real world' jobs and academic assignments. In the 'real world' the purpose of assignments are, presumably, results. Results in the sense of achieving the ends of whatever company they work for. This could be profit, in the sense of a business, or safety, in the sense of law enforcement, etc. In academia the purpose is education and evaluation. I think you can see the difference between the two.

Certainly your definition on the purpose of academic work depends on the level of education you are currently in, right?

Academic in the sense of receiving grades. Academic research self-plagiarism is a different and more subtle debate.

My point is even in undergrad saying that the only purposes are education and evaluation  is incorrect.  Results are important even in some undergrad classes.  For example, in engineering professions;  I've had classes where I've had to build software or hardware that is to be used in real world applications.  I imagine a distinction should be made in this entire argument between classes of these sorts and classes meant for education/placement.  

However, I really just wanted clarification.

I don't disagree that undergrad work can have real-world purposes, but in the context of this debate I don't think it's very significant. I would argue that any 'real world' applications are secondary to the education purposes of undergrad work. In terms of co-ops and placements, I suppose my argument is defeated. But that is quite different from the type of assignments I'm thinking of.

If the rules are unethical it is unethical to agree to follow them.  Once you have agreed to them, its unethical to break that.  One would have to judge for themselves which is more important ethically at that point.

I believe I already have. 

It being a state school brings the argument into the social contract realm.  Which I think we can all agree is different discussion.  One I'm happy to go down if you want.

In short, in the context we are talking about, you aren't forcing a student to do anything.  The student chooses to associate with whatever academic institution they wish and either agree to their rules or not.  

If the student has no viable alternative to public school, and agreeing with the rules is mandatory, is that not forcing rules on students?  
By the way, my high school never did that to me.

In school, different goals imply different assignments. Teachers don't assign duplicate homework to unnecessarily punish students. The duplicate assignments stem from them both having the same goal of teaching you something.

I go back to my argument about dual assignments. I can't imagine a situation where two independent teachers assign an identical project. Even if that situation were to arise, the ethical thing to do would be to inform them of their error. The more likely occurrence is when two teachers assign vague projects with potentially overlapping projects. This happens all the time, particularly when all of a student's classes are in one field. I know this for a fact because I have committed self-plagiarism in my academic career. In first year I wrote one paper for two classes that had decently overlapping topics. I wrote a political science paper with a sociological bent, and a sociology paper tinged with a lot of political science. This is how self-plagiarism actually happens, and how it matters in the context of my argument.

sometimes [3] demonstrate the ability to apply that knowledge critically

Sometimes? What is knowledge without critical application? Information? This is how education is different from memorization, and makes a massive difference to this argument and the concept of education in general.

So, you are just looking for some effort, but not a specific level? As long as they tried, as opposed to not doing anything?

Exactly. There are no units of effort that can be judged, but consider a group project. Almost invariably there is some kind of group assigned grade concerning the effort of each member. Effort has to be judged, and can sometimes be assigned an actual grade in a group work situation, but in terms of single-student projects is binary.

2. Where did you get "post-secondary" eduction from? I don't even see it mentioned above. (And yes, I used to be in post-secondary)

I suppose this argument goes for highschool as well, but I'm trying to distinguish undergrad from post-grad and research work. Like I said in my last post, those arguments are more subtle and not as certain as this one.

1. Many college classes here do not require a completely original perspective (Math for instance), but being able to demonstrate understanding from a perspective is one of my contentions.

Other than pure memorization work, which I will conceed does sometimes occur in maths classes and other similar subjects, assignments always require the demonstration of understanding and application. This understanding and application require a unique element because of the different experiences and knowledge of the particular student. Perhaps there are other non-analytical assignments, but I can't think of them right now.

2. In self-plagiarism, the individual receiving the grade is definitionally responsible for using his own work.

I don't think I understand you here.

I would agree that they should constantly be challenged and moved up accordingly, but assigning the student more advanced material is very different from assigning him busy work. Making the student do more work just to keep him occupied and exert more effort seems nonsensical to me.

Me too, I don't know who would advocate that.

The criteria for the other forms of plagiarism is that the student didn't write the paper...
When they don't do the assignments themselves, they don't learn nor create new knowledge, nor their their own innovative ideas, et cetera.

Yes, but the point I'm trying to argue is that two different classes assign two different assignments, even if the topic is similar. An example would be: class A assigns 'essay on the industrial revolution', which we can call 'Essay A'. Class B assigns 'essay on 18th - 19th Century Europe', which we can call 'Essay B'. Even though an essay on the child workers act during industrial revolution would fulfil both assignments, to use one essay for both is clearly an issue of self-plagiarism and unethical.

Never forget that the goal of a university assignment is not the same as a 'real world' goal.

The only goal you mentioned above isn't influenced by self-plagiarism, unless you directly involve effort.
[/quote]

Again, don't understand this point.

Quote from: John Davis on January 07, 2011, 03:23:39 PM

If the rules are unethical it is unethical to agree to follow them.  Once you have agreed to them, its unethical to break that.  One would have to judge for themselves which is more important ethically at that point.

I believe I already have. 

Well, at said time.  Meaning, you are commiting two unethical acts by breaking unethical rules you agreed to.  The responsibility of any consequences is clearly all on the student and not on the institution.

Quote from: John Davis on January 07, 2011, 03:23:39 PM

It being a state school brings the argument into the social contract realm.  Which I think we can all agree is different discussion.  One I'm happy to go down if you want.

In short, in the context we are talking about, you aren't forcing a student to do anything.  The student chooses to associate with whatever academic institution they wish and either agree to their rules or not.  

If the student has no viable alternative to public school, and agreeing with the rules is mandatory, is that not forcing rules on students?  
By the way, my high school never did that to me.

In the case of mandatory schools, I agree the balance of responsibility is on the students, their parents, and the school board.  In this case, civil disobedience is the only ethical response.  Agreeing with the rules is never mandatory, nor is following them.   

I go back to my argument about dual assignments. I can't imagine a situation where two independent teachers assign an identical project. Even if that situation were to arise, the ethical thing to do would be to inform them of their error. The more likely occurrence is when two teachers assign vague projects with potentially overlapping projects. This happens all the time, particularly when all of a student's classes are in one field. I know this for a fact because I have committed self-plagiarism in my academic career. In first year I wrote one paper for two classes that had decently overlapping topics. I wrote a political science paper with a sociological bent, and a sociology paper tinged with a lot of political science. This is how self-plagiarism actually happens, and how it matters in the context of my argument.

I'm inclined to agree that these are the common examples of self-plagiarism.

Quote

sometimes [3] demonstrate the ability to apply that knowledge critically

Sometimes? What is knowledge without critical application? Information? This is how education is different from memorization, and makes a massive difference to this argument and the concept of education in general.

I wrote "sometimes", because some things have to be memorized.

For example, there are classes which are very open to interpretation and others which are not. I definitely support critical application when possible, but consider the structures in accounting. They are arbitrary rules that are very precise and standardized.

Quote

So, you are just looking for some effort, but not a specific level? As long as they tried, as opposed to not doing anything?

Exactly. There are no units of effort that can be judged, [...] in terms of single-student projects is binary.

Interesting. Say a student is assigned two papers simultaneously in which they have the strong potential for overlap. If he writes the one paper to intentionally meet the vague requirements of both assignments, why not consider that half effort for each class? Some effort to meet both class requirements may be seen as half effort for each, which comes out to a '1' on your binary switch.

Quote

2. In self-plagiarism, the individual receiving the grade is definitionally responsible for using his own work.

I don't think I understand you here.

