This chapter first provides an understanding of what plagiarism means, as a foundation on which the other chapters can build. It then tests whether it is possible to achieve a functional definition of plagiarism. As the canonical repository of definitions, dictionaries may seem to be a logical place to start the search. However, most dictionary definitions of plagiarism are rather shorter than those found in university policies, and this suggests that they are insufficient for academic purposes. A survey of plagiarism policies at Chinese universities found that they differed from their Anglophone counterparts in that they lacked explicit definitions, and shifted among several terms for plagiarism in a way which was potentially confusing for students. As Tadros (1993) has pointed out, academic writers have a binary choice to make between attributing something to a source or averring it themselves, and averral is the default condition, and what the reader assumes in the absence of attribution.

Researchers and teachers frequently distinguish between English as a foreign language and English as a second language. Although this distinction usefully highlights some of the differences in the settings in which English, like other languages, is learned, it fails to capture many of the complexities of language learning. Writing is used here as a lens to inspect the blurred boundaries between the conceptual categories of EFL and ESL.

This conclusion presents some closing thoughts on the concepts covered in the preceding chapters of this book. The book have suggested many possible ways in which appropriate intertextuality can be fostered in higher education. Plagiarism enters a teacher's field of vision as a distraction. The everyday tasks of planning and delivering instruction and assessing its outcomes have to be put on hold while the plagiarism is dealt with. University teachers are frequently concerned that their students should be able to produce writing of high quality. The demands of the academic discipline, the teaching context, the size of the student group and many other factors affect the nature of assessment writing tasks. Students are often extremely worried about the formatting of references, with their attention focused on commas and italics. Automated plagiarism detection is something many teachers would like to see because the task of identifying plagiarism in a large number of texts is both laborious and haphazard.

Student Plagiarism in Higher Education is a crucial read for any university teacher concerned about plagiarism. It provides the tools and information needed to assess this often complex international phenomenon constructively and effectively from a variety of angles, and provides a framework for further discussion and research.

Each chapter poses a question about an essential aspect of plagiarism and examines the central theoretical, ethical and technical questions which surround it. Providing a unique perspective on the topic of academic plagiarism, this book: 

addresses questions which are vexing in teaching practice, but for which ready answers are not available in professional skills development materials;  

relates plagiarism to wider issues of learning and intellectual development;  

collates the thinking of international leading experts on the topic of plagiarism from different areas of the academy.  

Student Plagiarism in Higher Education provides an excellent insight which thoroughly interrogates all aspects of the plagiarism argument. Theoretically based and carefully considered contributions from international experts ensure that this volume is an invaluable asset to anyone wishing to read more, learn more and think more about plagiarism.

This chapter speaks to university teachers who are concerned about plagiarism and want to address it constructively, but feel that they may not have all the tools or information they need to do so. It approaches the issue from a variety of theoretical angles in order to provide a framework for discussion and research. Jordan Canzonetta addresses the issue of trust between teachers and students, and the role which plagiarism, and tools for detecting plagiarism, play in that important relationship. Deceptive intertextuality exists, as Anton's student exemplifies, but non-deceptive unconventional intertextuality can arise by accident even when one knows the conventions, as Ezra's error shows. Regardless of the perspective adopted, some plagiarism at least needs to be situated in the context of other breaches of academic ethics, a broad category which includes acts perpetrated by both students and teachers. Plagiarism, then, is an outlier, a misfit, a square peg in the landscape of good and bad writing behaviours.

With the objective of determining what academic vocabulary students use productively, and exploring the relationship between receptive and productive academic vocabulary, this paper continues the dialog on what constitutes academic vocabulary. By adopting a set of principled criteria (ratio, dispersion, discipline specificity and range) and by approximating the procedures from a recent study of academic vocabulary, the academic vocabulary found in students' writing is identified and subsequently compared to the academic vocabulary found in published academic writing (indexical of receptive purposes). Nearly 600 words emerge as being represented significantly more frequently in students' academic writing than in their non-academic writing, demonstrating that students distinguish in their writing between academic and non-academic vocabulary. Furthermore, the investigation finds significant differences between students' productive academic vocabulary and academic vocabulary serving receptive purposes, suggesting that students' productive and receptive academic vocabulary needs are far from identical. The findings reported here are intended to serve as a tool for EAP educators working to help students develop academic vocabulary fit for purpose, as well as an incentive for EAP researchers to continue to explore the nature of academic vocabulary. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

In some academic settings where English is not the first language it is nonetheless common for reading to be assigned in English, and the expectation is often that students will acquire subject terminology incidentally in the first language as well as in English as a result of listening and reading. It is then a prerequisite that students notice and engage with terminology in both languages. To this end, teachers’ classroom practices for making students attend to and engage with terms are crucial for furthering students’ vocabulary competence in two languages. Using transcribed video recordings of eight undergraduate lectures from two universities in such a setting, this paper provides a comprehensive picture of what teachers ‘do’ with terminology during a lecture, i.e. how terms are allowed to feature in the classroom discourse. It is established, for example, that teachers nearly always employ some sort of emphatic practice when using a term in a lecture. However, the repertoire of such practices is limited. Further, teachers rarely adapt their repertoires to cater to the special needs arguably required in these settings, or to exploit the affordances of multilingual environments.

English is increasingly used nowadays as a medium of instruction in tertiary education worldwide, facilitating the outward mobility of home universities' staff and students, as well as the inward recruitment of international faculty and students. However, teaching and learning in a foreign language can be a challenging enterprise, and the implications of the trend toward English-medium instruction (EMI) are to date not fully understood. Based on a large-scale survey, this study aims at unveiling the perceptions and experiences of Swedish university teachers involved in EMI. The respondents express a wide array of views and experiences, grouped under ten thematic areas. The respondents' views are often polarised in that they identify both costs and benefits of teaching in English, while describing a reality where little support is provided to augment the benefits and mitigate the costs. These results indicate a need for enhanced communication with all stakeholder groups, to raise critical awareness about impending costs, as a step toward minimizing potential damages and maximizing the benefits of English in higher education today.

In settings in which English is used as a medium of instruction (EMI) in parallel with another language, a common expectation is that students will acquire subject terminology incidentally in the L1 as well as in English as a result of listening and reading. It is then a prerequisite that students notice and engage with terminology in both languages. To this end, teachers’ classroom practices for making students attend to and engage with terms are crucial for furthering students’ vocabulary competence in two languages. Using transcribed video recordings of a sample of lectures from two courses in a partial EMI setting, in which the lectures were in Swedish and the textbooks were in English, this paper will present a comprehensive picture of what teachers ‘do’ with terminology during a lecture, i.e., how terms are allowed to feature in the classroom discourse. It is established, for example, that teachers nearly always employ some sort of emphatic practice when using a term in a lecture. However, the repertoire of such practices is limited. Further, teachers rarely adapt their repertoires to cater to the special needs arguably required in partial EMI settings, or to exploit the affordances of these learning environments.