Seminar Activity Guide: Academic Integrity and Citation
Purpose and scope
This guide provides a research-informed, step-by-step plan for a 90-minute seminar designed to build students’ conceptual understanding of academic integrity and their practical competence in ethical source use, including paraphrasing, quoting, and referencing. The session emphasizes explicit instruction, scaffolded practice, and criterion-referenced feedback, aligned with established standards and scholarship.
Intended learning outcomes (ILOs)
By the end of the seminar, students will be able to:
1) Explain the fundamental values of academic integrity and apply them to common academic scenarios (ICAI, 2014; McCabe, Butterfield, & Treviño, 2012).
2) Differentiate appropriate paraphrasing and quotation from patchwriting and plagiarism, justifying judgments with reference to scholarly definitions (Howard, 1993; Pecorari, 2013).
3) Integrate sources into academic prose using summary, paraphrase, and quotation, with accurate in-text citations and a complete reference list in APA 7th style (APA, 2020).
4) Evaluate ambiguous integrity cases (e.g., inappropriate collaboration, self-reuse, undeclared generative tools, and contract cheating) and propose policy-aligned responses (Bretag, 2016; WPA, 2014).
Preparatory work (to assign 3–5 days in advance)
- Read: International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI) Fundamental Values (2nd ed.).
- Read: APA Publication Manual (7th ed.), Sections 8–9 (citation mechanics, reference examples), 8.23–8.36 (paraphrasing and quotations), and 1.16 (ethics).
- Read: Pecorari (2013), Chapter 2 (“Defining Plagiarism and Patchwriting”).
- Bring: One short scholarly source (300–600 words) relevant to your discipline for use in class exercises.
Session plan (90 minutes)
A. Diagnostic and orientation (10 minutes)
- Pre-quiz (individual, 5 minutes): Four multiple-choice items covering definitions (plagiarism vs. patchwriting), paraphrase quality, and basic citation.
- Mini-lecture (instructor, 5 minutes): Concise overview of integrity values (ICAI, 2014) and why source-use instruction reduces misuse (Pecorari, 2013). Frame similarity reports as aids to review, not verdicts on intent.
B. Activity 1 — The Source Integration Ladder (25 minutes)
Goal: Scaffold the three core integration moves—summary, paraphrase, quotation—with citation.
Materials: One short scholarly excerpt per student; paraphrase checklist (provided below).
Steps:
1) Individual (7 minutes): Produce (a) one-sentence summary; (b) a 40–60-word paraphrase; (c) one integrated quotation (≤30 words), each with correct APA in-text citation.
2) Peer exchange (8 minutes): Partners use the checklist to evaluate for:
- Fidelity of meaning (no distortion).
- Sufficient transformation of wording/structure in paraphrase (beyond synonym swaps).
- Appropriate quotation marks and page/paragraph numbers for quoted material.
- Accurate in-text citation formatting.
3) Whole-class debrief (10 minutes): Instructor models improvement of a borderline paraphrase, distinguishing patchwriting (Howard, 1993) from acceptable paraphrase; connects to APA guidance on quotation and paraphrase (APA, 2020, 8.23–8.36).
Paraphrase quality checklist
- Conceptual accuracy: Ideas preserved; no novel claims added.
- Linguistic transformation: New syntax and lexis; not merely word-level substitutions.
- Attribution: In-text citation present and correctly formatted.
- Integration: Fits surrounding prose and rhetorical purpose (e.g., supporting, contrasting, synthesizing).
C. Activity 2 — Attribution Accuracy Relay (20 minutes)
Goal: Build fluency and accuracy in referencing varied source types using APA 7th style.
Materials: A set of 6–8 source cards (journal article with DOI, edited book chapter, web page with organization author, report with corporate author, preprint, dataset).
Steps:
1) Teams of three receive two source cards each (8 minutes): Draft in-text citations and full references.
2) Rotation (6 minutes): Teams swap cards and verify another team’s entries against the APA manual, annotating any corrections with rule references (e.g., APA, 2020, 9.1–9.37).
3) Debrief (6 minutes): Instructor highlights frequent issues (e.g., group authors, DOIs as URLs, date formats, capitalization of titles).
D. Activity 3 — Integrity Case Clinic (25 minutes)
Goal: Apply integrity principles to ambiguous cases; articulate reasoned judgments and preventive strategies.
Materials: Four short vignettes, each with prompts:
- Case 1: “Patchwritten” lab report background section with partial citations.
- Case 2: Reuse of a student’s prior coursework without disclosure (self-plagiarism).
- Case 3: Collaborative problem set where boundary between legitimate peer discussion and collusion is unclear.
- Case 4: Use of an undeclared generative writing tool to draft an abstract; student edited for accuracy but did not disclose.
Procedure:
1) Small groups select two cases (10 minutes): For each, complete a decision log including:
- Identify: Which fundamental values are implicated (ICAI, 2014)?
- Classify: Summary of behavior using scholarly terminology (e.g., patchwriting vs. plagiarism; undeclared assistance vs. contract cheating) with citations (Bretag, 2016; WPA, 2014).