I'm just saying that the student wrote the paper. He learned the material and composed his thoughts into sentences. In the other forms of plagiarism, the student did not author the paper and is getting credit for someone else's work. If something makes self-plagiarism unethical, it can't be that they don't steal the work from someone else. They are the ones who generated the result.

Quote

I would agree that they should constantly be challenged and moved up accordingly, but assigning the student more advanced material is very different from assigning him busy work. Making the student do more work just to keep him occupied and exert more effort seems nonsensical to me.

Me too, I don't know who would advocate that.

I'm saying that after the student demonstrates his understanding and perspectives of a topic or concept, forcing the student to unnecessarily redo another copy of the work for that topics seems like unnecessary/unproductive busy work.

Yes, but the point I'm trying to argue is that two different classes assign two different assignments, even if the topic is similar. An example would be: class A assigns 'essay on the industrial revolution', which we can call 'Essay A'. Class B assigns 'essay on 18th - 19th Century Europe', which we can call 'Essay B'. Even though an essay on the child workers act during industrial revolution would fulfil both assignments, to use one essay for both is clearly an issue of self-plagiarism and unethical.

I'd say that if an assignment asked for a broad topic, and the student focused too much on a single aspect, it probably wouldn't get as good a grade.

Assuming assignments A and B are not exactly the same, but overlap, they would look something like this:


Depending on how similar the assignments are, the amount of overlap can change. The edges (blue and green) reflect the parameters of the assignments that are irrelevant to the other assignment. My thoughts are that if you write essay A, and later turn it in for assignment B, the grade you get for B should be roughly equivalent to the shared A∩B area divided by the B area.

To get full credit in B, you'd have to make up the difference between A∩B and B. If the topics are extremely similar, the shared area is much larger compared to the edges, and much less additional work would have to be done. Inversely, if the topics are extremely unrelated, you'd essentially be doing close to the work of two papers. The act of adapting your paper to fit the assignment puts in the proportional amount of extra effort.

Quote

Quote

Never forget that the goal of a university assignment is not the same as a 'real world' goal.

The only goal you mentioned above isn't influenced by self-plagiarism, unless you directly involve effort.

Again, don't understand this point.

The goal of education that you mentioned was critical thinking/application beyond the foundational learning. I don't see how a student that self-plagiarizes is prevented from meeting this goal. Therefore I don't see why you are condemning self-plagiarism as unethical. Is there another goal that self-plagiarism does violate? (like effort?)

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on January 07, 2011, 03:42:42 PM

Quote from: John Davis on January 07, 2011, 03:23:39 PM

If the rules are unethical it is unethical to agree to follow them.  Once you have agreed to them, its unethical to break that.  One would have to judge for themselves which is more important ethically at that point.

I believe I already have. 

Well, at said time.  Meaning, you are committing two unethical acts by breaking unethical rules you agreed to.

But those are subjectively balanced against my pursuit of other ethics. I'm inclined to think of pitting ethics against each other as as qualitative mental exercise; not quantitative. For instance, if I lived in Nazi Germany and I was told to take an oath or die, and the the oath was to turn in any Jews that I might become aware of, I would think that I would probably take the oath, break my promise, and hide the Jews. Extreme example is extreme, but for clarity.

The responsibility of any consequences is clearly all on the student and not on the institution.

Personally, I would accept the repercussions of fighting to change self-plagiarism rules.

In the case of mandatory schools, I agree the balance of responsibility is on the students, their parents, and the school board.  In this case, civil disobedience is the only ethical response.  Agreeing with the rules is never mandatory, nor is following them.   

Civil disobedience might be more ethical before entering the school, but that would make it less effective. I'd imagine it would be easier to ignore that passive conduct of non-students.

I was talking with my Boss on what is considered Plagiarism and apparently turning in the same paper to multiple classes is considered Plagiarism and my college. I was wondering what other peoples thoughts were.

It isn't Plagiarism per se, but it is Academic Dishonesty which as my University is just as bad.

I wrote "sometimes", because some things have to be memorized.

For example, there are classes which are very open to interpretation and others which are not. I definitely support critical application when possible, but consider the structures in accounting. They are arbitrary rules that are very precise and standardized.

We have to make a distinction between straightforward memorization or information assignments and analytical assignments. I suppose if the assignment was solely to demonstrate a memorized series of facts or dates, perhaps my argument wouldn't hold. But I'd argue that those forms of assignments are primarily given on in-class tests.

I lived with business majors in my last couple of years, so I know a few things about the assignments they get. Most of the projects they worked on were business analysis where they would either create a business on paper and discuss the reasons why they structured it as they did. They also would be presented a business with a problem that they would have to solve. In other words, it wasn't a matter of memorizing business codes or accounting principles, but rather a matter of creation and analysis. Of course they did have to do the memorization stuff, but that was tested through in-class tests where self-plagiarism isn't an issue.

If my friends were to have two similar business classes that required them to create survey, for example, to test the market for a particular product. It is likely that two or more classes will have similarly structured assignments, e.g. conduct a survey on the market receptivity to a particular brand of shoe/conduct a survey on a particular item of clothing. The purpose of this assignment is not to actually know the results, it's about doing the survey work, asking the questions, learning how to talk to strangers on the street, data analysis, etc. How can you argue that it is ethical to get twice the credit for one surveys worth of work?

Interesting. Say a student is assigned two papers simultaneously in which they have the strong potential for overlap. If he writes the one paper to intentionally meet the vague requirements of both assignments, why not consider that half effort for each class? Some effort to meet both class requirements may be seen as half effort for each, which comes out to a '1' on your binary switch.

Well, obviously my binary analogy needlessly confused things. But if we're going to dissect it like this, no, it's not half for each. It would be 1 for the first, and 0 for the second. However, I don't think this particular view on the argument matters because we can split the example either ways. I think the understanding of reduced effort can stand on its own without an analogy of any kind.

I'm just saying that the student wrote the paper. He learned the material and composed his thoughts into sentences. In the other forms of plagiarism, the student did not author the paper and is getting credit for someone else's work. If something makes self-plagiarism unethical, it can't be that they don't steal the work from someone else. They are the ones who generated the result.

Agreed, this is why self-plagiarism is of a different nature than standard plagiarism. If it weren't we wouldn't need to have this huge debate.

I'm saying that after the student demonstrates his understanding and perspectives of a topic or concept, forcing the student to unnecessarily redo another copy of the work for that topics seems like unnecessary/unproductive busy work.

Obviously, I haven't and wouldn't advocate for that. As I've argued concerning the nature of assignments that can potentially be self-plagiarized, there is effectively no situation where two teachers would assign the exact same project. It doesn't happen and doesn't matter in this context.

Quote

Yes, but the point I'm trying to argue is that two different classes assign two different assignments, even if the topic is similar. An example would be: class A assigns 'essay on the industrial revolution', which we can call 'Essay A'. Class B assigns 'essay on 18th - 19th Century Europe', which we can call 'Essay B'. Even though an essay on the child workers act during industrial revolution would fulfil both assignments, to use one essay for both is clearly an issue of self-plagiarism and unethical.

I'd say that if an assignment asked for a broad topic, and the student focused too much on a single aspect, it probably wouldn't get as good a grade.

Assuming assignments A and B are not exactly the same, but overlap, they would look something like this:


Depending on how similar the assignments are, the amount of overlap can change. The edges (blue and green) reflect the parameters of the assignments that are irrelevant to the other assignment. My thoughts are that if you write essay A, and later turn it in for assignment B, the grade you get for B should be roughly equivalent to the shared A?B area divided by the B area.

