Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Academic Integrity in Non-text Based Disciplines

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Academic Integrity

Abstract

Much of the literature of academic integrity is strongly framed in the context of written prose; yet there are many academic disciplines in which the assessment items bear very little resemblance to written prose. It is argued in this chapter that disciplines using such assessment items require, at the very least, different approaches to attribution and different tools to detect breaches of academic integrity. However, the case is made that they might also require different standards, based on different practices and expectations within the industries to which they pertain. This case is based on a thorough examination of the literature of academic integrity in the disciplines of computing and the visual arts, which is supplemented by some considerations in a small number of other disciplines for which limited relevant literature was found.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Academy of Art University. (2014). Teaching tip week 11: Refining your teaching – Visual plagiarism. http://faculty.academyart.edu/resource/tips/1768.html. Accessed 21 Mar 2014.

  • Ahtiainen, A., Surakka, S., & Rahikainen, M. (2006). Plaggie: GNU-licensed source code plagiarism detection engine for Java exercises. In Proceedings of the 6th Baltic Sea conference on computing education research (Koli Calling 2006), Koli, pp. 141–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badge, J. (2010). How effective are electronic plagiarism detection systems and does it matter how you use them? Reviewing the evidence. Paper presented at the 4th international plagiarism conference, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. (1992). La(w) – A note to follow so: Have we forgotten the federal rules of evidence in music plagiarism cases? Southern California Law Review, 65, 1583–1637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blythman, M., Orr, S., & Mullin, J. (2007). Reaching a consensus: Plagiarism in non-text based media. London College of Communication, University of the Arts London. http://www.arts.ac.uk/induction/sites/default/files/resource/2010/09/plagiarism-non-text-based-media-casestudy.pdf. Accessed 17 Nov 2013.

  • Brimble, M., & Stevenson-Clarke, P. (2005). Perceptions of the prevalence and seriousness of academic dishonesty in Australian universities. The Australian Educational Researcher, 32(3), 19–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. (2007). A handbook for deterring plagiarism in higher education (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford Brookes University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chuda, D., Navrat, P., Kovacova, B., & Humay, P. (2012). The issue of (software) plagiarism: A student view. IEEE Transactions on Education, 55(1), 22–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosma, G., & Joy, M. (2008). Towards a definition of source code plagiarism. IEEE Transactions on Education, 51(2), 195–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culwin, F., MacLeod, A., & Lancaster, T. (2001). Source code plagiarism in UK HE computing schools: Issues, attitudes and tools. Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). South Bank University, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, L. (2004). Student attitudes to plagiarism and collusion within computer science. Paper presented at the international plagiarism conference 2004. http://www.plagiarismadvice.org/research-papers. Accessed 28 July 2013.

  • Economou, I. (2011). The problem with plagiarism. In Sixth international design education forum of South Africa conference (20/20 design vision), pp. 79–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foltýnek, T., Rybička, J., & Demoliou, C. (2013). Do students think what teachers think about plagiarism? In Proceedings of international plagiarism across Europe and beyond conference, Brno, pp. 127–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, L., & Robinson, A. (2012a). Spot the difference, final report. Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearning/ltig/spotthedifference.aspx. Accessed 15 Dec 2013.

