Academic Integrity –Guidelines for staff

  1. Concern has been growing in the academic world about what many colleagues see as an increase in the incidence of ‘plagiarism’. The advent of large amounts of materials on the internet, which can easily be downloaded and reformatted, has provided unprecedented opportunity. Certainly in Bradford, allegations of copying in assessments, particularly coursework, have been drawn increasingly frequently to the attention of Deans. More cases are now heard by University Committees than was the case a couple of years ago.
  1. ‘Plagiarism’ is an extremely emotive subject in academic circles, as it offends against core values of the academic enterprise. Nevertheless, it is not an offence University Regulations recognise. Rather, we insist that work submitted for assessment by the student ‘must be written by the student and in the student’s own words’. Regulations prescribe that work which is not the students, nor in their own words, should be properly referenced.

A full copy of the relevant Regulations can be found at

(Interestingly, these regulations apply to work we commonly call coursework only. They do not apply to unseen examinations. The conclusion can only be that you can copy as much as you want in examinations and not be penalised. The only qualification is that it must be from memory!)

  1. There is good reason for the refusal of the University to use the term ‘plagiarism’ in its Regulations. ‘Plagiarism’ entails the deliberate intention to deceive. We ask students to present their own work for assessment because the primary purpose is to allow us to judge, and to share with the student, an evaluation of their individual progress. Even where there is no intention to deceive, copied work does not meet academic requirements. Work which is copied isn’t by the student at all. It is the work of others, and as such useless to the purpose we wish to put it. As such, it does not deserve the total number of marks available.
  1. There is little doubt that, when some students hand in copied work for assessment, they deliberately intend to deceive their examiners – and they deserve severe punishment. For many, however, the situation is not that simple. Sometimes copying is merely bad academic practice, with poor note-taking at the root of the problem. At times poor time-management and the pressure of assessment deadlines contribute to the problem. And sometimes students simply profess ignorance that copying is against any of the rules.
  1. This last assertion is met with incredulity by some academics, who argue that everyone knows that copying is cheating. But do they? We now admit an increasing number of students from a wide variety of academic backgrounds. Many of them, particularly those who have not followed the conventional examination route to entry are the products of traditions in which rote learning is seen as an important recipe for success. And we should not minimise differences between cultural traditions, particularly when some may esteem authority over critical engagement and imitation above innovation.

For students from such backgrounds copying may be the sincerest form of flattery! If we wish to continue to treat plagiarism seriously, and to punish it as it deserves, the University needs to give rather clearer directions to our students.

  1. As a start to this process, the University has recently produced a Statement onAcademic Integrity, which it will issue to all students. This draws attention to the need for assessments to be the student’s own work and to the fact that copying from others, or pretending their work is your own, is entirely unacceptable.
  1. However, for this policy to work, it will need to be reinforced in Schools and Departments. In particular, attention will need to be paid to:

A: Students making an initial registration with the University:

At whatever level they initially join the University, we cannot assume that students will understand precisely what will be required of them in assessments. Students’ attention should always be drawn to the Statement onAcademic Integrity. This should be reinforced during induction sessions and at appropriate points in introductory study skills modules. It will also form part of the University approach to audit of initial skills on entry.

Student handbooks should include a section on what is required in assessments and introduce disciplinary specific skills of citation and referencing (with particular attention being paid to students on interdisciplinary, joint and major-minor courses, where conventions between disciplines might differ, and to students taking modules and units outside their home Schools/Departments).

The key objectives for staff must be to make explicit what is expected of students immediately they enter the University and to give detailed advice and support on how they should present their work. Such guidance will usually be in written format. Since a significant number of students will not be acquainted with the rules we expect them to follow, we cannot expect them to get it right immediately.

Where possible, formative assessments should be used so that experience can be gained, performance against requirements measured and any problems dealt with quickly. Highlighting to students what constitutes a quality structured assignment/lab report by providing examples and model answers to questions also helps to prevent bad academic practice and promote effective learning.

