‘At least they’re learning something’: the hazy line between collaboration and collusion

Barrett, Ruth; Cox, Anna L.

doi:10.1080/0260293042000264226

Cited by 91 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although students and educators are able to clearly identify plagiarism when it occurs, the same cannot be said for collusion (Barrett & Cox, 2005). Collusion may be regarded as the middle ground in a spectrum of practices ranging from collaboration to outright plagiarism, and it is best defined as unpermitted collaboration.…”

Section: Collusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interestingly, among students, only 38% thought that it would be acceptable, 33% felt that it is collusion, and 24% considered it to be outright plagiarism (Barrett & Cox, 2005, Figure 3). These results underscore the responsibility incumbent upon an instructor to establish a clear definition of what constitutes collusion in the course being taught.…”

Section: Collusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Barrett and Cox (2005) hypothesized that mathematics and computer science are subject to higher rates of collusion because of the nature of the work in these fields. While arts and humanities assignments typically involve personal reflection on the parts of the students, assignments in mathematics and computer science typically have an ideal solution which the students are seeking.…”

Section: Academic Dishonesty In Computer Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This may lead to confusion among students, for the boundary between what constitutes discussion and writing varies. Barrett and Cox (2005) provided a set of scenarios to students and instructors, and asked whether the students in the scenarios had acted acceptably, or whether they are guilty of plagiarism, collusion, or both. The following scenario (Scenario 3 in their study) elicited the highly personal divide between what defines acceptable practice or collusion: Student A doesn't know how to start the assignment and so he asks student B who helps him by showing him his own work.…”

Section: Collusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

An Analysis of the Effect of Mobile Learning on Lebanese Higher Education

Jabbour¹

2014

Informatics in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present an overview of the nature of academic dishonesty with respect to computer science coursework. We discuss the efficacy of various policies for collaboration with regard to student education, and we consider a number of strategies for mitigating dishonest behaviour on computer science coursework by addressing some common causes. Computer science coursework is somewhat unique, in that there often exist ideal solutions for problems, and work may be shared and copied with very little effort. We discuss the idiosyncratic nature of how collaboration, collusion and plagiarism are defined and perceived by students, instructors and administration. After considering some of the common reasons for dishonest behaviour among students, we look at some methods that have been suggested for mitigating them. Finally, we propose several ideas for improving computer science courses in this context. We suggest emphasizing the intended learning outcomes of each assignment, providing tutorial sessions to facilitate acceptable collaboration, delivering quizzes related to assignment content after each assignment is submitted, and clarifying the boundary between collaboration and collusion in the context of each course. While this discussion is directed at the computer science community, much may apply to other disciplines as well, particularly those with a similar nature such as engineering, other sciences, or mathematics.

show abstract

Section: Collusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Collusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Academic Dishonesty In Computer Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Collusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An Analysis of the Effect of Mobile Learning on Lebanese Higher Education

Jabbour¹

2014

Informatics in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Students' understandings of plagiarism differ from those of staff, or from a received understanding of what is conventional and appropriate (Deckert 1993;Julliard 1994;Roig 1997;Barrett & Cox 2005;Blum 2010). In one survey, only 30% of students identified the act of repeating language from a source without signalling it as quotation (but with a reference to the author) as serious plagiarism (Löfström & Kupila 2013), a finding confirmed by Li's (2013) case studies.…”

Section: Students' and Teachers' Viewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plagiarism in second-language writing

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plagiarism is a broad and multidisciplinary field of study, and within second-language (L2) writing, research on the topic goes back to the mid-1980s. In this review article we first discuss the received view of plagiarism as a transgressive act and alternative understandings which have been presented in the L1 and L2 writing literature. We then survey and identify salient themes in the growing body of work relating to plagiarism, primarily fro an L2 writing/applied linguistic perspective. These themes include terminological distinctions; views of the role of textual plagiarism in language learning and a writer's development; a concern with students' and teachers' sometimes differing understanding of plagiarism; and disciplinary differences in perceptions of plagiarism. We review research into the role of the electronic media in changing orientations toward plagiarism, the potential role of culture as a cause of plagiarism in the work of L2 writers, and pedagogical approaches to guiding students away from plagiarism. Methodological issues in researching plagiarism are sureveyed, and the article concludes by suggesting directions for future research.

show abstract

The social anatomy of ‘collusion’

Crook

Nixon

2019

British Educational Res J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article offers a conceptual analysis of collusion, the often overlooked relative of plagiarism in debates on academic integrity. Considered as an inherently social phenomenon, we present the results of a systematic effort to understand the anatomy of collusion. The term's meanings and associated governance practices are compared for contexts outside higher education. These are considered alongside a thematic analysis of publicly available UK university academic integrity documentation that specifies for students what counts as collusion. We indicate how current guideline practice can (1) appear incomplete by concentrating on classroom peers, (2) create blurred boundaries around useful collaboration, peer review and dishonest practice and (3) be so unrealistic as to have unwelcome, unintended consequences for students and staff. Taking an ecological perspective on the conditions of collusion emphasises how these guidelines-by seeking to constrain social interactions around assignment work-may create an uncomfortable incoherence between their prescriptions and well-established patterns of study.actions may, on one occasion, be judged 'collusion' (which observers condemn), while, under different circumstances, they may be judged 'collaboration' (which observers celebrate). The management of source attribution is a key responsibility for students to exercise in preparing their coursework. Yet understanding exactly which sources need to be acknowledged may be a significant challenge; collusion may awkwardly overlap with apparently legitimate occasions of 'mere collaboration'.There is little understanding of how far the proscriptions in collusion guidelines serve to constrain or direct students' collaborative study. It is known that students' recognition and reading of these guidelines is limited (Ashworth et al., 1997;Barrett & Cox, 2005;Adam et al., 2017). However, even where guidelines are known, their proscriptions may not align with students' native understanding of appropriate study or assessment practices. In this article we do not interrogate students' perspectives on such guidelines directly. However, we complement McGowan's (2016) analysis of institutional guidelines and, more specifically, her call for attention to the contextual and social nature of collusion. Our analysis serves to illustrate institutional perspectives on the nature of collusion and identifies challenges of interpretation that students therefore may face.It is important to be clear about the meaning of key concepts that organise relationships within educational practice. For example, Eriksen (2018) has illustrated the significant impact of differently understood meanings for the term 'bullying'. Accordingly, in the next section we examine the term 'collusion' with reference to its formal definition and identify three core features: sociality, intent and concealment. However, we recognise Austin's (1961) observation that sentences have 'meanings'not words. In the third section we therefore respect this advice by considering the social ...

show abstract

‘At least they’re learning something’: the hazy line between collaboration and collusion

Cited by 91 publications

References 4 publications

An Analysis of the Effect of Mobile Learning on Lebanese Higher Education

An Analysis of the Effect of Mobile Learning on Lebanese Higher Education

Plagiarism in second-language writing

The social anatomy of ‘collusion’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About