Attribution and plagiarism in the creative arts : A flipped information literacy workshop for postgraduate students

The concepts of attribution and plagiarism can be challenging for creative art students who may engage with both text and non-text sources such as images, film, computer games, performance art and more while working on an assessment task. To introduce students to the basics of attributing non-text sources and to explain the distinctions between ethical reuse of creative works at university and in the professional setting, the authors developed an embedded Information Literacy workshop utilising a flipped classroom model. Short educational videos were produced that students watched before attending an in-class library workshop. The students also completed preand post-teaching tests to collect evidence of their preconceptions and knowledge before and after watching the videos and attending the library workshop. This article will report on the planning and design of the videos and the library workshop, and share the results of the formative assessment activities.


Introduction
With continuing ease of access to digital information and concerns within academia about a perceived 'cut and paste' culture, it is little wonder that universities take an active, multi-layered approach to plagiarism prevention and detection. Much of this effort has focused on preventing text-based plagiarism, neglecting the fact that students are increasingly asked to submit multimedia assessments, even outside the creative disciplines (Blythman, Orr, & Mullin, 2007). In particular, it is crucial for students enrolled in creative arts courses to understand the ethical use of both text and non-text works, as this is a core competency for professional practice, whether that be in reusing existing works or in protecting their own creations. However, as the literature review will show, there is little practical research in regards to how to teach students to navigate these concepts and lead them to a better understanding of ethical practice both in academic and professional settings.
It is within this context that the authors identified a need at their institution to teach incoming students about attribution and plagiarism of non-text sources. In short: How can this awareness

Background
The project described in this paper was a collaboration between the authors: a faculty member of City University of Hong Kong's School of Creative Media, and the Subject Librarian for the School.
City University of Hong Kong is a research university located in Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong, and is one of eight public universities funded by the Hong Kong University Grants Committee. The School of Creative Media offers Bachelor and Master's programs in creative and new media and fine arts, and encourages a cross-disciplinary approach to teaching and research incorporating computing and sciences into creative arts practice. At the time of writing, City University of Hong Kong Library employs a Subject Librarian model in which each academic department and school is assigned a subject specialist to support teachers and students in learning and research.
City University of Hong Kong has a formal statement on Academic Honesty, which includes information about academic attribution and plagiarism. The formal statement is authored and disseminated by the Office of The Provost, and is supported by an online tutorial and quiz. By the end of their first semester all students are required to complete the tutorial and quiz and submit an online declaration stating their commitment to the tenets of academic honesty. This online activity goes a long way in educating new students about the principles of academic honesty and is supplemented throughout their programs with generic and embedded library workshops and guidance from their teachers.
The statement does not address non-text works, which leaves a gap in the teaching and learning of these concepts for students whose studies involve the use of non-text works. To address this gap, the School of Creative Media has developed internal guidelines that address the ethical use of content, such as images, films, computer code and games. The guidelines are shared with students at the beginning of their programs, but they are not embedded in student learning like the University's formal statement. Therefore, there was a need to teach incoming students about attribution and plagiarism as they apply to non-text sources, rather than simply sharing the School's policies and expecting students to adhere to them.
To address this, the authors collaborated on the planning and implementation of a flippedclassroom Library workshop to be embedded in a core, postgraduate course within the School of Creative Media. The project utilised a 'Course Enhancement Fund' from a Hong Kong University Grants Committee project on Information Literacy (please refer to the 'Methods' section for more details). The workshop addressed the core principles of attribution and plagiarism of non-text sources, and the ethical reuse of works outside of an academic setting. The development of the workshop was a pilot project to explore how these concepts may be taught in a formal way with a long-term view to incorporating similar teaching methods into multiple core courses within the department.
Please refer to the 'Methods' section below for a description of the planning and implementation of the workshop.