To get full credit in B, you'd have to make up the difference between A?B and B. If the topics are extremely similar, the shared area is much larger compared to the edges, and much less additional work would have to be done. Inversely, if the topics are extremely unrelated, you'd essentially be doing close to the work of two papers. The act of adapting your paper to fit the assignment puts in the proportional amount of extra effort.

Again, you're getting tied up in a mathematical understanding of assignments. I can understand getting caught up in a logic problem, as you obviously have, but you've abstracted this issue from the real problem by a factor of 100. You're looking at assignments as if they were like the following: (my imagination isn't very good here, but I think you'll get the point)

Student A is given two independent assignments. The first is to name the 10 commandments and site their particular page number references, and one other source they are discussed. The second is to name the first 10 amendments of the US constitution, reference their page numbers, and list one more source they're discussed

Your analysis would hold only if the issue of self-plagiarism was incidents where the above student did one assignment, half on the commandments and half on the constitution. But that's not realistic and has no bearing on this discussion. Self-plagiarism isn't an issue for these kinds of scenarios. It only becomes an issue when there is a requirement of unique and independent thought. Because of the nature of the assignments that are amenable to self-plagiarism can be duplicated without the individual teachers being aware, because of the subjective nature of grading those assignments, there is an ethical issue surrounding it.

We can discuss the subjective nature of grading, but that's a separate discussion.

Quote

Quote

Never forget that the goal of a university assignment is not the same as a 'real world' goal.

The only goal you mentioned above isn't influenced by self-plagiarism, unless you directly involve effort.

Again, don't understand this point.

The goal of education that you mentioned was critical thinking/application beyond the foundational learning. I don't see how a student that self-plagiarizes is prevented from meeting this goal. Therefore I don't see why you are condemning self-plagiarism as unethical. Is there another goal that self-plagiarism does violate? (like effort?)
[/quote]

Again, the student can demonstrate critical thinking in one essay, and then duplicate it, but they are not completing the critical thinking requirement for the other. Like I've argued, essay A is different from essay B, even if an essay can be duplicated for both. They are two different essays, not one broad assignment that can be accomplished out of the class context. By this I mean, if you are viewing the critical thinking requirement as a global issue, i.e. has the student demonstrated critical thinking in their entire academic career, you would be correct. But that's not the issue. It matters whether or not a student has produced a unique product of critical thinking in their individual assignment. This means it must be demonstrated uniquely for each essay, i.e. essay a, essay b, essay n.

If my friends were to have two similar business classes that required them to create survey, for example, to test the market for a particular product. It is likely that two or more classes will have similarly structured assignments, e.g. conduct a survey on the market receptivity to a particular brand of shoe/conduct a survey on a particular item of clothing. The purpose of this assignment is not to actually know the results, it's about doing the survey work, asking the questions, learning how to talk to strangers on the street, data analysis, etc. How can you argue that it is ethical to get twice the credit for one surveys worth of work?

The result I've been arguing for is basically student learning, not their conclusions. You say that the purpose of the assignment is not to know the results of the market study, and I agree. I'm thinking that the purpose it is to get students to learn how to conduct a market study, ask questions, talk to consumers, crunch numbers, etc. I don't think the point of the assignment is about work/effort, but that it was really about making sure they got subjected to that experience and were able to handle it appropriately. Redo-ing their work but with a different survey for a competing of brand of shoe may change the market results, but not the learning process.

Quote

Interesting. Say a student is assigned two papers simultaneously in which they have the strong potential for overlap. If he writes the one paper to intentionally meet the vague requirements of both assignments, why not consider that half effort for each class? Some effort to meet both class requirements may be seen as half effort for each, which comes out to a '1' on your binary switch.

Well, obviously my binary analogy needlessly confused things. But if we're going to dissect it like this, no, it's not half for each. It would be 1 for the first, and 0 for the second. However, I don't think this particular view on the argument matters because we can split the example either ways. I think the understanding of reduced effort can stand on its own without an analogy of any kind.

If he designed his paper specifically with both independent requirements in mind, how can you say zero effort was applied for one of them?

Quote

I'm saying that after the student demonstrates his understanding and perspectives of a topic or concept, forcing the student to unnecessarily redo another copy of the work for that topics seems like unnecessary/unproductive busy work.

Obviously, I haven't and wouldn't advocate for that. As I've argued concerning the nature of assignments that can potentially be self-plagiarized, there is effectively no situation where two teachers would assign the exact same project. It doesn't happen and doesn't matter in this context.

Recycling work for similar projects is also 'illegal' though. I once wrote an extra credit paper on epigenetics that I later recycled for a subsequent assignment in a subsequent biology class. The aim, conclusions, and wording were slightly different but because the class was another biology class, many of the topics were founded on old concepts or recovering old concepts.

Quote

Quote

Yes, but the point I'm trying to argue is that two different classes assign two different assignments, even if the topic is similar. An example would be: class A assigns 'essay on the industrial revolution', which we can call 'Essay A'. Class B assigns 'essay on 18th - 19th Century Europe', which we can call 'Essay B'. Even though an essay on the child workers act during industrial revolution would fulfil both assignments, to use one essay for both is clearly an issue of self-plagiarism and unethical.

I'd say that if an assignment asked for a broad topic, and the student focused too much on a single aspect, it probably wouldn't get as good a grade.

Assuming assignments A and B are not exactly the same, but overlap, they would look something like this:


Depending on how similar the assignments are, the amount of overlap can change. The edges (blue and green) reflect the parameters of the assignments that are irrelevant to the other assignment. My thoughts are that if you write essay A, and later turn it in for assignment B, the grade you get for B should be roughly equivalent to the shared A?B area divided by the B area.

To get full credit in B, you'd have to make up the difference between A?B and B. If the topics are extremely similar, the shared area is much larger compared to the edges, and much less additional work would have to be done. Inversely, if the topics are extremely unrelated, you'd essentially be doing close to the work of two papers. The act of adapting your paper to fit the assignment puts in the proportional amount of extra effort.

Again, you're getting tied up in a mathematical understanding of assignments. I can understand getting caught up in a logic problem, as you obviously have, but you've abstracted this issue from the real problem by a factor of 100.

...
As opposed to an intuition-based understanding of the work/goal dilemma? 

It is a general model, not a precise tool. It is meant to communicate the inverse relationship between the degree of overlap of topics, and the degree of additional work to get a complete understanding of the assigned material and full credit.

You're looking at assignments as if they were like the following: (my imagination isn't very good here, but I think you'll get the point)
Student A is given two independent assignments. The first is to name the 10 commandments and site their particular page number references, and one other source they are discussed. The second is to name the first 10 amendments of the US constitution, reference their page numbers, and list one more source they're discussed

Your analysis would hold only if the issue of self-plagiarism was incidents where the above student did one assignment, half on the commandments and half on the constitution. But that's not realistic and has no bearing on this discussion. Self-plagiarism isn't an issue for these kinds of scenarios.

Exactly, this scenario doesn't apply. It doesn't conflict with my rendition, in that the two circles don't even overlap, so the total work is equivalent to two circles/assignments.

It only becomes an issue when there is a requirement of unique and independent thought. Because of the nature of the assignments that are amenable to self-plagiarism can be duplicated without the individual teachers being aware, because of the subjective nature of grading those assignments, there is an ethical issue surrounding it.

But the student's perspectives are already unique and independent. Saying that he has to have two different and unique perspectives for the same general topic doesn't make sense to me. Richard Dawkins in no longer part of the academic world, but every time he writes a book, it contains the many of the same underlying themes and personal conclusions, as well as some repeated thought experiments. What would it mean if he had to alter his perspective for writings simply to consistently not borrow from himself? What purpose would that serve to deprive him of that liberty?

