Abstract
Definitions of plagiarism tend to be bound up in discussions of how to avoid it, with pedagogical responses locked in a binary with ethical responses. One way to understand the shifting definitions is to tease out the various source-use pedagogies and the responses to incorrect or inadequate citation. Prior to the 1970s, student writers were advised to incorporate the ideas of others in either summary or quotation; as instruction in paraphrase began to be added as a third method, the definition was often in conflict with the models provided and the emphasis was on citation not originality. With the move in the 1990s from pedagogies attending to the text to penalties for students who misused sources 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 and according to some are plagiarizing. The resulting text has been called patchwriting, cryptomnesia, unconscious plagiarism, and non-prototypical plagiarism, along with multiple subcategories, and the definition often shapes the response. The term most common in the United States, patchwriting, locates the transgression in the text – the writing – not in the student and their ethical development. The binary between literacy skills and ethical standards is at the heart of conversations about patchwriting, especially cited patchwriting, and is also appearing in conversations about AI-generated text. This chapter explores these definitions and the pedagogical responses made possible when patchwriting is removed from the category “plagiarism” with its attendant focus on ethics, and attention is refocused on writing skills.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. https://alair.ala.org/handle/11213/7668
Berke, J. (1972). Twenty questions for the writer: A rhetoric with readings. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Brown, A. S., & Murphy, D. R. (1989). Cryptomnesia: Delineating inadvertent plagiarism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(3), 432–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.15.3.432
Cheating in colleges. (1976, June 7). Time, 29–30.
Chittick, R. D., & Stevick, R. D. (1961). Rhetoric for exposition. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Council of Writing Program Administrators. (2003). Defining and avoiding plagiarism: The WPA statement on best practices. https://www.wpacouncil.org/aws/CWPA/pt/sd/news_article/272555/_PARENT/layout_details/false
Eliot, T. S. (1920). Tradition and the Individual Talent. The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism. Alfred A. Knopf.
Fakouri, M. E. (1972). Achievement motivation and cheating. Psychological Reports, 31(2), 629–630. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1972.31.2.629
Gibaldi, J., & Achtert, W. S. (1977). MLA Handbook for writers of research papers, theses, and dissertations. Modern Language Association.
Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2021). They say/I say: The moves that matter in academic writing (5th ed.).
Hacker, D. (1991). The Bedford guide for writers (3rd ed.).
Hahn, J. (2023, February 16). Rethinking patchwriting: Understanding how students fail to paraphrase[Conference presentation]. Conference on College Composition and Communication, Chicago, IL, United States.
Hart-Davidson, W. (2018). Writing with robots and other curiosities of the age of machine rhetorics. In J. Alexander & J. Rhodes (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of digital writing and rhetoric (pp. 248–255). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315518497-24
Head, A. J., &Eisenberg, M. B. (2010). Assigning inquiry: How handouts for research assignments guide today’s college students. Project Information Literacy Progress Report, The Information School, University of Washington. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535162.pdf
Hetherington, E. M., & Feldman, S. E. (1964). College cheating as afunction of subject and situational variables. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045337
Horning, A. S. (2011). Where to put the manicules: A theory of expert reading. Across the Disciplines, 8(2), 1–18.10.37514/atd-j.2011.8.2.08.
Howard, R. M. (1993). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11(2), 233–246.
Howard, R. M. (1999). Perspectives on writing: Theory, research, practice: Vol. 2. Standing in the shadow of giants: Plagiarists, authors, collaborators. Ablex Publishing.
Howard, R. M., & Jamieson, S. (2013). Researched writing. In G. Tate, A. R. Taggart, & H. B. Hessler (Eds.), A guide to composition pedagogies (2nd ed., pp. 231–247). Oxford University Press.