- Evaluate: Likely intent/risk; potential harms to fairness and trust.
- Decide: Appropriate response aligned with institutional policy (e.g., educational intervention vs. formal misconduct process).
- Prevent: Assessment and teaching strategies to reduce recurrence (transparent criteria; scaffolded drafts; viva/oral checks; individualized data or prompts).
2) Report-out (10 minutes): Each group presents one case; instructor normalizes developmental challenges (especially for multilingual writers), distinguishes pedagogic responses from sanctionable misconduct, and underscores disclosure expectations for tools.
3) Synthesis (5 minutes): Capture class-generated prevention strategies and link to assessment design principles (clarity, authenticity, staged deliverables).
E. Reflection and exit ticket (10 minutes)
- Individual reflective prompt: “Identify one specific revision you will apply to your current writing practice regarding source integration and one action to uphold fairness in future collaborations.” Students submit with a revised version of their Activity 1 paraphrase.
Assessment strategy
- Formative assessment during seminar:
- Paraphrase quality rubric (used in Activity 1 peer review):
- Accuracy of meaning (0–3)
- Degree of linguistic transformation (0–3)
- Correct attribution and citation (0–3)
- Coherence and integration into argument (0–3)
- Attribution relay accuracy rate (Activity 2): Number of error-free references after peer verification.
- Case clinic reasoning quality (Activity 3): Completeness of decision log; explicit alignment with integrity values and policy.
- Post-seminar task (summative, due in 5 days):
- Task A: Write a 250–300-word synthesized paragraph integrating at least two scholarly sources using summary, paraphrase, and one short quotation, with APA in-text citations and reference list.
- Task B: Short-answer (300–400 words): Analyze one novel vignette; identify integrity issues, justify judgments with sources, and propose prevention strategies.
- Scoring criteria (each 0–4):
- Attribution accuracy (APA mechanics; completeness of references).
- Source integration quality (balance of summary/paraphrase/quotation; rhetorical fit).
- Ethical reasoning (accurate classification; alignment with integrity values; feasible prevention).
- Writing quality (clarity, coherence, concision; discipline-appropriate tone).
Instructor notes and implementation guidance
- Framing: Emphasize that academic integrity is fundamentally about honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage (ICAI, 2014). Avoid equating similarity scores with misconduct; teach students to interpret reports diagnostically when permitted.
- Inclusivity: Acknowledge that patchwriting can be a developmental stage, particularly for additional-language writers, but clarify institutional expectations and provide explicit instruction and feedback (Howard, 1993; Pecorari, 2013).
- Tool transparency: If generative tools are permitted, require explicit disclosure of tool use and prompts; assess for factual accuracy, source verifiability, and student understanding via process artifacts (search notes, drafts) or brief orals. Align with institutional policy.
- Academic skills transfer: Encourage students to maintain a personal “citation decision log” that records unusual source types and corresponding APA rules for future reference.
- Quality assurance: Calibrate grading by discussing exemplars and borderline cases at the start of marking; use double-marking for a sample to ensure consistency.
Materials and resources
- Excerpts for Activity 1 (discipline-relevant, 150–200 words each).
- Source cards for Activity 2 with full bibliographic metadata.
- Case vignettes for Activity 3, adapted to local policy language.
- Access to APA Manual (7th ed.) or the APA Style website for verification.
- Slide deck with definitions, examples, and rule references.
Evidence base and rationale
- Explicit instruction and scaffolded practice reduce unintentional plagiarism and improve citation accuracy (Pecorari, 2013; Bretag, 2016).
- Values-based framing correlates with more ethical decision-making than punitive messaging alone (ICAI, 2014; McCabe et al., 2012).
- Teaching the distinction between patchwriting and legitimate paraphrase supports developmental writers while upholding standards (Howard, 1993).
References (APA 7th)
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association.
Bretag, T. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of academic integrity. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7
Council of Writing Program Administrators. (2014). Defining and avoiding plagiarism: The WPA statement on best practices. http://wpacouncil.org/positions/WPAplagiarism.pdf
Howard, R. M. (1993). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11(3), 233–246.
International Center for Academic Integrity. (2014). The fundamental values of academic integrity (2nd ed.). Clemson University. https://academicintegrity.org/resources/fundamental-values
McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Treviño, L. K. (2012). Cheating in college: Why students do it and what educators can do about it. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Pecorari, D. (2013). Teaching to avoid plagiarism: How to promote good source use. Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.
Optional style references (for cross-disciplinary alignment)
- Modern Language Association. (2021). MLA handbook (9th ed.). MLA.
- University of Chicago. (2017). The Chicago manual of style (17th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Appendix: Sample case vignette (for Activity 3)
Case 2 — Reuse without disclosure
A student submits a literature review section that substantially overlaps with a paper previously submitted in another course. The student argues that “it is my own work.” Prompts: Identify the integrity values involved; classify the behavior (e.g., self-plagiarism/duplicate submission); recommend an action consistent with policy (e.g., require disclosure and instructor approval for any re-use; redesign assessment to require new synthesis); specify how future tasks will include process checks (e.g., annotated bibliography, proposal, or oral defense).
End of guide.
