Communities and individuals often differ not so much in their values as in the priorities they set among values. In most writing which is neither creative nor academic, plagiarism is scarcely an issue at all. Broadly, this is because any unfairness in the advantage to be gained by text reuse is agreed by the community to be outweighed by improved speed, precision and efficiency of communication. This chapter investigates the factors that make plagiarism an important issue or otherwise in different circumstances and to provide evidence that we are currently concerned about student plagiarism because of the forms of assessment and associated educational ideologies we currently use. Educational systems in which plagiarism is irrelevant, and mimicry of research conventions in educational genres is unnecessary, can exist, although they are probably less than optimal. Less intensive grading within continuous assessment would allow plagiaristic practices where students found them useful or necessary, and hand responsibility for learning from writing back to students.

During the first half of 2017, four scholars who know English-medium instruction (EMI) well and view it from different perspectives took part in a round-robin exchange. The forum contributors answered six sets of questions on aspects of EMI: defining terms; learning English in an EMI environment; the political or policy framework; learning a subject in a second language; teachers working in a second language; and EMI and multilingual education. Below is a summary of their answers (a longer version can be found in the online version of this Forum as supplementary content). The questions were devised and the responses edited by Philip Shaw.

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.

Teachers of postsecondary writing need internalized knowledge in the areas of the language being taught, writing processes, genre structure and register, the social and political issues associated with writing and academic language generally, and of a range of tasks and teaching strategies. This is best achieved by a loop‐input strategy in which the teacher preparation makes use of the types of task that teachers will have to use themselves for the explicit content they must learn. This allows them to experience the effectiveness or otherwise of the tasks and to reflect on their own reactions to them.

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.

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.