Abstract
This paper reports on a study of crowd-sourcing ‘study aid’ web platforms. Students are sharing completed academic coursework through a growing network of ‘study aid’ web platforms like CourseHero.com. These websites facilitate the crowd-sourced exchange of coursework, and effectively support plagiarism. However, virtually no data exists concerning the scope or extent of coursework being shared through these platforms. This paper reports on two experiments to monitor the frequency of coursework from a sample university uploaded onto CourseHero.com. Ultimately, both experiments failed to produce a clear or meaningful measurement of coursework upload frequency. The apparently widespread use of these crowd-sourcing ‘study aid’ websites and the failure of these experiments demonstrates the need for further investigation into how much coursework is being shared through such platforms, how frequently it is shared, and what kind of coursework is being shared. Addressing these issues is an important step into measuring the impact of these wellsprings of academically dishonest behavior.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Brown, J. S. (2008). Foreword. In T. Jiyoshi & M. Kumar (Eds.), Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge. Cambridge: MIT.
Course Hero. (2018). Why you need unlocks. Retrieved from https://www.coursehero.com/blog/course-hero-unlocks-free/
Course Hero. (2019a). About us. Retrieved from https://www.coursehero.com/about-us/.
Course Hero. (2019b). Copyright infringement notification. Retrieved from https://www.coursehero.com/copyright-infringement/
Course Hero. (2019c). Payment. Retrieved from https://www.coursehero.com/payment/.
Course Hero. (2019d). Terms of use. Retrieved from https://www.coursehero.com/terms-of-use/.
Course Hero. (2019e). Upload. Retrieved from https://www.coursehero.com/upload/.
Davidson, C. N., & Goldberg, D. T. (2009). The future of learning institutions in a digital age. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Eret, E., & Ok, A. (2014). Internet plagiarism in higher education: Tendencies, triggering factors, and reasons among teacher candidates. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(8), 1002.
Google. (2019). Alerts. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/alerts
Gullifer, J., & Tyson, G. A. (2010). Exploring university students' perceptions of plagiarism: A focus group study. Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), 463–481.
Howard, R. M. (1992). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Qriting, 11(2), 233–245.
Howard, R. M. (2007). Understanding “internet plagiarism”. Computers and Composition, 24(1), 3–15.
Ison, D. C. (2014). Does the online environment promote plagiarism? A comparative study of dissertations from brick-and-mortar versus online institutions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 272.
Ison, D. C. (2015). The influence of the internet on plagiarism among doctoral dissertations: An empirical study. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13(2), 151–166.
Ison, D. C. (2012). Plagiarism among dissertations: Prevalence at online institutions. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10(3), 227–236.
Jenkins. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: University Press.
Lancaster, T., & Clarke, R. (2016). Contract cheating: The outsourcing of assessed student work. In Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity. Singapore: Springer.
Löfström, E., Huotari, E., & Kupila, P. (2017). Conceptions of plagiarism and problems in academic writing in a changing landscape of external regulation. Journal of Academic Ethics, 15(3), 277–292.
Logie, J. (2005). Cut and paste: Remixing composition pedagogy for online workspaces. In Internet-Based Workplace Communications: Industry and Academic Applications. IGI Global.
Louw, H. (2017). Defining plagiarism: Student and staff perceptions of a grey concept. South African Journal of Higher Education, 31(5), 116–135.
McCarthy, S., & Naha, L. M. (2011). Playful affinity: A case study of the digital writing and research lab as a collaborative graduate student research network. In L. McGrath (Ed.), Collaborative approaches to the digital in English studies. Logan: Computers and Composition Digital Press/Utah State University Press.
McGrath, L. (Ed.). (2011). Collaborative approaches to the digital in English studies. Logan: Computers and Composition Digital Press/Utah State University Press.
McCabe, D. L. (2005). CAI research. Retrieved from https://www.academicintegrity.org/cai_research.asp.
Reyman, J. (2008). Rethinking plagiarism for technical communication. Technical Communication, 55(1), 61–67.
Rogerson, A. M., & Basanta, G. (2016). Peer-to-peer file sharing and academic integrity in the internet age. In Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity. Singapore: Springer.
Selwyn, N. (2008). ‘Not necessarily a bad thing…’: A study of online plagiarism amongst undergraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 465–479.
Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive surplus: How technology makes consumers into collaborators. New York: Penguin.
Walker, J. (2010). Measuring plagiarism: Researching what students do, not what they say they do. Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 41–59.
Wang, Y. M. (2008). University student online plagiarism. International Journal on E-learning, 7(4), 743–757.
Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. London: A&C Black.
Yeo, S. (2007). First-year university science and engineering students’ understanding of plagiarism. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(2), 199–216.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dixon, Z., George, K. Monitoring Uncharted Communities of Crowdsourced Plagiarism. J Acad Ethics 19, 291–301 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09381-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09381-2