Quote

Quote

Quote

Never forget that the goal of a university assignment is not the same as a 'real world' goal.

The only goal you mentioned above isn't influenced by self-plagiarism, unless you directly involve effort.

Again, don't understand this point.

The goal of education that you mentioned was critical thinking/application beyond the foundational learning. I don't see how a student that self-plagiarizes is prevented from meeting this goal. Therefore I don't see why you are condemning self-plagiarism as unethical. Is there another goal that self-plagiarism does violate? (like effort?)

Again, the student can demonstrate critical thinking in one essay, and then duplicate it, but they are not completing the critical thinking requirement for the other. Like I've argued, essay A is different from essay B, even if an essay can be duplicated for both.[/quote] I can't imagine how two assignments can be so different yet both deserve top grades for the same work. If an assignment is open enough to a subject that they want you to think critically about it, and you have, your conclusions probably won't change. If you got a philosophy assignment based on a famous philosophical idea you've encountered and studied last year, and you already have a comprehensive understanding of it, critically thinking about it a second time probably won't yield much of anything new unless the class introduced more to the assignment than your old one.

They are two different essays, not one broad assignment that can be accomplished out of the class context.

I feel like my position is getting a bit exaggerated. My argument is only meant to apply for similar assignments. I self-plagiarize every chance I get, and I've probably done it less than 3 times in my life.

By this I mean, if you are viewing the critical thinking requirement as a global issue, i.e. has the student demonstrated critical thinking in their entire academic career, you would be correct. But that's not the issue.

I do not contend critical thinking that should only be tested globally. That defeats my list of classroom goals.

It matters whether or not a student has produced a unique product of critical thinking in their individual assignment. This means it must be demonstrated uniquely for each essay, i.e. essay a, essay b, essay n.

I separate critical thinking criteria by the subject, not by assignment. If essay A and B are both covering the same subject, then only the new differences in the subject matter to me.

The result I've been arguing for is basically student learning, not their conclusions. You say that the purpose of the assignment is not to know the results of the market study, and I agree. I'm thinking that the purpose it is to get students to learn how to conduct a market study, ask questions, talk to consumers, crunch numbers, etc. I don't think the point of the assignment is about work/effort, but that it was really about making sure they got subjected to that experience and were able to handle it appropriately. Redo-ing their work but with a different survey for a competing of brand of shoe may change the market results, but not the learning process.

Firstly, I would disagree that you have not been arguing for conclusions. You may have changed your position, but your example of mowing the lawn seems to contradict your current statement. Secondly, I agree that the purpose of the assignment would be learning, not results, but also effort. However, that doesn't really matter in the context of my current point. You rightly point out that the purpose of the marketing assignment is to be exposed to the survey process. What I can't understand is why you think doing one survey should be labelled suficcient?

It seems ludicrous that you are arguing for a one-time only approach to learning, especially in such a hands on task such as marketing. I can assure you that the first essay I wrote on Hobbes' Leviathan was absolute rubbish compared to my fifth, sixth, etc. In fact, my essay writing skills in general have skyrocketed when comparing my 4th year uni honours thesis with my first historical essay on Napoleon in grade 11. Also, knowing particularly the experience of writing and performing a survey in my first year sociology class, third year political philosophy class, and fourth year ethics of eugenics class. That's three academic surveys that I've completed, and I can tell you without a doubt that I was able to create successively more accurate and legitimate surveys only through the knowledge and experience I gained in the previous.

I think the example of essays on Hobbes is even more apt. Consider, I have written probably 3 essays on the exact same topic concerning Hobbes' Leviathan, i.e. same sections, same pages, same terms, same concepts, etc., in three different classes. If I were merely to plagiarize my first essay for the other two I would clearly be handicapping my own knowledge and opportunity to learn. In effect I would be hollowing out my degree, not only from an ethical but an intellectual and technical context.

If he designed his paper specifically with both independent requirements in mind, how can you say zero effort was applied for one of them?

This is why I didn't want to continue the binary analogy because I think it needlessly complicates things. Your statement here brings up the issue of using one set of notes to write two papers. To me and my argument, this is not an issue of self-plagiarism and is very common. What I'm advocating is that an independent assignment requires an independent take on any particular topic. The purpose of education in this context is not to simply discover a student's views, but to challenge the student to investigate a topic in a manner they have not before. So, for example if a student was given two independent essays on the industrial revolution (imagine both topics in similar history classes are listed simply as 'industrial revolution in a historical manner) can be investigated in a vast array of ways.

Recycling work for similar projects is also 'illegal' though. I once wrote an extra credit paper on epigenetics that I later recycled for a subsequent assignment in a subsequent biology class. The aim, conclusions, and wording were slightly different but because the class was another biology class, many of the topics were founded on old concepts or recovering old concepts.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here, but if you're saying that you cited your old study in a current study, I don't see anything wrong with that. If you simply resubmitted an old assignment for a new one, that is self-plagiarism in my view for all the reasons I have given and will give. But I do want to highlight again the difference in the mere recitation of fundamental concepts and critical analysis of those concepts in the context of particular subject matter. I would assume that the second biology assignment was not a carbon copy of the epigenetics assignment, and I can assume that you have grown intellectually, morally, technically, etc., since you wrote the first one. I would also use the effort argument here, but it's obviously the most contentious between us in this debate, so I wont rest on. Rather, I'll rest on the growth argument, as well as the analytical argument (i.e. the more you independently review and analyze a topic, the more you will learn, particularly when taking an alternate viewpoint or lens).

I'd say that if an assignment asked for a broad topic, and the student focused too much on a single aspect, it probably wouldn't get as good a grade.

This is not necessarily or even often true. Many essays that I've done over my academic career have been broad topics like I've described. This is particularly true in first year classes, but is also true in upper years. In fact, most professors that give assignments with a broad essay topic (broad in the sense of potential topics, not a topic requiring a broad analysis) reward an essay with a sharply focused analysis. Most broadly focused essays (not topics) are criticized for their lack of focus and specificity.

...
As opposed to an intuition-based understanding of the work/goal dilemma? 

It is a general model, not a precise tool. It is meant to communicate the inverse relationship between the degree of overlap of topics, and the degree of additional work to get a complete understanding of the assigned material and full credit.

I uderstand that, but I simply don't think it really captures the nature of this discussion. I think my previous arguments stand on their own for this issue, particularly in that each independent essay, no matter the topic, serves its own unique part in the learning process. Take any first year essay and compare it to a fourth year essay on a particular topic and you'll see this very clearly.

Exactly, this scenario doesn't apply. It doesn't conflict with my rendition, in that the two circles don't even overlap, so the total work is equivalent to two circles/assignments.

Again, I believe my previous arguments support my position in regards to this point. I see your arguments as painting any essay on a particular topic in a very scientific manner. By this I mean that you seem to view an assignment on any topic as a black and white, know it or don't scenario. It appears that you see the educational institution as a vast chache of knowledge that is slowly learned through the process of assignments, study, etc. This is a very scientific understanding of knowledge, and does not apply to this debate.

I wholly admit that there is a vast amount of education that works upon this principle. Most scientific knowledge itself is learned through that exact model (i.e. memorize and understand in a technical manner). However, this kind of learning is evaluated almost exclusively through invigilated exams which are not amenable to self-plagiarism. What we are discussing her are essays and assignments that either require the practising of some craft or process, or the critical analysis of a particular topic. These are not issues of 'know it or don't'.

But the student's perspectives are already unique and independent. Saying that he has to have two different and unique perspectives for the same general topic doesn't make sense to me. Richard Dawkins in no longer part of the academic world, but every time he writes a book, it contains the many of the same underlying themes and personal conclusions, as well as some repeated thought experiments. What would it mean if he had to alter his perspective for writings simply to consistently not borrow from himself? What purpose would that serve to deprive him of that liberty?