  • Garrett, L., & Robinson, A. (2012b). Spot the difference! Visual plagiarism in the visual arts. In Electronic visualisation and the arts (EVA) conference, pp. 24–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gitchell, D., & Tran, N. (1999). Sim: A utility for detecting similarity in computer programs. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (SIGCSE ’99), New Orleans, pp. 266–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gullifer, J., & Tyson, G. A. (2010). Exploring university students’ perceptions of plagiarism: A focus group study. Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), 463–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gynnild, V., & Gotschalk, P. (2008). Promoting academic integrity at a midwestern university: Critical review and current challenges. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 4(2), 41–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, M., Tahaghoghi, S.M.M., & Walker, C. (2004). Educating students about plagiarism avoidance – A computer science perspective. In Proceedings of international conference on computers in education, Melbourne, pp. 1275–1284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, R. A. (2001). The plagiarism handbook: Strategies for preventing, detecting, and dealing with plagiarism. Los Angeles: Pyrczak Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Eilola, J., & Selber, S. A. (2007). Plagiarism, originality, assemblage. Computers and Composition, 24, 375–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joy, M., & Luck, M. (1999). Plagiarism in programming assignments. IEEE Transactions on Education, 42(2), 129–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joy, M. S., Sinclair, J. E., Boyatt, R., Uau, J. Y.-K., & Cosma, G. (2013). Student perspectives on source-code plagiarism. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 9(1), 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keyt, A. (1988). An improved framework for music plagiarism litigation. California Law Review, 76, 421–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loui, M. (2002). Seven ways to plagiarize: Handling real allegations of research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 529–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, C., Barrett, R., & Malcolm, J. (2006). Plagiarism is easy, but also easy to detect. In Plagiary: Cross-disciplinary studies in plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 57–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, S., & Frew, Z. (2006). Similarity and originality in code: Plagiarism and normal variation in student assignments. In Proceedings of the Eighth Australasian computing education conference, Hobart, pp. 143–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, H., Carroll, M., & Neill, J. T. (2005). Who cheats at university? A self-report study of dishonest academic behaviours in a sample of Australian university students. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martins, V., Fonte, D., Henriques, P.R., & da Cruz, D. (2014). Plagiarism detection: A tool survey and comparison. In Proceedings of the third international symposium on languages, applications, and technologies (SLATE ’14), Bragança, pp. 143–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D. L. (2005). Cheating among college and university students: A North American perspective. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 1(1), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeever, L. (2006). Online plagiarism detection services – Saviour or scourge? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 155–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mostafa, M. (2011). Inspiration versus plagiarism: Academic integrity in architectural education. International Journal of the Constructed Environment, 1(3), 85–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müllensiefen, D., & Pendzich, M. (2009). Court decisions on music plagiarism and the predictive value of similarity algorithms. Musicae Scientiae, 13(1 suppl), 257–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neville, C. (2010). The complete guide to referencing and avoiding plagiarism. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. (2004). Rebels without a clause: Towards an institutional framework for dealing with plagiarism by students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28(3), 291–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. (2009). Beyond text based plagiarism: A paradigm for tackling academic misconduct in the creative disciplines. Red Guide 54. Newcastle: Northumbria University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. (2010). A consideration of academic misconduct in the creative disciplines: From inspiration to imitation and acceptable incorporation. Emerge, 2, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prechelt, L., Malpohl, G., & Philippsen, M. (2002). Finding plagiarisms among a set of programs with JPlag. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 8, 1016–1038.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. (1994). Self-plagiarism or fair use? Communications of the ACM, 37(8), 21–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schleimer, S., Wilkerson, D.S., & Aiken, A. (2003). Winnowing: Local algorithms for document fingerprinting. In Proceedings of the ACM international conference on management of data (SIGMOD ’03), San Diego, 76–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Şendağ, S., Duran, M., & Fraser, M. R. (2012). Surveying the extent of involvement in online academic dishonesty (e-dishonesty) related practices among university students and the rationale students provide: One university’s experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 849–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheard, J., & Dick, M. (2011). Computing student practices of cheating and plagiarism: A decade of change. In Proceedings of 16th annual joint conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (ITiCSE’11), Darmstadt, pp. 233–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheard, J., Markham, S., & Dick, M. (2003). Investigating differences in cheating behaviours of IT undergraduate and graduate students: The maturity and motivation factors. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(1), 91–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Cook, B., Sheard, J., Carbone, A., & Johnson, C. (2013). Academic integrity: Differences between computing assessments and essays. In Proceedings of 13th Koli Calling conference on computing education research (Koli Calling ’13), Koli, pp. 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Cook, B., Sheard, J., Carbone, A., & Johnson, C. (2014a). Academic integrity perceptions regarding computing assessments and essays. In Proceedings of tenth international computing education research conference (ICER 2014), Glasgow, pp. 107–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Cook, B., Sheard, J., Carbone, A., & Johnson, C. (2014b). Student perceptions of the acceptability of various code-writing practices. In Proceedings of 19th ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (ITiCSE ’14), Uppsala, pp. 105–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Cook, B., Carbone, A., Johnson, C., Lawrence, C., Minichiello, M., & Sheard, J. (2014c). How well do academic integrity policies and procedures apply to non-text assessments? In Sixth international integrity and plagiarism conference (6IIPC), Gateshead.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Cook, B., Minichiello, M., & Lawrence, C. (2014d). Academic integrity: Differences between design assessments and essays. In Proceedings of design research society annual conference, Umeå.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogts, D. (2009). Plagiarising of source code by novice programmers a “cry for help”? In Proceedings of the 2009 annual research conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists, Riverside, pp. 141–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, B. (2009). New twists on an old problem: Preventing plagiarism and enforcing academic integrity in an art and design school. Art Documentation, 28(1), 48–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, C., & Li, F.W. (2014). Failure rates in introductory programming revisited. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (ITiCSE ’14), Uppsala, pp. 39–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise, M. J. (1992). Detection of similarities in student programs: YAP’ing may be preferable to Plague’ing. ACM SIGSCE Bulletin, 24, 268–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaka, B., Steurer, M., & Kappe, F. (2009). Framework for extending plagiarism detection in virtual worlds. In Proceedings of the third IEEE international conference on research challenges in information science, Fes, pp. 59–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidman, R. (2008). Multidimensional correlation of software source code. In Proceedings of the third international workshop on systematic approaches to digital forensic engineering (SADFE ’08), Oakland, pp. 144–156.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Design, Communication, and Information Technology, University of Newcastle, PO Box 127, 2258, Ourimbah, NSW, Australia

    Simon

Authors
  1. Simon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

    Tracey Ann Bretag

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this entry

Cite this entry

Simon (2015). Academic Integrity in Non-text Based Disciplines. In: Bretag, T. (eds) Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_61-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_61-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-287-079-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation