19.02.2014 Views

Worksheet with answers and context for students - School of ...

Worksheet with answers and context for students - School of ...

Worksheet with answers and context for students - School of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Plagiarism <strong>and</strong> Good Academic Practice Exercise Answers<br />

You should have discussed the reasons <strong>for</strong> your judgements as to whether each excerpt does<br />

or does not show plagiarism. Below is some further guidance that reflects the way in which<br />

plagiarism is judged in the <strong>School</strong> <strong>of</strong> In<strong>for</strong>matics.<br />

Coursework excerpt 1<br />

These are r<strong>and</strong>om numbers that lie <strong>with</strong>in a specified range (typically 0 to 1), <strong>with</strong> any one<br />

number in the range just as likely as any other. They are, in other words, what you probably<br />

think ‘r<strong>and</strong>om numbers’ are.<br />

It should be obvious that this coursework extract has plagiarised the original source. The<br />

material is copied verbatim <strong>with</strong>out any reference to the source material or any indication that<br />

these are not the student's own thoughts.<br />

Coursework excerpt 2<br />

These are r<strong>and</strong>om numbers that lie <strong>with</strong>in a specified range (typically 0 to 1), <strong>with</strong> any one<br />

number in the range just as likely as any other. They are, in other words, what you probably<br />

think ‘r<strong>and</strong>om numbers’ are. (Press et al, 1992).<br />

This excerpt is a little better than excerpt 1, but is still regarded as plagiarism. While the<br />

original source has been acknowledged as a source <strong>of</strong> ideas <strong>and</strong> in<strong>for</strong>mation, there is no<br />

indication that the text itself has also been copied.<br />

Coursework excerpt 3<br />

“Uni<strong>for</strong>m deviates are just r<strong>and</strong>om numbers that lie <strong>with</strong>in a specified range (typically 0 to 1),<br />

<strong>with</strong> any one number in the range just as likely as any other. They are, in other words, what<br />

you probably think ‘r<strong>and</strong>om numbers’ are.” (Press et al, 1992, p.275).<br />

No this is not plagiarism, since both the source <strong>of</strong> ideas (citing Press et al) <strong>and</strong> the source <strong>of</strong><br />

the text used (use <strong>of</strong> quotation marks <strong>and</strong> page citation) are indicated. However, a<br />

coursework submission that included such a citation would normally be considered weak since<br />

all the student has done is transferred material from one source to their answer. Rarely is it<br />

important to use the exact <strong>for</strong>m <strong>of</strong> words given in source material in your own work. A<br />

stronger answer is likely to consider the ideas implied by the source <strong>with</strong>in the <strong>context</strong> <strong>of</strong> the<br />

specific coursework task.<br />

Coursework excerpt 4<br />

Press et al (1992) make the distinction between uni<strong>for</strong>mly distributed r<strong>and</strong>om numbers, which<br />

they refer to as ‘uni<strong>for</strong>m deviates’, <strong>and</strong> normally distributed r<strong>and</strong>om numbers <strong>with</strong> a given<br />

mean <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard deviation. This distinction is not made so clear in the Excel help files<br />

(Micros<strong>of</strong>t, 2002), where the RAND() function is assumed to return a r<strong>and</strong>om number from a<br />

uni<strong>for</strong>m distribution.<br />

There are no problems <strong>with</strong> this extract. The source material is clearly identified. It<br />

contributes to a strong answer as it is also evaluated <strong>and</strong> contrasted <strong>with</strong> another correctly<br />

cited reference.<br />

V1.0 jwo 11 th Sept 2007


Coursework excerpt 5<br />

Uni<strong>for</strong>m deviates are simply r<strong>and</strong>om values that exist <strong>with</strong>in a particular range (usually 0 to 1)<br />

where any number is as likely as any other. Such numbers are probably what most people<br />

consider as ‘r<strong>and</strong>om numbers’ (Press et al, 1992)..<br />

This is an important extract to consider. It would normally be regarded as an example <strong>of</strong><br />

plagiarism. While the original assertion made by Press et al is cited correctly, there is still a<br />

similarity in the <strong>for</strong>m <strong>of</strong> text between the extract <strong>and</strong> original source. Cosmetic changes to a<br />

few words are not sufficient to justify the impression that this is entirely the student's own<br />

words.<br />

Coursework excerpt 6<br />

Uni<strong>for</strong>m deviates, which are commonly ranged between 0 <strong>and</strong> 1, consist <strong>of</strong> r<strong>and</strong>om numbers<br />

such that each is as likely to be generated as any other. It is this <strong>for</strong>m <strong>of</strong> r<strong>and</strong>omness that is<br />

most <strong>of</strong>ten thought <strong>of</strong> as ‘r<strong>and</strong>om’. But it is useful to distinguish this from other <strong>for</strong>ms <strong>of</strong><br />

r<strong>and</strong>om distribution such as a Gaussian distribution <strong>with</strong> a given mean <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard deviation<br />

(Press et al, 1992)..<br />

Like excerpt 5, this again would be considered plagiarism. There is evidence that the text <strong>of</strong><br />

the source has been used to generate the extract, <strong>with</strong> some word substitution <strong>of</strong> small parts<br />

<strong>of</strong> it.<br />

Coursework excerpt 7<br />

We can distinguish between two classes <strong>of</strong> r<strong>and</strong>om distributions. Uni<strong>for</strong>m deviates, which are<br />

commonly ranged between 0 <strong>and</strong> 1, consist <strong>of</strong> r<strong>and</strong>om numbers equally probable <strong>of</strong> selection.<br />

In contrast, a Gaussian distribution, defined by a mean <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ard deviation, will have an<br />

unequal likelihood <strong>of</strong> any given number being selected. While there is a role <strong>for</strong> both <strong>for</strong>ms <strong>of</strong><br />

r<strong>and</strong>om number generation, it is the <strong>for</strong>mer that is usually considered as ‘r<strong>and</strong>om’ (Press et al,<br />

1992)<br />

Here the author <strong>of</strong> the extract has made a serious attempt to produce their own account <strong>of</strong><br />

the subject. There are still some remnants <strong>of</strong> the original sentence structure, but they are<br />

sufficiently remote <strong>for</strong> this to be normally regarded as appropriate citation.<br />

References:<br />

Press, W., Teukolsky, S, Vetterling, W. <strong>and</strong> Flannery, B. (1992) Numerical Recipes in C,<br />

2 nd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0 521 43108 5<br />

Micros<strong>of</strong>t (2002) RAND worksheet function, Micros<strong>of</strong>t Excel 2002 Help File.<br />

Willmot, C. <strong>and</strong> Harrison, T. (2003) An exercise to teach bioscience <strong>students</strong> about<br />

plagiarism, Journal <strong>of</strong> Biological Education, 37(3) pp.139-140.<br />

V1.0 jwo 11 th Sept 2007

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!