Is It Plagiarism or Patchwriting? Toward a Nuanced Definition

Living reference work entry


Prior to the 1970s, student writers were advised to incorporate the ideas of the authors they read in one of two ways: summary or quotation. With increasing instruction in paraphrase as an acceptable method of reproducing the ideas of others came the recognition that sometimes when students produce something that looks like paraphrase, they are actually drawing too heavily on the words of the source rather than rendering the ideas in “original language.” The resulting text has been called patchwriting, cryptomnesia, unconscious plagiarism, and non-prototypical plagiarism, along with various subcategories including clause quilt, copy and paste, word string, pawn sacrifice, and cut and slide plagiarism. The term most commonly used in the USA is patchwriting, although the definition of that term is not fixed and neither is the classification of patchwriting as plagiarism. Some teachers and scholars argue that when patchwriting is accompanied by some form of citation, it should not be classified as plagiarism or as ethical or moral misconduct, but rather as misuse of sources. In some cases that distinction hangs on the concept of intent, which for many is connected with the question of the reading and writing skills of the students in question. Recent research into reading and citation has complicated beliefs about the role of textual difficulty and about student reading practices and source use, suggesting the need for more complex analysis and more nuanced terminology. This chapter describes the distinctions scholars have drawn between plagiarism and the misuse of sources most commonly referred to as patchwriting.


Source Text Academic Dishonesty Quotation Mark Pedagogical Response Community College Student 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597–1611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association. (1994). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (4th ed.). Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. Berke, J. (1972). Twenty questions for the writer: A rhetoric with readings. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, A., & Murphy, D. (1989). Cryptomnesia: Delineating inadvertent plagiarism. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15(3), 432–442.Google Scholar
  5. Cheating in College. (1976, June 7). Time, pp. 29–30.Google Scholar
  6. Chittick, R., & Stevick, R. (1961). Rhetoric for exposition. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
  7. Council of Writing Program Administrators. (2003). Defining and avoiding plagiarism: The WPA statement on best practices. Retrieved from
  8. Fakouri, M. (1972). Achievement motivation and cheating. Psychological Reports, 31, 629–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibaldi, J., & Achtert, W. (1977). MLA handbook for writers of research papers, theses, and dissertations. New York: Modern Language Association.Google Scholar
  10. Hacker, D. (1991). The Bedford guide for college writers (3rd ed.). Boston: Bedford.Google Scholar
  11. Haines, V., Diekhoff, G., LaBeff, E., & Clark, R. (1986). College cheating: Immature, lack of commitment, and the neutralizing attitude. Research in Higher Education, 25(4), 342–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hetherington, E., & Feldman, S. (1964). College cheating as a function of subject and situational variables. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 212–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horning, A. (2010). Reading, writing, and digitizing: A meta-analysis of reading research. The Reading Matrix, 10(2), 243–270.Google Scholar
  14. Howard, R. (1993). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11(2), 233–246.Google Scholar
  15. Howard, R. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57, 788–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Howard, R. (1999). Standing in the shadow of giants: Plagiarists, authors, collaborators. Stamford: Ablex.Google Scholar
  17. Howard, R., & Jamieson, S. (2013). Research writing. In G. Tate, A. Rupiper-Taggart, B. Hessler, & K. Schick (Eds.), A guide to composition pedagogies (2nd ed., pp. 231–247). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Howard, R., Serviss, T., & Rodrigue, T. (2010). Writing from sources, writing from sentences. Writing and Pedagogy, 2(2), 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hull, G., & Rose, M. (1989). Rethinking remediation: Toward a social-cognitive understanding of problematic reading and writing. Written Communication, 6(2), 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jamieson, S. (2008). One size does not fit all: Plagiarism across the curriculum. In R. Howard & A. Robillard (Eds.), Pluralizing plagiarism: Identities, contexts, pedagogies (pp. 77–91). New York: Heinemann-Boynton/Cook.Google Scholar
  21. Jamieson, S. (2013). Reading and engaging sources: What students’ use of sources reveals about advanced reading skills. Across the disciplines. Retrieved from
  22. Jamieson, S. (2015). Revising patchwriting: Data-based insights into ‘transgressive’ student writing. Paper presented at the annual convention of the modern language association, Vancouver, 9 Jan 2015.Google Scholar
  23. Jamieson, S., & Howard, R. (2011). Unraveling the citation trail. Project information literacy smart talk, no. 8. Retrieved from
  24. Jamieson, S., & Howard, R. (2013). Sentence-mining: Uncovering the amount of reading and reading comprehension in college writers’ researched writing. In R. McClure & J. Purdy (Eds.), The new digital scholar: Exploring and enriching the research and writing practices of NextGen students (pp. 111–133). Medford: American Society for Information Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  25. Kantz, M. (1990). Helping students use textual sources persuasively. College English, 52(1), 74–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kennedy, M. (1985). The composing process of students writing from sources. Written Communication, 2, 434–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knowlton, J., & Hamerlynck, L. (1967). Perception of deviant behavior: A study of cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 379–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levin, G. (1987). The Macmillan college handbook. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. McCrimmon, J. (1957). Writing with a purpose: A first course in college composition. Cambridge, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  30. Nuss, E. (1984). Academic integrity: Comparing faculty and student attitudes. Improving College and University Teaching, 32, 140–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pecorari, D. (2001). Plagiarism and international students: How the English-speaking university responds. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 229–245). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  32. Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 317–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pecorari, D. (2008). Academic writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  34. Perrin, P., & Dykema, K. (1959). Writer’s guide and index to English (3rd ed.). Chicago: Scott Foresman.Google Scholar
  35. Perrin, P., Dykema, K., & Ebbitt, W. (1964). Writer’s guide and index to English (4th ed.). Chicago: Scott Foresman.Google Scholar
  36. Roig, M. (1997). Can undergraduate students determine whether text has been plagiarized? Psychological Record, 47(1), 113–123.Google Scholar
  37. Roig, M. (1999). When college students’ attempts at paraphrasing become instances of potential plagiarism. Psychological Reports, 84(3), 973–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors. Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), 308–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roig, M., & de Jacquant, J. (2001). Guidelines on plagiarism and paraphrasing in writing manuals across various disciplines. In Proceedings: Investigating research integrity, pp. 281–284.Google Scholar
  40. Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Errors and expectations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Sherrill, D., Salisbury, J., Horowitz, B., & Friedman, S. (1971). Classroom cheating: Consistent attitude, perceptions and behavior. American Educational Research Journal, 8, 503–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weber-Wulff, D. (2014). False feathers: A perspective on academic plagiarism. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39961-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weber-Wulff, D., & Wohensdorf, G. (2006). Strategien der plagiatsbekämpfung. Information: Wissenchaft & Praxis, 57(2), 90–98.Google Scholar
  44. White, W., Zielonka, A., & Gaier, E. (1967). Personality correlates of cheating among college women under stress of independent opportunistic behavior. Journal of Educational Research, 61, 68–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Drew UniversityMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations