There appears to be a pendulum swing here. (Thank goodness it is not an out- and-out paradigm shift - don't you just hate those?) The swing is from curriculum people and curriculum solutions to technology people and technology solutions. That shift constitutes change, but we have yet to analyze what that change really means. Are we truly bringing about a change in education through technology, and is it a positive development?
The current problem of increased plagiarism goes to the heart of this discussion. Plagiarism and other forms of theft affect both students and teachers. (Piracy of software and music present a different dilemma, so for the moment let's confine the discussion to plagiarism.)
We experienced a media blitz of coverage when historians Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin acknowledged that sections of their works were either rephrased without attribution or simply lifted from other authors' works. A senior professor at a top-tier college was recently forced to resign for "borrowing" comments from Amazon.com reviews to boost his own work.
Our society seems to tell us that plagiarism and dishonest dealings, by writers or corporate executives, is unacceptable. Yet Kansas teacher Christine Pelton and her principal resigned when the school board refused to support the well documented accusations that most of Ms. Pelton's class had plagiarized work and should fail her course. If there is no consequence to doing something wrong, what is the point in any attempt to avoid forms of theft by students under pressure to succeed by getting into college?
In a society already trying to cope with an increasing tolerance to cheating and refusal to view it as wrong, the internet has made plagiarism or obtaining entire research papers a point- and-click operation. In an effort to combat this problem, school administrators and tech departments often focus time and resources on catching the offenders. There are now several software programs available to assist in uncovering the culprits. Some are free, but most are fee-based and also require staff training. Like speed guns, they will catch a certain number of violators, provided we allocate time and talent to staff a sort of perpetual sting operation.
What is the consequence when all these efforts uncover a violation? And exactly how is the student in any way made to understand why it isn't OK to use these numerous, easy services? Do we doubt that clever students will spend time developing ways to avoid detection rather than understanding why it is a waste of time to cheat their own learning?
Do we continue to follow a "catch and release" plagiarism program made easier, though no less wasteful of time and resources, by layers of software? Or do we, wearing our educational change-agent's hat, tackle the disturbing underlying problem—a growing conviction that all processes, including education, can be made better by increasing additions of technology.

Top of Page^