Wired has a story about the new markets for plagiarism-detection software, which include law enforcement and the publishing industry. The article also addresses some of the catch-22s that universities face when they consider using plagiarism-detection software.
“Meanwhile, students at universities with honor codes point out that there’s no sense in pledging to be honest if administrators and professors figure some of them are lying.”
Issues…
Depersonalization, dehumanization, and mechanization are all issues of concern to librarians that erupt from the existence of such services. I am working on a qualitative research paper on this topic. We need more literature on this topic and how it impacts us as information professionals.
Re:Issues…
I’m puzzled about the moral qualms so many people feel about this software. I take it then, that they don’t have a problem with doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. who cheat their way through school?
Do the students who believe that honor codes are now useless also believe that government loyalty oaths should be abolished because counterintelligence agencies check people’s actions?
Re:Issues…
It appears that the qualms more come from the lack of human decision-making. Students become much more alienated when faced with a situation in which a teacher or librarian takes on a cop’s role rather than that of an educator. Using automated software in this case to make decisions that should be made by professionals does much the same thing in the classroom setting.
It is not that the checking is occurring. It is that the problem is that a student can more easily handle the impact of a search conducted by a teacher, which can be challenged and discussed, instead of the processes of a machine that cannot be challenged. The depersonalization of automated checking is something that may prove more harrowing to students.
As I noted above, more literature on this matter needs to come about.
Re:Issues…
I work at a university that uses this sort of technology. I don’t have a problem with the papers being checked, per se. After all, the program is not saying, “This person cheated”; it’s saying, “There is an awful lot in common with this other thing over here.” Of course, this depends on the person marking the papers to examine the results and evaluate them (but I’m going to cheat and assume that that works out the way it’s supposed to).
The problem is that the student is required to surrender certain rights to her intellectual property in order to have her paper marked (most services keep a copy of your paper to add to their database). Some people have suggested that these are undergraduate theses, not major breakthrough research papers, so there’s not a lot of “intellectual” involved in the “property”, but that’s beside the point. It’s mine, I own it, I don’t want you to use it.
Re:Issues…
If overburdened faculty follow “the path of least resistance” in trying to survive each semester, they are likely to let the computer make the determination and just pass it on. There was a very recent case in Quebec which appeared to have been just that.
I agree with the surrender aspect as well.