Plagiarism in secondary education: re-evaluating collaboration

12 Apr 2006

David Hawkes writes from Canada of an encounter with Stephen Downes:

Stephen is a philosopher who is deeply interested in the freedom of information and the freedom of learning. He is also interested in the notion of digital rights expression as opposed to digital rights management, by which we mean that it is more important to focus on the purpose of the digital sharing than it is to focus on the profit motive associated with such endeavours. His take on plagiarism is that people almost never present things that are totally original and that they are always using a variety of sources to achieve an objective, so what is really needed is a redefinition of plagiarism.

The notion of ‘expression’ is an interesting one! That is, I take it, pertaining to freedom of material in a broader sense? Or did he speak of this in the context of academia alone?

Increasingly, I am becoming aware of the accusative approach taken to the issue of plagiarism — at a tertiary level it is particularly apparent. By this I mean that legitimate collaboration is being stifled; discussions are being cut short. This is of particular concern as, whilst there is a clear need for such collaboration in higher education, the spectre of ‘plagiarism’ (that is, accusations of such a thing) is diminishing otherwise quite-fruitful discussions.

At a secondary level this is perhaps of lesser consequence — Internet-based plagiarism would be (I imagine) the greatest of several concerns in this field. In fact, from what I recall of school, things would do well to go in the other direction. It is not that no effort has been made in this field — far from it. I think particularly of the targetted initiatives steered by Simon Breakspear, and recall some idea that collaborative efforts were to benefit a group of students collectively. There is, however, so much more that can be done here. Perhaps ironically, electronic collaboration (‘plagiarism’) tools realise just that. Creating a space in which students can actively engage with ideas (as opposed to passive, top-down environments that offer no impetus to create content) is paramount to re-aligning ‘plagiarism’ with positive conceptions. It is, for obvious reasons, ludicrous to suggest to a student that ideas should be attributed to their peers in written work. Yet, for the purposes of education (which is, by my reckoning, distinct from those of assessment!), a collaborative environment that allows tracing the origin of ideas in a local context is a great thing.

Perhaps that ‘ludicrous’ idea of internal attribution should even be applied, as a way of instilling a habit of this kind.

There is so much that can be done here. It is pioneering, new territory; characterised by increasing engagement. “Expression” is a great word for how we should envisage re-use of digital ‘property’ — growth of expression and critical capacity can only be a positive thing.