One more time to the educational process, I vehemently disagree with your contention that a student's perspective or insight cannot and/or does not change. Even if the two assignments are given at the same time, the particular viewpoint and understanding of a topic will be updated daily, hourly, after any new understanding. Mostly what we're examining with self-plaiarism is after-the-fact re-use. Although it is possible to simultaniously write one essay for two classes (as I've explained I did in my first year), I would think that most of instances (as you may have stated, though I'm not completely clear on what you did with your epigenetics assignment) are instances where students recycle past years' or semesters' essays. These examples display my point even more vigorously and obviously than the simultanious essay writing, though I still advocate for the ethical issues there as strongly.

I would argue that using Richard Dawkins is a poor example for this issue.  In the last 10 years Dawkins has been flung into the realm of Western religious debate and derailed from his scientific work. Although I'd accept that he flung himself into that arena, I would certainly argue that it has corrupted his sense of academic honesty. This realm of religious debate is famous for its closed minds and irrational arguments. It's the reason why I back out of most of these debates; I fear that my mind will start closing to counter-intuitive or counter-ideological arguments. Dawkins has made this mistake, and I believe now he is returning to his best field of genetic biology, cf. The Greatest Show on Earth.

But I think you highlight a great weakness in your viewpoint arguments here. One of the most interesting elements of scholarly biography is to examine the development of a writers' ideas and viewpoints. I can't think of any intellectual or writer that has maintained an entirely consistent viewpoint or understanding of any issue. Not even the standard stalwarts of Marx, Lenin, Hobbes, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, etc., underwent significant changes on particular issues and concepts, and some even complete changes in their ideologies or theories. Imagine if these great minds were allowed to simply recycle their old work in place of new thought and analysis. Of course this argument supports the anti self-plagiarism argument for post-grad and professional work, a debate I claimed was separate, but it seems to support my argument concerning the development of a student's understanding. Combine this argument with my position of scientific fact-memorizing v critical analysis, and I believe my position remains solid. 

I can't imagine how two assignments can be so different yet both deserve top grades for the same work. If an assignment is open enough to a subject that they want you to think critically about it, and you have, your conclusions probably won't change. If you got a philosophy assignment based on a famous philosophical idea you've encountered and studied last year, and you already have a comprehensive understanding of it, critically thinking about it a second time probably won't yield much of anything new unless the class introduced more to the assignment than your old one.

I think I'll leave this one, because I'm very confident of my previously stated arguments to defeat this one. It seems outrageous to me that you believe a student will maintain their viewpoint or level of understanding on any particular topic over their academic career. I am so very confident in this from my own experience, cf. my examples concerning Hobbes' Leviathan. True, the laws of thermodynamics may not change over time, and once memorized and understood in their fundamental context the knowledge is sufficient, but that is not the type of knowledge amenable to self-plagiarism.

I feel like my position is getting a bit exaggerated. My argument is only meant to apply for similar assignments. I self-plagiarize every chance I get, and I've probably done it less than 3 times in my life.

Similar assignments of the correct nature (see above) are still two different assignments.

 

I separate critical thinking criteria by the subject, not by assignment. If essay A and B are both covering the same subject, then only the new differences in the subject matter to me.

In the vein of what I find absurd above, I think this is even more outright absurd. I don't know how you could claim that critically thinking about, say, the child welfare act of the industrial revolution satisfies the requirement for critical thinking in any or all of the following: a) the humanities b) history c) European history c) 18th C European history d) industrial revolution e) even children in the industrial revolution. Every new reading of a text or thinking on a topic is unique and very important.

In my opinion, grades are reports of how well you understand a subject. Why is it important how much effort you put into something? Schools are made to prepare you for real life; where does unnecessary work fall into the equation?

In my opinion, grades are reports of how well you understand a subject. Why is it important how much effort you put into something? Schools are made to prepare you for real life; where does unnecessary work fall into the equation?

read the debate to answer your questions. It has all been brought up already.

Quote from: doyh on January 08, 2011, 06:58:59 PM

In my opinion, grades are reports of how well you understand a subject. Why is it important how much effort you put into something? Schools are made to prepare you for real life; where does unnecessary work fall into the equation?

read the debate to answer your questions. It has all been brought up already.

It was brought up, but no one argued against it convincingly. I was mostly just rephrasing it into a shorter thesis.

You'll have to do more than that, particularly citing the arguments you disagree with and giving reason why. Nobody is interested in mere opinion in this debate.

Firstly, I would disagree that you have not been arguing for conclusions. You may have changed your position, but your example of mowing the lawn seems to contradict your current statement.

Please explain how the analogy contradicts my position.

Also, the contextual definition of "conclusions" was the meaningless result. Meaningless like, "Shoe brand A is more profitable."

I do defend the conclusions are the ones more universally applicable. I was commenting on the the "conclusions" or results that nobody really needs to know. It's a different kind of conclusion. For instance, I defend the conclusion that blind faith is illogical. This applies many other places and is relevant to other people and discussions. By education standards, knowing that Shoe Brand A is temporarily profitable doesn't matter. You will not reapply it and do not apply to self-plagiarism. After all, how could you copy work for shoe brand A to use for shoe brand B without the stats being wrong?

If you still think my position has changed, please explain how.

Secondly, I agree that the purpose of the assignment would be learning, not results, but also effort. However, that doesn't really matter in the context of my current point. You rightly point out that the purpose of the marketing assignment is to be exposed to the survey process. What I can't understand is why you think doing one survey should be labelled suficcient?

It seems ludicrous that you are arguing for a one-time only approach to learning, especially in such a hands on task such as marketing. I can assure you that the first essay I wrote on Hobbes' Leviathan was absolute rubbish compared to my fifth, sixth, etc. In fact, my essay writing skills in general have skyrocketed when comparing my 4th year uni honours thesis with my first historical essay on Napoleon in grade 11. Also, knowing particularly the experience of writing and performing a survey in my first year sociology class, third year political philosophy class, and fourth year ethics of eugenics class. That's three academic surveys that I've completed, and I can tell you without a doubt that I was able to create successively more accurate and legitimate surveys only through the knowledge and experience I gained in the previous.

I think the example of essays on Hobbes is even more apt. Consider, I have written probably 3 essays on the exact same topic concerning Hobbes' Leviathan, i.e. same sections, same pages, same terms, same concepts, etc., in three different classes. If I were merely to plagiarize my first essay for the other two I would clearly be handicapping my own knowledge and opportunity to learn. In effect I would be hollowing out my degree, not only from an ethical but an intellectual and technical context.

You are including slightly altered versions of previous work in your definition of self-plagiarism, right? When I self-plagiarize, I read through and change a lot of my paper, but I finish much much faster than if I started from scratch.

Your work is expected to get better as you progress through school, and altering the sentences and structure and direction of the essay is obviously necessary to keep improving it, or your grade will suffer.

Quote

If he designed his paper specifically with both independent requirements in mind, how can you say zero effort was applied for one of them?

To me and my argument, this is not an issue of self-plagiarism and is very common. What I'm advocating is that an independent assignment requires an independent take on any particular topic.

Why?

I was considering mentioning "split effort" before you brought up the binary switch btw.

The purpose of education in this context is not to simply discover a student's views, but to challenge the student to investigate a topic in a manner they have not before.

So you are opposed to letting them investigate the same topic the same way? That was my opposition to duplicate market survey. If the second assignment includes different research parameters or new mechanisms for learning, I would support the additional work.