Howard, R. M., & Jamieson, S. (2021). The ethics of teaching rhetorical intertextuality. Journal of Academic Ethics, 19(3), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09424-2
Howard, R. M., Serviss, T., & Rodrigue, T. K. (2010). Writing from sources, writing from sentences. Writing and Pedagogy, 2(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v2i2.177
Hull, G., & Rose, M. (1989). Rethinking remediation: Toward a social-cognitive understanding of problematic reading and writing. Written Communication, 6(2), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088389006002001
ICAI, International Center for Academic Integrity. (2023). https://academicintegrity.org
Jamieson, S. (2013). Reading and engaging sources: What students’ use of sources reveals about advanced reading skills. Across the Disciplines, 10(4), 1–20.10.37514/atd-j.2013.10.4.15.
Jamieson, S. (2023). The AI “crisis” and a return to pedagogy. Composition Studies, 50(3), 153–158.
Jamieson, S., & Howard, R. M. (2013). Sentence-mining: Uncovering the amount of reading and reading comprehension in college writers’ researched writing. In R. McClure & J. P. Purdy (Eds.), The new digital scholar: Exploring and enriching the research and writing practices of NextGen students (pp. 111–133). American Society for Information Science and Technology.
Jamieson, S., & Howard, R. M. (2019). Rethinking the relationship between plagiarism and academic integrity. International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 16(2), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.18162/ritpu-2019-v16n2-07
Kantz, M. (1990). Helping students use textual sources persuasively. College English, 52(1), 74–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/377413
Levin, G. (1987). The MacMillan college handbook. MacMillan Publishing Company.
Manarin, K. (2022). Reading across the disciplines: An introduction. In K. Manarin (Ed.), Reading across the disciplines (pp. 1–22). Indiana University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv224v185.4
McCrimmon, J. M. (1957). Writing with a purpose: A first course in college composition. Houghton Mifflin Press.
Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 317–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2003.08.004
Perrin, P. G., & Dykema, K. W. (1959). Writer’s guide and index to English (3rd ed.). Scott Foresman.
Perrin, P. G., Dykema, K. W., & Ebbitt, W. R. (1964). Writer’s guide and index to English (4th ed.). Scott Foresman.
Peters, M., & Cadieux, A. (2019). Are Canadian professors teaching the skills and knowledge students need to prevent plagiarism? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 15(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-019-0047-z
Roig, M. (1997). Can undergraduate students determine whether text has been plagiarized? The Psychological Record, 47(1), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03395215
Roig, M. (1999). When college students’ attempts at paraphrasing become instances of plagiarism. Psychological Reports, 84(3), 973–982. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1999.84.3.973
Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors. Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1103_8
Roig, M., &de Jacquant, J. (2001). Guidelines on plagiarism and paraphrasing in writing manuals across various disciplines. In N. H. Steneck & M. D. Scheetz (Eds.), Investigating research integrity: Proceedings of the first ORI research conference on research integrity (pp. 281–284). US Department of Health & Human Services. https://ori.hhs.gov/documents/proceedings_rri.pdf
Seehausen, M., Kazzer, P., Bajbouj, M., &Prehn, K. (2012). Effects of empathic paraphrasing – extrinsic emotion regulation in social conflict. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, article 482.Published online 2012 Nov 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00482.
Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Errors and expectations. Oxford University Press.
Weber-Wulff, D. (2014). False feathers: A perspective on academic plagiarism. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39961-9
White, W. F., Zielonka, A. W., & Gaier, E. L. (1967). Personality correlates of cheating among college women under stress of independent opportunistic behavior. The Journal of Educational Research, 61(2), 68–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1967.10883588
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this entry
Cite this entry
Jamieson, S. (2023). Patchwriting, Plagiarism, Pedagogy: Definitions and Implications. In: Eaton, S.E. (eds) Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_68-2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_68-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-287-079-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-287-079-7
eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education
Publish with us
Chapter history
-
Latest
Patchwriting, Plagiarism, Pedagogy: Definitions and Implications- Published:
- 02 June 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_68-2
-
Original
Is It Plagiarism or Patchwriting? Toward a Nuanced Definition- Published:
- 24 July 2015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_68-1