Academic accountability

Question

Academic Accountability

[WLOs: 7, 8] [CLOs: 4, 6]

To prepare for this activity, please review The plagiarism spectrum: Instructor insights into the 10 types

of plagiarism (Links to an external site.). Part of scientific research includes conveying knowledge (about

theory, research, etc.) to others in an ethical manner, avoiding plagiarism (review the Plagiarism Guide

(Links to an external site.) for more). This is a key professional skill to develop. In this activity, you will

practice using your own Academic Voice (Links to an external site.) and applying in-text citations (review

the APA: Citing Within Your Paper (Links to an external site.) web page for more).

Review the following original and plagiarized passages:

ORIGINAL AUTHOR’S THOUGHTS

The correlational method can be very useful, but it must be used with caution. If knowledge of one

variable (age) helps predict another (buying), does that mean that one causes the other? Not

necessarily. It is possible that the first variable caused the second, or that the second variable caused the

first, or that some other variable caused both variables. Without further research we cannot know

which possibility is true. For example, a researcher might find a negative correlation in schools between

the number of teachers monitoring hallway behavior and the number of acts of aggression in the

hallway. It is possible that more teachers in the hallway caused lower aggression, but it is also possible

that there were fewer teachers in the hallway in the face of aggression because they had left to avoid it.

Knowing that there is a correlation between two events does not tell us which, if either, is the cause. In

fact, it is quite common to have a third variable cause a correlation between two other variables. For

example, sunburn and outdoor temperature are correlated. Does this mean that hot weather causes

sunburn or that sunburn causes hot weather? Of course not. The summer sun causes both sunburn and

hot weather. Cum hoc propter hoc—correlation does not imply causation.

Reference

Feenstra, J. (2020). Social psychology (2nd ed.). Zovio.

REWRITE BY SOMEONE WANTING TO WRITE ABOUT THE ARTICLE AND ITS FINDINGS

“The correlational method can be very useful, but it must be used with caution.” If knowledge of one

variable (height) helps predict another (weight), does that mean that one causes the other? Not

necessarily. It is possible that the primary variable caused the secondary, or that the secondary variable

caused the primary, or that some additional variable caused both variables. We cannot understand what

chance is true without further studies. For example, ice cream consumption and violent crime are

correlated. Does this mean eating ice cream causes violent crime? Or, does a spike in violent crime

cause consumption of ice cream? Probably neither... rather, a common factor (e.g., heat) may be to

blame for both. “Cum hoc propter hoc—correlation does not imply causation.”

Define academic voice and plagiarism.

Apply your knowledge of academic voice and plagiarism to the rewritten passage, locating and

identifying errors.

Paraphrase or summarize the original passage appropriately using your own Academic Voice (Links to an

external site.).

Be sure to utilize strategies for Quoting, Paraphrasing, & Summarizing (Links to an external site.),

avoiding direct quotes and appropriately utilizing in-text citations.

Demonstrate the importance of developing a strong academic voice for both your education and career.

What are some key features of academic writing that might be particularly relevant within your own

program/intended career?

What types of plagiarism do you find most difficult to avoid? (See Turnitin, 2012).

What methods/strategies can you use to ensure that you avoid these errors in your own work?