Recycling work for similar projects is also 'illegal' though. I once wrote an extra credit paper on epigenetics that I later recycled for a subsequent assignment in a subsequent biology class. The aim, conclusions, and wording were slightly different but because the class was another biology class, many of the topics were founded on old concepts or recovering old concepts.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here, but if you're saying that you cited your old study in a current study, I don't see anything wrong with that. If you simply resubmitted an old assignment for a new one, that is self-plagiarism in my view for all the reasons I have given and will give. But I do want to highlight again the difference in the mere recitation of fundamental concepts and critical analysis of those concepts in the context of particular subject matter. I would assume that the second biology assignment was not a carbon copy of the epigenetics assignment, and I can assume that you have grown intellectually, morally, technically, etc., since you wrote the first one.[/quote]

For the first extra credit essay, I was allowed to choose a biology topic and get it approved. I chose epigentics. The second essay was a study of treatments for cancer. I had already learned of the implications of epigentic therapy for cancer and I recycled my points and research from the first paper into my second paper. Obviously, I did the additional work covering many of the other approaches to cancer, but the point is that my work on the first one was directly translated into a notable piece of my second one. Had I been able to track down a Health paper I wrote on carbon nanotubes, I would have been able to recycle my work there as well.

I would also use the effort argument here, but it's obviously the most contentious between us in this debate, so I wont rest on.

Perhaps the points we disagree the most on are the ones that are the most productive to cover.

Rather, I'll rest on the growth argument, as well as the analytical argument (i.e. the more you independently review and analyze a topic, the more you will learn, particularly when taking an alternate viewpoint or lens).

If the assignment asks about the same topic from a different perspective (any changed variables), I consider those variables to be worthwhile to spend time on in addition to your base laid by your previous work.

Quote

I'd say that if an assignment asked for a broad topic, and the student focused too much on a single aspect, it probably wouldn't get as good a grade.

This is not necessarily or even often true. Many essays that I've done over my academic career have been broad topics like I've described. This is particularly true in first year classes, but is also true in upper years. In fact, most professors that give assignments with a broad essay topic (broad in the sense of potential topics, not a topic requiring a broad analysis) reward an essay with a sharply focused analysis. Most broadly focused essays (not topics) are criticized for their lack of focus and specificity.

Interesting. I recognize I can only provide an anecdotal and relatively small sample size for the entire education systems, but in my experience, my teachers view my work as incomplete when I take an idea like the industrial revolution and only discuss a small detail in great length. By omitting most of the larger picture (be they economical impacts, leading causes/implications, important figures, et cetera), I have not met their standards. I have always succeeded in these assignments by producing a comprehensive essay that is constantly credited by brief smaller aspects.

Quote

...
As opposed to an intuition-based understanding of the work/goal dilemma?  

It is a general model, not a precise tool. It is meant to communicate the inverse relationship between the degree of overlap of topics, and the degree of additional work to get a complete understanding of the assigned material and full credit.

I understand that, but I simply don't think it really captures the nature of this discussion. I think my previous arguments stand on their own for this issue, particularly in that each independent essay, no matter the topic, serves its own unique part in the learning process. Take any first year essay and compare it to a fourth year essay on a particular topic and you'll see this very clearly.

I believe the source of our disagreement isn't the recycling of your own work, but perhaps a miscommunication of the development of using it to meet the new assignment's standards.

Exactly, this scenario doesn't apply. It doesn't conflict with my rendition, in that the two circles don't even overlap, so the total work is equivalent to two circles/assignments.

I see your arguments as painting any essay on a particular topic in a very scientific manner. By this I mean that you seem to view an assignment on any topic as a black and white, know it or don't scenario.

I do not know how you came to this conclusion but I will attempt to explain my perspective on topics. I see all topics as intrinsically connected. It is more like an endless spectrum of math, physics, chemistry, biology, health, psychology, sociology, history, economics and geography, etc.
I automatically connect everything to everything else. I see conceptual overlap between these classes all the time, even though they are divided neatly into categories. Knowledge always relates to existing knowledge, and sometimes when I am excited about a concept in one class I notice that I let it bleed through into others.

As for "know it or not", I'm allowing for critical thinking topics to be included in new similar ones as well. Not just the straight up facts. Say a new assignments introduces a new philosophical concept. Certain analysis and conclusions of prior philosophical concepts can be used as baseline points for exploring the new ones in your paper. If you make an argument, you can't jump to the middle and assume the reader knows your foundation.

It appears that you see the educational institution as a vast chache of knowledge that is slowly learned through the process of assignments, study, etc. This is a very scientific understanding of knowledge, and does not apply to this debate.

I wholly admit that there is a vast amount of education that works upon this principle. Most scientific knowledge itself is learned through that exact model (i.e. memorize and understand in a technical manner). However, this kind of learning is evaluated almost exclusively through invigilated exams which are not amenable to self-plagiarism. What we are discussing her are essays and assignments that either require the practising of some craft or process, or the critical analysis of a particular topic. These are not issues of 'know it or don't'.

How did you come to this conclusion? It sounds very foreign.  

Your knowledge is foundational to the essays you write, and attempting to refrain from including your preexisting knowledge/conclusions/research is damn near unavoidable. If prior papers can already express these points, why not include them?

One more time to the educational process, I vehemently disagree with your contention that a student's perspective or insight cannot and/or does not change. Even if the two assignments are given at the same time, the particular viewpoint and understanding of a topic will be updated daily, hourly, after any new understanding.

Apparently I have not been stressing it hard enough that my contention holds the condition that it only applies to repeat circumstances and requirements. New information, perspectives, and understandings will of course require updating and revising. Many times, new information or perspectives aren't applicable when I borrow from myself. My biology paper might be an example.

Mostly what we're examining with self-plaiarism is after-the-fact re-use.

This is news to me.

I would argue that using Richard Dawkins is a poor example for this issue.  In the last 10 years Dawkins has been flung into the realm of Western religious debate and derailed from his scientific work. Although I'd accept that he flung himself into that arena, I would certainly argue that it has corrupted his sense of academic honesty.

I have no idea what you are getting at. I brought him up to show that he borrows from himself all the time. I'm not paying attention to his actual arguments.

But I think you highlight a great weakness in your viewpoint arguments here. One of the most interesting elements of scholarly biography is to examine the development of a writers' ideas and viewpoints. I can't think of any intellectual or writer that has maintained an entirely consistent viewpoint or understanding of any issue.

I'm not advocating consistency. I'm advocating compatibility.
I've even used my previous myself as a devil's advocate at times.

Combine this argument with my position of scientific fact-memorizing v critical analysis, and I believe my position remains solid.

I feel like you are unfairly categorizing and separating those two. I consider myself to be highly scientific, and I have always despised memorization. I avoid it as much as possible.

Back when I took math classes, I only succeeded because I could re-derive the equations based on what made sense. I consider critical thinking to be more scientific than not.

It seems outrageous to me that you believe a student will maintain their viewpoint or level of understanding on any particular topic over their academic career.

I can only assure you that I am not trying to imply this.

Quote

I separate critical thinking criteria by the subject, not by assignment. If essay A and B are both covering the same subject, then only the new differences in the subject matter to me.

In the vein of what I find absurd above, I think this is even more outright absurd. I don't know how you could claim that critically thinking about, say, the child welfare act of the industrial revolution satisfies the requirement for critical thinking in any or all of the following: a) the humanities b) history c) European history c) 18th C European history d) industrial revolution e) even children in the industrial revolution. Every new reading of a text or thinking on a topic is unique and very important.

I'm beginning to think that as you kept adding to your post, you began to intentionally misrepresent me.

