Plagiarism: Punishment or Prevention?

By: Mona Meyer

According to a survey by the Psychological Record, 36% of undergraduate students admit to having plagiarized written material. A poll by US News and World Report found that 90% of students believe that cheaters are never caught or appropriately disciplined.  A study conducted by Donald L. McCabe found that 55% of college faculty would not take the time or effort to document suspected instances of cheating by students.

How troubling are these findings?

I think most would agree that discouraging plagiarism at college campuses by holding cheaters accountable for their actions contributes to a healthy society. But is punishment after the act really the best course of action? Is it even realistic, given that such a small percentage of college faculty seem motivated to document or report it?

What if faculty were to take a proactive preventive approach instead? To do this, they would need to understand the reasons WHY college students plagiarize. Consider the motivational differences between childhood and adult learners. It is well documented in educational research that children tend to be intrinsically curious and motivated to learn for learning’s sake, while adults are more motivated by how the learning can benefit them personally.

Consider, for example, John Keller’s ARCS model of motivation. According to this theory, to motivate adult learners, we should:

1. Gain their Attention by presenting novel or incongruous events or by posing challenging questions and problems to be solved.
2. Establish Relevance by appealing to the learner’s prior experience and demonstrating the usefulness of the skills being taught.
3. Build Confidence by allowing learners to control the learning environment and successfully complete tasks.
4. Ensure Satisfaction by presenting challenging tasks within a safe environment that promotes achievement.

Now, let’s take a look at the traditional methods of assessment used for college courses and consider whether or not they conform to these adult motivators.

1. For the most part, “survey” type courses tend to use assessment instruments such as midterms and final exams. These exams are usually multiple-choice format with the occasional short answer question thrown in here and there. Let’s look at this assessment method in terms of ARCS:
   1. There’s nothing particularly novel or incongruous about this sort of approach, and these instruments are usually more focused on fact recall than on problem solving. This sounds like a failure to gain Attention.
   2. Unless it’s very easy for learners to visualize how the information on the test is relevant to what they’ll be doing on the job, the Relevance is likely to be perceived as weak.
2. Do things improve when we move into upper-division coursework? In upper-division courses, learners are typically required to complete research papers and/or projects to demonstrate their mastery of the material. Although it’s true that Attention and Relevance are more easily achieved with this approach, we should also consider the typical measure of aptitude used in almost all colleges and universities for these assignments—the A-F grading scale.
   1. The fear of failure associated with using grades as a measure of aptitude certainly can undermine a learner’s Confidence. In fact, it’s not hard to imagine that learners turn to cheating to alleviate this fear.
   2. While most learners experience a sense of Satisfaction from the completion of a long-term project, this is often undermined by receiving a grade that is less than what they feel they deserve, given the amount of effort expended.

I’ll leave you with the following question, then. Should college professors expend a significant amount of time and energy trying to “catch” plagiarists, or would that energy be better spent designing methods of assessment that conform to theories of adult learning motivation? Food for thought.

This blog post was written by guest blogger and senior manager for instructional design at A Pass, Mona Meyer.