The article claims that plagiarism is associated incidents of the desirable observable fact that crosses a boundary defining affiliations that are unsuitable in a specific framework. Plagiarism is one of the chief matters for all lecturers in higher education. Most teachers have had a direct experience with a plagiarism case in one time of their career life. Their reactions are as diverse as the incidents. This is affected by their personal interpretation and the influence from their schools. The purpose of the article was to identify better methods of training academic writing to international learners. The paper also elaborates why and how inappropriate lecturers’ interpretations show a discrepancy. The article brings to a closes that one institution’s definition may be erroneous. Therefore, disciplinary expectations need to be well thought-out (Judy, 1998).
The article has studied how institutions have formulated various descriptions to deal with the issue of plagiarism. According to the article, these definitions ignore the differences in the nature of various courses offered in the institution. Lecturers and students get mixed messages because what applies in one discipline may be irrelevant in another. Plagiarism is regarded as misconduct globally. It has been a common academics’ concern athwart territorial and tribal restrictions. Many lecturers have experienced plagiarism and are concerned at how to attend to it. The interviews conducted in the study show how they discover and evaluate the seriousness of potential incidents of this delinquency (Barry, 2008). Moreover, they are the ones to investigate students’ bearings in regard to plagiarism and collusion. Tricky sectors that students use sources inappropriately were spotted. These included patch writing, short of common understanding, students’ personality as academic authors, clashing strain of interdisciplinary programs and use of so many outlets that recognizing the source is intricate. Interviews undertaken on lecturers’ about their experience about plagiarism revealed that disciplines updated and altered their advances. The study showed that lecturers possess complicated scrutiny of the matter. It used two approaches to discover the variation among them. One utilized a technique to imply that rewording tendencies of lecturers differ, with a number doing it in a plagiarism way. The other assessed lecturers on their opinion about its scope and how they tackled those incidents they identified. The number and methods used to deal with occurrences of plagiarism were effective.
The lecturers participating confessed to diverse techniques of dealing with such cases. Students receive dissimilar punishments from their lecturers or heads. Some walked away with a warning while others proceeded to a formal second stage. They found out that mind-sets towards plagiarism diverge even among academics working in a similar area. Some universities rate research rather than the function of tracking down plagiarism, tampering with the lecturers’ approach. The interview showed that some lecturers connect plagiarism and cheating while others separate the two with a few believing that collusion is a type of plagiarism. The interviewers note that their studies are more related to personal perspective than to disciplinary angle. Some argue that discussion of the subject is sensitive and can affect lecturers. It is illegitimate to hand in assignments you have not written. Boundaries of citing are complicated to define because of discipline diversities (Carol, 2007). The study used by the article is supposed to inform international students about academic writing teaching. Lecturers identify what they regard as plagiarism, their experiences and how they react to it. They used software to analysis the data. Thus, considerable themes and scrutiny was easy to achieve. Other findings were that it is rare that the lecturers use the official definition of plagiarism that their universities used. This brings about controversies when dealing with cases. Before, treatment was a bit lenient but not anymore. Plagiarism is considered an abomination in today’s’ world. Historians and English literature lectures differ tremendously. Language teachers also differ with humanities teachers. Every field has developed its own principles.
This poses a challenge to students doing foreign language and foreign students doing English. In engineering, students have shared projects that they work in groups. Unlike engineering, law students capitalize on individual work. Individuality instills a state of mind rather than a place of work attitude. Discussing written assignments is viewed as collusion. Students struggle to adapt to different academic and workplace expectations. The boundaries formulated may conflict from university to another. Fashion design takes a slightly different approach. Design assignments do not give out writing tasks on most cases. Written ones are given the same treatment as other humanities’ students. Design students rarely get into plagiarism troubles in their practical work. Copying is very uncommon especially in fashion design. They strive to be known by their work and tend to not copy someone else’s. This is also observed in innovative courses like computing and engineering. They refer to existing works outside class to be aware of what is currently in the market. Though, one designer can be accused of carbon copying another’s’ work. The public feedback on fashion is very fast compared to other faculties. Therefore, the designers and design students concentrate on their identities rather than other person’s. By clarifying this, the article has brought out how much universities need to allow some level of discipline level treatment (Buranen and Roy, 1999).
The main purpose of the editorial was to make out better means of training scholarly writing to global learners. When course leaders were contacted, some lecturers were currently teaching. Their opinion might have changed the course of the study. Even those were available provided contradicting experiences. Lecturers whose experiences contradicted the developed theories were sought for semi structured interview. Another weakness is that only twenty lecturers were chosen from an institution with hundreds of academics. Even the faculties interviewed were only five. Sampling is not always the exact opinion of the whole population. Participants of the interviews were few in number. Basing conclusions on their opinion alone is inappropriate because some academics who do not agree with the view point of these representatives (Bill, 2007). Another issue is that the researcher was strange to all participants before they contacted them. The thoughts provoked would perhaps have been different had they been familiar with each other. In addition, perception was affected by the lecturer’s personal experiences. Several expressed bitterness at finding out the misconduct while others sympathized with mild cases. Finding a professional feedback was biased. Moreover, more courses have been introduced with more diverse treatments in need. The article is therefore not completely reliable as per now (Heidi, 2008).
Generally, disciplines describe plagiarism in their own terms. Universities struggle to create consistency in handling various incidents of plagiarism. Faculties are divided by the nature of their studies with lecturers taking conflicting stands on plagiarism. Lecturers and universities have not been found to agree on the description or penalty. Plagiarism continues to rise with the conflict. Universities have tried to limit it by releasing statements explaining how suspects will be dealt with. But still, it remains mediated by lecturers because they are in direct contact with the students. University policies ought to allow a degree of freedom in all disciplines to promote transparency and fairness. If this does not happen, students get confused by the mixed messages they receive from the institution. This does not only increase plagiarism but make the fight harder. The article has done a good job to fulfill its goals but the biased sampling adds negative touch to it.