Back when we were discussing assignments that were exactly the same, I was advocating that all of the previous work should be generally available for re-use to satisfy the new assignment. It sounds as if you expect me to advocate that for "somewhat related" assignments as well.

For different but related assignments, I am condoning either the use parts of previous assignments, or whole previous assignments as parts of the new assignment.

Your example meant to depict my position completely reverses this. The student has not done critically examined any of the new criteria, so I would not advocate recycling work to stuffing it into place of the new parameters.




One last thing-- These two quotes both discuss the simultaneous completion of one writing for two assignments, but they appear contradictory.

To me and my argument, this is not an issue of self-plagiarism and is very common.

These examples display my point even more vigorously and obviously than the simultanious essay writing, though I still advocate for the ethical issues there as strongly.

Firstly, I would disagree ....

I think that I mistook the word 'conclusion' with 'result'.

You are including slightly altered versions of previous work in your definition of self-plagiarism, right? When I self-plagiarize, I read through and change a lot of my paper, but I finish much much faster than if I started from scratch.

Your work is expected to get better as you progress through school, and altering the sentences and structure and direction of the essay is obviously necessary to keep improving it, or your grade will suffer.

Here you seem to be confusing my argument here. I don't mean merely improving sentence structure and direction, but most significantly the understanding of the concept itself. I really think that my Hobbes example satisfies the point, but I'll use a more scientific one. Imagine being given an assignment on Einsteins theory of relativity in first year and then another in third year. The assignment could even be identical, e.g. 'explain how the theory of relativity conflicts with quantum mechanics (and/or newtonian physics).

Even if these are the same assignments, I am certain that a student's understanding of both relativity, qm, and classical physics will mature, grow, and become more subtle between the time of the first assignment and the second. I think you have it in your mind that any topic can simply be learned, stored in the mind, and never significantly changed. I remember the first time I read Green's The Elegant Universe I was confident that I understood the similarities and differences between the two. However, every time I have read it since (3 more times) I have realized that much of my understanding wasn't really how the book described

So you are opposed to letting them investigate the same topic the same way? That was my opposition to duplicate market survey. If the second assignment includes different research parameters or new mechanisms for learning, I would support the additional work.

Remember, the purpose of education is not to simply display knowledge of particular facts or concepts, but to teach the student how to think critically and articulate their understanding about a topic. This means that practice is necessary for a student to develop their skills in doing just that. Also, the purpose of education is to broaden a student`s understanding of the world in general. This involves the investigating of topics in multiple ways, not simply the one that a particular student already understands.

As for the marketing assignment, I still do not understand why you think doing a survey once can be considered sufficient practice. Do you disagree that doing multiple surveys will improve a student`s ability to do a survey in the future? Do you think that the mere knowledge of how a survey works is the same as being able to create and execute a survey? I remember creating surveys in grade school, and I can assure you my understanding and skill in surveys has improved significantly from then to now. What if I gave up after the first, and simply recycled my results and method?

For the first extra credit essay, I was allowed to choose a biology topic and get it approved. I chose epigentics. The second essay was a study of treatments for cancer. I had already learned of the implications of epigentic therapy for cancer and I recycled my points and research from the first paper into my second paper. Obviously, I did the additional work covering many of the other approaches to cancer, but the point is that my work on the first one was directly translated into a notable piece of my second one. Had I been able to track down a Health paper I wrote on carbon nanotubes, I would have been able to recycle my work there as well.

There's two things I think we can highlight from this example. The first is the simple fact that, particularly in medical science, discoveries happen all the time and the research is continually updating. If you were to reuse data or research conclusions without investigating any new research, you are simply missing out on the contemporary understanding of whatever phenomena you're investigating.

The second involves the nature of past research and current projects. I see nothing wrong with using previous research in the context of a current project, even particular sentences or paragraphs from previously submitted work, but only if it is cited. The citation indicates that you have already been awarded credit for this research, and still feel confident about its validity. It indicates that you've done the subsequent research to insure that the facts are still valid, and have considered the issue again and feel confident with your conclusions. All of this is accomplished with a simple citation.

Why not? It seems that if you refuse to cite it, you're attempting to deceive the professor, which I would argue is at the heart of this issue. It's the same principle for standard plagiarism. You can reuse anyones ideas or any concept already published/submitted for grades, as long as you cite the fact that grades have already been received or it's not your original work.

Perhaps the points we disagree the most on are the ones that are the most productive to cover.

Then I think it's a pretty clear cut issue. Each independent assignment carries the assumption of an original work. This is a matter of fact for the academic community, though we can debate the validity of it.

If the assignment asks about the same topic from a different perspective (any changed variables), I consider those variables to be worthwhile to spend time on in addition to your base laid by your previous work.

That is the purpose of independent assignments. If an assignment asked for students to show that they have learned something in the past, it would ask for them to resubmit any previous assignments that demonstrate this fact. This never happens. What does happen is that each assignment asks for an original work that investigates any particular topic. Again, if you are given the exact same topic in two classes, the ethical practice would be to inform the prof about the duplication.

Interesting. I recognize I can only provide an anecdotal and relatively small sample size for the entire education systems, but in my experience, my teachers view my work as incomplete when I take an idea like the industrial revolution and only discuss a small detail in great length. By omitting most of the larger picture (be they economical impacts, leading causes/implications, important figures, et cetera), I have not met their standards. I have always succeeded in these assignments by producing a comprehensive essay that is constantly credited by brief smaller aspects.

Well, as you point out, this is mostly irrelevant. The standards of each essay will be outlined by each prof and will differ in particular ways for each. However, there are many occasions where two broad topics can overlap in two independent classes. 

I believe the source of our disagreement isn't the recycling of your own work, but perhaps a miscommunication of the development of using it to meet the new assignment's standards.

I think here we have to again point to the difference between undergrad work and, for example, a dissertation. In a dissertation it is not only common but recommended to recycle previously worked concepts, and even whole segments of previously submitted course work with or without citation. This is because the nature of a dissertation is different from course work. Course work requires unique work for each assignment, whereas a dissertation requires the exposition of an argument that utilizes all of the knowledge and perspective gained in coursework along with some original analysis.

I do not know how you came to this conclusion but I will attempt to explain my perspective on topics. I see all topics as intrinsically connected. It is more like an endless spectrum of math, physics, chemistry, biology, health, psychology, sociology, history, economics and geography, etc.
I automatically connect everything to everything else. I see conceptual overlap between these classes all the time, even though they are divided neatly into categories. Knowledge always relates to existing knowledge, and sometimes when I am excited about a concept in one class I notice that I let it bleed through into others.

As for "know it or not", I'm allowing for critical thinking topics to be included in new similar ones as well. Not just the straight up facts. Say a new assignments introduces a new philosophical concept. Certain analysis and conclusions of prior philosophical concepts can be used as baseline points for exploring the new ones in your paper. If you make an argument, you can't jump to the middle and assume the reader knows your foundation.

I agree with your connection of knowledge, and I agree with your conclusion about fundamental concepts. However, if these concepts are so fundamental, they can be cited to divide the foundation with the original work. Perhaps most of our disagreements would go away with the inclusion of citation.

How did you come to this conclusion? It sounds very foreign.  

Your knowledge is foundational to the essays you write, and attempting to refrain from including your preexisting knowledge/conclusions/research is damn near unavoidable. If prior papers can already express these points, why not include them?

I'm not advocating consistency. I'm advocating compatibility.
I've even used my previous myself as a devil's advocate at times.

For different but related assignments, I am condoning either the use parts of previous assignments, or whole previous assignments as parts of the new assignment.

Again, the citation argument is sufficient here.