Literature Review
To begin, it is useful to situate this project in the context of academic literacy as defined by Lea and Street in 1998. Academic literacy '…views student writing and learning as issues at the level of epistemology and identities rather than skill or socialisation. An academic literacies approach views the institutions in which academic practices take place as constituted in, and as sites of, discourse and power.' (Lea & Street, 1998, p159). In 2012, Magyar builds on this, taking an academic literacies approach to understand how international masters students at a UK university experience plagiarism and attribution. Magyar asserts that the learning of attribution practices in academia takes place in 'the context of textual and institutional practices ' (2012, p.12), rather than being a discrete skill set that can be learned independently from any particular field or school. Situating this project in this way allows us to view attribution practices as 'multidimensional' (Magyar, 2012, p.11), and as having cultural and political significance depending on the context in which they take place.
While the practice of attributing and plagiarising non-text works has not received sustained attention in the academic literature, the concept of copyright literacy has been addressed deeply and thoughtfully. Copyright literacy is the 'range of knowledge, skills and behaviors that individuals require when working with copyright content in the digital age' (Morrison & Secker, 2015, p.76). Morrison and Secker (2017) recognise that using the term 'literacy' makes copyright education part of broader information literacy instruction, specifically within the frame of 'Information has value' from the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Crucially, Morrison and Secker position copyright literacy as part of critical librarianship: As governments around the world question who owns publicly funded research and the ethics of placing scholarly content behind paywalls, shying away from providing advice about copyright in the current economic climate, where journal subscriptions continue to rise, is arguably a dereliction of duty (2017, p.363).
Similarly, in research conducted in 2013 about student attitudes to intellectual property (IP) in the UK, McNicol concluded 'there is scope for the role of library staff to increase significantly, not only to help students directly, but also to support lecturers who may lack specialist knowledge in this area ' (p.27). While these authors clearly define and explore copyright literacy and the pedagogical approaches to teaching it, none of the works refer specifically to how this might apply to the use of non-text sources in higher education.
The major works addressing specifically attribution and plagiarism of non-text works acknowledge the lack of literature on the topic, while also arguing that it has not been addressed adequately within universities via formal academic honesty or academic integrity policies (Blythman et al., 2007;Garrett & Robinson, 2012;Simon, 2016;Simon et al., 2014). In research published in 2014, Simon et al. conducted a survey of Australian academics and students who use non-text based assessments, and found 'a widespread perception … that current academic integrity policies in relation to non-text-based assessments, and associated efforts to educate students about these policies, are inadequate' (2014, p.13). Simon also supports this view more recently in 2016, stating that 'educational resources developed by higher-education institutions to instruct students… tend to apply single definitions as if they were universal and unproblematic ' (2016, p.765). Similarly, Garrett and Robinson (2012) found that faculty members themselves often set a poor example, not providing sources or references for visual components in their presentations.
Perhaps a reason that plagiarism of non-text sources has not received the same level of attention in the academic literature is the problematic nature of attributing non-text sources. Garrett and Robinson state, '...there may be no arena for referencing and acknowledging [non-text] sources in the traditional bibliographic sense ' (2012, p.26). Simon argues that creative disciplines need 'different approaches to attribution and different tools to detect breaches of academic integrity… they might also require different standards, based on different practices and expectations within the industries to which they pertain ' (2016, p.763). Simon goes on to explain that typical methods of referencing often do not apply to non-text sources: you cannot acknowledge a source in the middle of a musical composition, for instance (2016). This is echoed by Greenhill (2017) in her speculative presentation about multimedia assessments, in which she questions the common practice in multimedia assessments such as creating videos to provide an attribution list at the end of project, but without an equivalent of an in-text citation. Simon et al. also support this attitude, stating that in their practice and research students generally understand the concepts of paraphrasing, quotations, in-text citations and reference lists, but they have 'very little idea how to translate these concepts into an assignment in computer programming, visual design, architecture, mathematics, or the many other areas in which prose text is not the sole medium of assessment' (2014, p.1).
Several authors have identified that in addition to an absence of formal guidelines for referencing non-text sources there is often no agreement on what can be considered common knowledge in fields that rely heavily on the use of non-text materials. Simon (2016) cites the example of computer coding, where segments of simple code may be widely copied and reproduced in industry practice without reference to its origin. In the same way, Porter illustrates an example as it relates to design of physical objects: Consider the student who creates a range of flat pack furniture where the unacknowledged design of the corner joint has been obtained from a patent that has not been renewed. It is thus in the public domain, and may be freely adopted by all, including the student…. how is the use of this essential element more or less acceptable than a student of Physics using a well established formula? (2010, p.9) In each case, the reproduced elements of coding and design are necessary developmental parts of creative study, but can pose a challenge for instructors when teaching the concepts of attribution and in grading assessment tasks.
The matter of non-text based plagiarism is further complicated by the fact that for the creative disciplines the tenets of academic honesty are not practicable in professional practice. The standards for satisfactory completion of an assessment task are often completely different to professional practice. Simon highlights that in computer programming fields software developers 'work in teams, brainstorm ideas, and help one another with problematic code' (2016, p.767), but at university where students are often required to complete programming assignments individually, such behaviour would be considered collusion or plagiarising from other students. Blythman et al. also indicate the importance of art and design students understanding differing standards at university versus in practice, stating 'students need to be informed of the difference between academic expectations (when they are learning) and national and international design expectations' (Blythman et al., 2007, p.2).
The fact that multimedia assessment tasks produced by students may be shared outside the classroom setting presents another complication. As stated by Garrett and Robinson, '...there may also be legal and IPR [intellectual property rights] implications if students are making use of existing works, particularly since student work in the art and design disciplines is more likely to be shown publicly, for example, in exhibitions, student portfolios, and university websites and publications ' (2012, p.25). This point of view is echoed by Porter who states: The student of Geography who writes an excellent essay that unwisely contains unattributed quotes is unlikely to find their work displayed in a public exhibition or inside the evening newspaper. This is not so for the work of the developing artist or design student whose work may receive wide and, effectively, uncontrolled publication. As a result of such open display the work may come to the attention of people or organisations that may be unhappy with the adoption and exploitation of their intellectual property. They might raise the matter with the student alone but perhaps, also insist on dealing with the University concerned, believing that the IPR law has been broken or breached in a non-trivial manner. (2010, p.6) While the above refers specifically to cases with creative arts students, what is clear from several authors is that this has a broader impact than arts education. Blythman et al. state that the matter of non-text based plagiarism 'becomes relevant to a much wider area of higher education than art, design and media disciplines in university as more and more students are given opportunities to express their ideas in visual forms' (Blythman et al., 2007, p.1). Porter states that while these issues may have originated within the creative arts, 'all students increasingly adorn their written work with illustrations or are required to give presentations. The issue of misconduct with creative formats requires wider, comprehensive attention' (2010, p.3).
While all of the literature referenced so far speculates about the problem of non-text based plagiarism and asserts that students should be more familiar with the concepts, a notable gap in the literature is practical advice or examples of how to teach these concepts. Porter (2010) goes to great lengths to state the importance of sharing academic honesty guidelines as they pertain to non-text works, but beyond this he does not suggest the best methods to share them, nor any particular methods of teaching the principles. Simon et al. found in their research that: the majority of academics and students indicated that information on academic integrity policies was provided in written form. There was little evidence of the use of specialised lectures or tutorials to address the issues faced by students who use computer code or visual images in their assessments. (2014, p.13) Garrett and Robinson have reported that some of the activities employed by academics in this field include 'asking students to debate and reflect on acceptable practice… as well as inviting librarians into the studio to lead sessions on effective research methodologies and citation ' (2012, p.26). This is the only article in this review that specifically mentions collaboration with the university library.
One of the few papers to address teaching these concepts is the 2007 Blythman et al. article, which is a practical guide for how to teach the concept of non-text based plagiarism in a number of different disciplines. In their article, researchers worked with five course teams at two universities to: explore with each other the nature of appropriation in particular subdiscipline, areas of confusion for students, and what would make suitable material to help students clarify acceptable boundaries. Each discussion generated a checklist of issues to be discussed with students and a piece of supporting learning and teaching material that will advance student learning. (2007, p.2) The authors then provide broadly applicable solutions for each teaching situation. Blythman et al's article goes someway to providing practical scenarios and suggestions that can be used in classrooms to encourage students to engage with this content and move beyond simply sharing the standards.
It is clear from the literature that universities do not place great emphasis on non-text based plagiarism, despite a proliferation of media-based assessments and the implications of sharing these assessments outside the classroom setting. Further, there is a lack of resources or support for staff and students to learn the basic concepts, and little practical advice for how to actively teach the concepts rather than simply sharing guidelines. This article aims to address this gap by providing a practical example of how the concepts were taught to an incoming group of postgraduate students at a creative arts school.

Method
The embedded library workshops included a combination of pre-and post-teaching tests, videos, lecture, and live interactive polls. The overall structure for the delivery of the components, utilising a flipped classroom model, was as follows: The following sections will describe each of these tasks in more detail.

The videos
This project utilised funding from a Hong Kong University Grants Committee (UGC) project on Information Literacy. Part of the project offered 'Course Enhancement Funds' for 'teaching staff of participating institutions who are interested to work with librarians in developing new [Information Literacy] content, or to modify existing research assignments and assessments' (UGC Teaching and Learning Information Literacy Project, 2017). In applying for the funding the authors proposed to create short instructional videos to introduce the basics of attributing nontext sources, supporting the implementation of a flipped-classroom teaching model. Videos are also scalablethey can be viewed in class, online, on any device, in any course and so on, meaning the impact of the funding had the possibility to reach far beyond a single course. As much of the literature indicated that little effort had been made to instruct students about university policies as they relate to non-text plagiarism, the authors also felt videos were a useful instructional tool as they would be more engaging than reading text documents or listening to a lecture.
Ultimately the authors' application was successful, and funding was used to hire a part time Research Assistant (RA) to work on the project. The authors collected reference materials for the visual design of the video, and compiled storyboards, which were shared with the RA. Over the course of a few weeks, the authors collaborated with the RA to develop sample images and animations, with the result being the production of the following two videos: • Using Creative Works Ethically: A Guide for Creative Media Students • Plagiarism and Copyright infringement: What's the difference?

The workshop
The one-hour workshop was offered in Week 2 of Semester A, 2017/18 (September 2017). The workshop was embedded in the postgraduate course SM5325: Introduction to Critical Media Studies. This is a core course for incoming postgraduate students, meaning a large cohort of students would receive this instruction early in their program. SM5325 was therefore a suitable test case for the videos and the embedded workshop. A total of 130 students were enrolled in the course over two sections. As a result, the workshop was given twice.
The intended learning outcomes (ILOs) for the two workshops were: 1. Recognise the principles of plagiarism as they apply to non-text sources. 2. Recognise the principles for re-using creative works in projects outside university 3. Identify relevant components for referencing non-text sources.
These ILOs align with the frame 'Information has value' from the Association of College and Research Libraries Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (2015, p.6).
The first half of the workshop focused on the ethical reuse of non-text sources and utilised case studies of possible student misconduct in reusing non-text sources for either assessments or professional purposes. The second half of the workshop focused on citations and references for non-text works, and required students to identify components of and correct examples of citations for different types of non-text sources.

The pre-and post-teaching tests
Pre-and post-teaching tests were used to gain an understanding of what students learned from viewing the videos and attending the workshop. The questions for the tests were based on Angelo and Cross' 'misconception/preconception check' classroom assessment technique, which 'assesses students' prior knowledge, but with a twist. Its focus is on uncovering prior knowledge or beliefs that may hinder or block further learning ' (1993, p.132). For both the pre-and postteaching tests, students were presented with the following statements: • I am required to provide citations or reference lists for creative works such as photographs, artworks, film or audio clips in my assignments. • I only need to provide citations for the work of famous or well-known artists/designers/creators. • If I use a creative work (such as a photograph or film clip) that I find for free on the internet, I do not need to provide citations or reference lists. • I can share or publish my university assessments (on the internet, in a gallery) as long as I provide attributions for creative works. • I can use whatever creative content I like for non-commercial projects outside of university, as long as I provide an attribution.
Students could choose one of the following answers: • I am absolutely certain this is true • I am pretty sure this is true • I have no idea if this is true or false • I am pretty sure this is false • I am absolutely certain this is false This method was chosen instead of a true/false response to reduce the chance of students making 'lucky guesses' and to allow for ambiguity in the responses, providing an indication of how confident the students are in answering these questions.
Pre-and post-teaching tests were chosen for this task for two main reasons. First, the class sizes were large, and so a multiple choice survey delivered online was a method of reaching as many students as possible. Second, as the tests were completed outside of class time, it allowed the authors to utilise the flipped classroom model, increasing the in-class time available for the librarian in an already established curriculum. While pre-and post-teaching tests do not measure change in student behaviour, they were selected as a way of gauging students' potential misconceptions around attribution and plagiarism of non-text sources, and as a starting point to addressing the issues in a one-shot library workshop. Similarly, while some of these questions are ambiguous and may not necessarily have a right and wrong answer, they are intended as a 'jumping off' point for further discussion of the topic, and time for Q&A was incorporated into each workshop. The questions reflect actual instances of poor attribution practice or plagiarism previously seen at the School.
At the end of the post-teaching tests, students were asked the following additional open-ended questions, based partly on Angelo and Cross' 'muddiest point' classroom assessment technique (1993, p.

Pre-and post-teaching tests results
For the purposes of reporting, the results from the pre-and post-teaching tests from the two workshops were combined. In total, 126 students completed the pre-test and 104 students completed the post-teaching tests. Therefore, percentages rather than whole numbers will be used to report the results.
For the purposes of grading and comparing these results, only 'I am absolutely certain this is true/false' was counted as a correct answer. Other variants, 'I am pretty sure this is true/false' and 'I have no idea if this is true or false' are considered indications of student's confidence in answering the questions.
The following section will share the results for each of the pre-and post-teaching tests questions.
The results for Question 1 (see Figure 4.1) show that in the pre-test 85% of students could already confidently answer this question correctly, prior to receiving instruction. Only 13% of students showed some uncertainty in their response. The percentage of confidently correct answers rose to 95% in the post-teaching tests after instruction and the percentage of uncertain responses decreased to 4%. The pre-test results for Question 2 (See Figure 4.2) show that 74% of students were able to confidently and correctly answer this question, with this figure rising to 93% in the post-teaching tests. Similarly to Question One, the number of students that chose a response indicating they were not sure about the answer was generally low for both the pre-test (20%) and post-teaching tests (5%). The pre-test results for Question 3 (see Figure 4.3) again show that students were already fairly comfortable with this concept prior to receiving instruction, with 77% responding confidently and correctly. The number of students answering confidently and correctly rose to 93% in the postteaching tests. The percentage of students who indicated some level of uncertainty decreased from 22% in the pre-test to 7% in the post-teaching tests. . The pre-test shows for Question 4 (see Figure 4.4) that students are unfamiliar with this area. Only 31% of students were able to answer this question confidently and correctly, and 60% of students selected a response indicating some degree of uncertainty. The second highest category after the correct response was 'I have no idea if this true or false'. The number of correct and confident answers in the post-teaching tests increased significantly to 59%, and uncertainty was decreased in the post-teaching tests to 27%. Finally, the pre-test for Question 5 (see Figure 4.5) shows this is another area of confusion for students, with only 43% of students answering confidently and correctly and, as per question four, a much higher number of students (54%) indicating they were unsure of their response as compared to questions one, two and three. The number of correct and confident answers in the post-teaching tests increased significantly to 67%, and the percentage of uncertain answers was reduced to 23%.

Extended answer responses
Question one: Please describe/ list the most useful things that you learned from this session. 93 responses were received to this question. 67 students stated the most useful things they learned were to do with referencing various sources, while 22 said information about copyright was the most useful. 14 students indicated they had learned about academic honesty and using sources ethically, and nine students referred to plagiarism. Some notable comments include: • 'The most useful thing I learn from this session is that I have gradually achieve a better understanding of academic rules applied in creative media industry, which benefits me a lot. Through learning, I avoid making mistakes and getting myself in troubles.' • 'I have learned that students should respect intellectual property and everyone need to follow the rules of Academic Honest [sic].' • 'Copyright law can protect creators' right and our own rights. Respect is the most important thing.' • 'I got a point that I need to find the main source of a photo or video, rather than search it on Google and put a Google link.' Question two: Please describe/ list the things that are still not clear to you. 74 responses were received, but 36 of those responses stated some variant of 'nothing is unclear to me'. 42 students reported being still unsure about referencing sources, in contrast to the 67 students who said information about referencing was the most useful thing they learned. Of these 42 students, three students had specific questions about referencing, such as how to reference something with incomplete data, or how to find the creator of an image found online. 13 students asked questions about specific copyright scenarios such as commercial or educational use, with three of the responses specifically about getting permission from creators to use their content.
The following two comments received for this question were particularly interesting: • In reference to Canadian musician Drake appropriating the work of artist James Turrell: 'I'm just curious for example in the Drake and James Turrell case, Turrel [sic] is aware of the copyright fringement [sic] but he does not put it on court, but if someone else other than the artist himself want to sue Drake for it, is he able to do it? Just curious.' • 'If we need to pay the artists or authors for using their art work, why some networks full of illegal mv or videos, like Blibli.com, have not been closed or sued?' These follow-up questions show a deep level of engagement with the content, and as outlined in the literature review point to a disconnect in how students understand attribution practices in a university context as opposed to professional settings (Blythman et al., 2007;Simon, 2016).

Discussion
The first three questions in the pre-and post-teaching tests related to referencing and citation practices. Most students answered these questions correctly in the pre-test (that is, prior to receiving instruction), with very few indicating uncertainty in their responses. After receiving instruction, the percentage of correct responses increased, and the percentage of uncertain responses decreased in the post-teaching tests. This demonstrates that the students in this cohort were already somewhat comfortable with referencing and citation practices on entering their program, but instruction had a small impact on increasing their knowledge and confidence in the area.
The last two questions in the pre-and post-teaching tests were related to reusing non-text sources outside the university, and yielded more varied responses. For both questions four and five in the pre-test the number of students who answered confidently and correctly was low, and the degree of uncertainty was high. This demonstrates that this student cohort were largely unfamiliar with the concepts of using non-text works ethically outside a university context prior to receiving instruction on the topic. After receiving instruction, the number of correct answers in the post-teaching tests for questions four and five increased and the uncertainty decreased, but the number of students who answered confidently and correctly was still quite low, as compared with questions one, two and three. The responses to the extended answer question after the postteaching tests also demonstrated that within this cohort there is still some confusion about copyright law and how it applies to student assessments. The responses also indicate the need for students to feel confident in making informed decisions when faced with complex scenarios related to the ethical re-use of non-text courses in academic and professional settings.
Therefore, the major implication of these findings is that that students entering the taught postgraduate program at the School of Creative Media have a basic understanding of the need to provide attributions for non-text works in their assessments, but they are largely unfamiliar with the principles of sharing their assessment items ethically outside the classroom, and of the principles of the ethical reuse of existing works in a professional setting. The results of the post-teaching tests and extended answer responses show that direct instruction on the topic has an impact on student learning, but greater emphasis is needed on the application of attribution and ethical reuse of non-text works outside academia.

Recommendations
What is clear from the literature review and the findings of this project is that it is important to explicitly teach the principles of non-text based attribution and plagiarism to students during class time if they are to develop the skills necessary to be successful as a student and practitioner. This may help to bridge the different modes of attribution practices present in academic and private industry areas, as indicated by Simon (2016) and Blythman et al. (2007). As the findings from the project show, it is also important to teach students not only about plagiarism and academic honesty as they relate to non-text sources, but to explain the intersection between plagiarism and copyright law, and how misconduct in this area may manifest in a professional setting. This is crucial for preparing graduates for future employment.
The next stage of this project is to explore ways in which these concepts can be taught more broadly within the department, to ensure all incoming students to the School receive some basic instruction in this area. The videos developed in this project go a long way in disseminating the concepts, but as the workshop component of this research has shown, encouraging students to think critically about case studies and their own behaviour is likely to be more valuable. There is potential in this project to advocate to university management to include non-text based examples of plagiarism in formal academic honesty policies.

Future Research
Future research could look to how the principles of attribution and plagiarism as they apply to non-text works are retained over time. If this type of project was implemented more broadly within a department, research might investigate whether the number of cases of non-text based plagiarism are reduced, indicating that the students not only have awareness of the concepts but can practise them. Finally, future research might examine the need for instruction related to nontext based attribution in plagiarism in fields outside the creative arts.

Conclusion
This project was the first attempt by the authors to explicitly teach an incoming postgraduate student cohort about attribution and plagiarism as they apply to non-text sources, rather than simply sharing relevant academic honesty guidelines. The findings from the project show that while students in this cohort were generally aware of the need to provide citations for non-text sources in their assessments, there is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to the intersection of attribution, plagiarism and copyright law, which is arguably the more important skill for them as future practitioners. The project's more immediate value is the snapshot it provides of new student attitudes and knowledge, allowing faculty members to pitch classroom content at an appropriate level and make fewer assumptions about what students do and do not know.
While this project was created specifically to address the needs of creative arts students, the implications are significantly wider, including professional practice once students matriculate beyond tertiary education. For the purposes of academic practice, as more and more students are expected to complete assessments with minor or major non-text components, the matter of attribution and plagiarism of non-text sources will move beyond the creative arts into the broader university community.