The Written Response and the Borrowed Paragraph
For a school assessment, students write a 500-word response in Romanian to an unseen prompt, using a short set of provided stimulus texts. Andrei's draft on urban migration is strong, but one 90-word paragraph closely follows the wording and structure of a stimulus article, with two phrases changed and no quotation marks. When his teacher raises it, Andrei says the ideas are 'common knowledge about Romania' and that he 'put it in his own words'. The task sheet says responses must be in the student's own words and that sources must be acknowledged. The teacher must decide whether to treat this as a minor referencing error or as a breach of academic integrity, and what evidence to gather before deciding.
1. Identify what evidence the teacher should collect and how it should be weighed, before any judgement is made.
Read the worked answer
The teacher should first compare the paragraph and the stimulus side by side, marking identical phrasing, sentence order, and distinctive word choices, and record the proportion of the paragraph that matches. Patchwriting of this kind is distinguished from independent paraphrase by retained structure, not just retained words; two substitutions in 90 words is strong evidence of close dependence. The teacher should then check whether the stimulus was a set text that students were told to draw on, since using provided stimulus is expected - the issue is acknowledgement, not use. Third, the teacher should look at the rest of the response to see whether this paragraph is an isolated lapse or part of a pattern. Fourth, the teacher should ask Andrei, without leading him, to explain how he used the source and to show his notes or drafts, which reveals whether he understood the requirement. Finally, the teacher should consult the school's assessment policy on what constitutes a breach and what the prescribed response is. The evidence should be documented in writing before any conversation about consequences, so the judgement rests on the text rather than on impression.
2. Assuming the paragraph is found to be closely dependent on the source, recommend an outcome and explain how it should be communicated, distinguishing between what the student did and what the student understood.
Read the worked answer
The finding should be framed precisely: a 90-word paragraph reproduces the structure and much of the wording of a stimulus text without acknowledgement. That is a referencing failure regardless of intent, because the requirement is objective. Whether it is also a integrity breach depends on what Andrei understood, and the evidence here is mixed: he did modify some words, which suggests he believed paraphrase meant word substitution rather than independent reformulation. The proportionate outcome is usually to require the paragraph to be rewritten and properly attributed, with the mark for the response adjusted according to policy, plus a documented conversation and a targeted lesson on paraphrase and citation. A harsher penalty such as zero would be justified only if the pattern were repeated or if he had been taught the distinction and ignored it. Communication matters: the teacher should describe the textual evidence, avoid accusing him of cheating as a character judgement, explain why structure counts as copying, and set a clear expectation for the next task. Andrei should leave understanding the rule, not merely the penalty.