I feel like you are unfairly categorizing and separating those two. I consider myself to be highly scientific, and I have always despised memorization. I avoid it as much as possible.

Back when I took math classes, I only succeeded because I could re-derive the equations based on what made sense. I consider critical thinking to be more scientific than not.

Perhaps, and I suppose scientific and philosophical critical thinking is essentially the same.

I'm beginning to think that as you kept adding to your post, you began to intentionally misrepresent me.

Back when we were discussing assignments that were exactly the same, I was advocating that all of the previous work should be generally available for re-use to satisfy the new assignment. It sounds as if you expect me to advocate that for "somewhat related" assignments as well.

Your example meant to depict my position completely reverses this. The student has not done critically examined any of the new criteria, so I would not advocate recycling work to stuffing it into place of the new parameters.

I can assure you that I was not intentionally misrepresenting, but mistakenly. If I understand your argument at this point, and as long as you concede to the issue of citation, I think we will be in agreement.

One last thing-- These two quotes both discuss the simultaneous completion of one writing for two assignments, but they appear contradictory.

Quote from: Benocrates on January 08, 2011, 06:03:49 PM

To me and my argument, this is not an issue of self-plagiarism and is very common.

Quote from: Benocrates on January 08, 2011, 06:03:49 PM

These examples display my point even more vigorously and obviously than the simultanious essay writing, though I still advocate for the ethical issues there as strongly.

[/quote]

I think the contradictory appearance comes from my conflicting attitude toward simultaneous essay writing. I think that's why I said "ethical issues" in the second quote, because I can't quite define my belief on it. I think if we can come to an understanding on the other issues, we will be able to resolve this one as well.

Sorry, for the late response but this is starting to become a bit of a chore, and I usually log onto FES to procrastinate other work.  

I'm gonna try to cut this down into the bare essentials in both examples and ideology.

__________________

I support learning, development, and experience. If you contend that the marketing exercise has aspects that will benefit the students from repeating it a couple times, than I agree to that value. When we were first examining the idea, I thought the goal was to understand the process, not to become active and proficient in it. Obviously if experience was the point of the assignment, practice is beneficial.

My main concern is that previous work by a student should always be allowed to be recycled for new assignments. Yes, philosophical and scientific theory required constant revision to reach new heights, but I am supporting the constant revision, even for new papers with the exact same topics.

As for the medical progress, the same applies. Yes, finding therapeutic procedures for dealing with cancer can always expand, and including all new relevant information is required to get full credit.

Each independent assignment carries the assumption of an original work. This is a matter of fact for the academic community, though we can debate the validity of it.

But why does the academic community contend that someone's work should not have recycled information mixed in?

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here, but if you're saying that you cited your old study in a current study, I don't see anything wrong with that. If you simply resubmitted an old assignment for a new one, that is self-plagiarism in my view for all the reasons I have given and will give.

Yes, that is the definition of self-plagiarism. And no, I didn't cite my old papers but I greatly expanded on them.

But I do want to highlight again the difference in the mere recitation of fundamental concepts and critical analysis of those concepts in the context of particular subject matter. I would assume that the second biology assignment was not a carbon copy of the epigenetics assignment, and I can assume that you have grown intellectually, morally, technically, etc., since you wrote the first one.

Perhaps it's just me, but when I recycle my old work, I read through it, think about the direction, conclusions, change it and expand upon it. What you call the 'growth argument' is agreeable to my perspective.

I see nothing wrong with using previous research in the context of a current project, even particular sentences or paragraphs from previously submitted work, but only if it is cited. The citation indicates that you have already been awarded credit for this research, and still feel confident about its validity.

Awesome, I feel like most of the first sentence shows that we agree on most things above. But why is the citation condition necessary? If the learning, and experience aspects have been met, what makes requiring self-citations necessary? What's important about indicating whether or not you got credit for some of your ideas in the past? The teacher should not care about what other graders may have thought. And confidence in the ideas is already shown by turning it in.  

Course work requires unique work for each assignment whereas a dissertation requires the exposition of an argument that utilizes all of the knowledge and perspective gained in coursework along with some original analysis.

Not always.


As for including citation, it is a convenient compromise that I could personally adjust to, but I don't think it should be punishable when it get's left out.

But why is the citation condition necessary? If the learning, and experience aspects have been met, what makes requiring self-citations necessary? What's important about indicating whether or not you got credit for some of your ideas in the past? The teacher should not care about what other graders may have thought. And confidence in the ideas is already shown by turning it in.  

Remember, the main purpose of education is not to simply show off knowledge of particular facts or concepts, it is also to teach the student how to articulate their understanding about a topic and think critically. What this means is that practice is necessary in order for a student to develop precisely these skills. Additionally, the purpose of education is to broaden a student's understanding of the world in general, which involves the investigation of topics in many different ways, not just one which a particular student already understands.

What I'm trying to say is students can demonstrate critical thinking in one essay, and then duplicate it, but they are not fulfilling the requirement of critical thinking in the latter. I'd say that other than pure memorization work, which does occasionally occur in mathematics lectures and other subjects like that, assignments almost always require the demonstration of understanding and application.

I spy plagiarism.

Quote from: ?ingula?i?y on January 13, 2011, 09:32:16 PM

But why is the citation condition necessary? If the learning, and experience aspects have been met, what makes requiring self-citations necessary? What's important about indicating whether or not you got credit for some of your ideas in the past? The teacher should not care about what other graders may have thought. And confidence in the ideas is already shown by turning it in.  

Remember, the main purpose of education is not to simply show off knowledge of particular facts or concepts, it is also to teach the student how to articulate their understanding about a topic and think critically. What this means is that practice is necessary in order for a student to develop precisely these skills. Additionally, the purpose of education is to broaden a student's understanding of the world in general, which involves the investigation of topics in many different ways, not just one which a particular student already understands.

What I'm trying to say is students can demonstrate critical thinking in one essay, and then duplicate it, but they are not fulfilling the requirement of critical thinking in the latter. I'd say that other than pure memorization work, which does occasionally occur in mathematics lectures and other subjects like that, assignments almost always require the demonstration of understanding and application.

Rewriting a paper is not thinking critically.

Quote from: James on January 14, 2011, 07:09:34 AM

Quote from: ?ingula?i?y on January 13, 2011, 09:32:16 PM

But why is the citation condition necessary? If the learning, and experience aspects have been met, what makes requiring self-citations necessary? What's important about indicating whether or not you got credit for some of your ideas in the past? The teacher should not care about what other graders may have thought. And confidence in the ideas is already shown by turning it in.  

Remember, the main purpose of education is not to simply show off knowledge of particular facts or concepts, it is also to teach the student how to articulate their understanding about a topic and think critically. What this means is that practice is necessary in order for a student to develop precisely these skills. Additionally, the purpose of education is to broaden a student's understanding of the world in general, which involves the investigation of topics in many different ways, not just one which a particular student already understands.

What I'm trying to say is students can demonstrate critical thinking in one essay, and then duplicate it, but they are not fulfilling the requirement of critical thinking in the latter. I'd say that other than pure memorization work, which does occasionally occur in mathematics lectures and other subjects like that, assignments almost always require the demonstration of understanding and application.

Rewriting a paper is not thinking critically.

In which case, I imagine within this argument, one should write a new paper on the concept or assignment in question not rewrite the one they have already written.

Remember, the main purpose of education is not to simply show off knowledge of particular facts or concepts, it is also to teach the student how to articulate their understanding about a topic and think critically. What this means is that practice is necessary in order for a student to develop precisely these skills. Additionally, the purpose of education is to broaden a student's understanding of the world in general, which involves the investigation of topics in many different ways, not just one which a particular student already understands.