Abstracts - Earli

procedures. Journalists in particular, choose certain types of metaphors. They seem to insist on‘shock and horror’ language and are prone to creating (often fictional) examples of studentcheating, In so doing, they risk creating fear rather than understanding; in the guise of ‘calling foraction’, they risk impeding it. Deterring and managing student plagiarism is best accomplished asa normal part of academic activity. The paper calls for action so that academic judgments andstudents’ learning underpin how institutions understand and deal with instances of plagiarism.Academic dishonesty, ethical norms and learningGunnel Colnerud, Linköping University, SwedenMichael Rosander, Linköping University, SwedenThe aim of this paper is to deduce which ethical norms and considerations are implicitly present instudents’ answers when they are asked to define the degree to which a number of presented actionsconstitute acts of academic dishonesty. The study asked 325 students from four educationalprograms to answer a Likert-scaled questionnaire. Their task was to value 23 situations and statewhether they considered them to be cheating. A statistical analysis of the results formed the basisfor a subsequent qualitative analysis which sought to deduce students’ ethical norms. It was asked:What characterises the items regarded as academic dishonesty and those not regarded as academicdishonesty? The theoretical background for the study is derived predominantly fromconsequentialist, teleological, and deontological theory. It is possible to observe an implicit logicin the students’ attitudes towards the degree of academic dishonesty by interpreting the results interms of his or her learning. The study assumes that the lower the degree of effort and workexhibited by the student, the lower the degree of learning can be expected. Qualitative analysis ofthe students’ judgements showed that the lower the student’s expected learning, the higher theydefined the degree of academic dishonesty. If a student breaches an academic norm but still learnsparts or most of the task, the students’ answers show that it is more acceptable than if he or she hasdone no work and consequently has learned nothing (of the task). If an act of academic dishonestyresults in learning it can be theoretically justified by two arguments. The first is deontological – ifyou learn, you fulfil your duty. The second is teleological – if you have learned, then your mark isfairly achieved and you do no harm to other students.The use of ‘electronic detection systems’ for learners: Is there a pedagogic argument or are wejust ‘teaching them to cheat’?Lisa Emerson, Massey University, New ZealandMary Davis, Oxford Brookes University, United KingdomJude Carroll, Oxford Brookes University, United KingdomViews differ markedly as to the place of electronic text-matching tools in addressing studentplagiarism. Studies tend to concentrate on functionality, reliability and utility of current systemsand/or case studies of their introduction. This study explores evidence that software designed tohelp teachers identify student plagiarism can be a teaching tool to help students learn the skillsnecessary to avoid it. The paper uses data gathered in two countries (New Zealand and the UnitedKingdom) and in a range of educational settings. Findings include students’ experiences of usingtext-matching tools and how the feedback, especially if teacher-mediated, helps studentsunderstand and use acceptable citation practices. The tool involved is Turnitin, used widely in theUK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Recommendations designed to improve use withspecific groups of students as well as issues which continue to cause for concern are explored. Thepaper serves as an argument for placing student learning at the heart of any approach to dealingwith student plagiarism and addresses the concerns of teachers who fear that allowing students– 371 –