Where, due to pressure of work or other factors, this might not possible it may be necessary to reconsider University Regulations to ensure that students who experience difficulty in adopting a new convention are not punished harshly for a ‘first offence’. This question is one we will wish to explore on a University wide basis.

B: Students renewing their registration with the University:

Provided that, on initial registration, we have made clear to student what we expect of them, instances of breach of assessment regulations can be dealt with in the exemplary fashion most members of the University feel to be appropriate. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that University education entails progressive introduction to a range of new knowledge, skills and abilities as different levels are undertaken. The University has adopted a series of Level Descriptors to allow staff and students to understand, and work explicitly to, skills and abilities at different levels. These can be found at

We might summarise them briefly and crudely as:

HE1: Understand

HE2: Apply independently

HE3: Critique

HE4(M): Develop

HE5(D): Innovate.

Whilst these descriptors can only be very crude, they make it clear that, at whatever level we are teaching students, we need constantly to be explicit about what is expected of them. Whilst there will be no need to repeat the basic information given to students initially registering, detailed guidance on assessment expectations will be required for all continuing students. Such guidance should usually be in written form.

C: Students working together:

An increasing feature of all courses of study is student groupwork. In some cases this simply means students work together in twos or more but are expected to produce individual assessments. In others, groupwork leads to group projects which may be submitted, and assessed, jointly. There are also hybrid cases where joint and individual assessments are asked for. Most importantly in these circumstances, students should always be given written guidance on what is expected of them. They should not be expected to workout for themselves those circumstances where joint work is appropriate, and those where it is not. Lack of clarity in Departmental instructions is a recurring feature of cases concerning breach of assessment regulations reaching University Committees. Where no explicit instructions about joint work is given, students will be expected to follow the usual guidelines on individual work.

D: Staff Responsibilities:

Greater clarity in expectations made on students will impose some additional responsibilities on staff. In particular

  • Course Team Leaders will need to ensure that, in all documentation, students know exactly what is required of them at each stage of their programme. This will include basic information on referencing and citation as well as the specific objectives of assessments at particular levels. The developing University approach to Programme Specifications, and especially the assessment matrix it produces, will help this latter task.
  • Module Leaders will need to ensure that the learning objectives of the unit for which they have responsibility, and the assessment techniques used to measure them, form part of an integrated course approach and are appropriate to the stage of study of the student. Requirements of assessment should always be made explicit.
  • Personal Tutors will need to ensure, at all stages of a university career, that the student understands the expectations made of them by the University. Monitoring this will form part of the emerging University policy on HE Progress Files namelypersonal development planning and recording of achievement.
  1. Some staff may find this approach over-prescriptive and ask why the University needs to produce yet additional burdens on them. All of us wish to see our students benefit as much as possible from their University education. All of us also wish to see cheats punished for the damage they do to academic integrity. We will only be able to achieve both these objectives if we introduce greater clarity to our objectives, and particularly to the assessments we ask of our students. At the moment, some students break rules they do not fully understand. Others break them deliberately. The former need our help. The latter deserve to be punished.

The increasing incidence of breach of assessment regulations, together with the growing trend for academic decisions to be legally challenged, means that sooner or later the University can expect to have to defend its position in Court. We can only be certain of our position if we have acted reasonably. In this context, being reasonable entails:

  • setting explicit and reasonable expectations;
  • ensuring that these expectations are fully and properly communicated to all concerned;
  • making the penalties for breach of these expectations clear; and
  • systematically and rigorously enforcing University policy.

The proposal made above are most likely to stand the test of such legal challenge, as well as being aimed at objectives acceptable to the wider academic community.

  1. A forum for staff was established through the Learning Support Seminar programme provided by the Teaching Quality Enhancement Group to share good practice and experiences on how to prevent plagiarism. An increased use is being made of electronic detection software packages to combat cheats who ‘cut and paste’ from the inernet although such packages can only highlight areas of text that have been found at another location. Such findings could be used to provide evidence of cheating but its main roles should be to inform the development of the students’ education and assignment design process. [Plagiarism: A Good Guide Practice by Jude Caroll and Jon Appleton May 2001: JISC]
  1. Useful websites and further information

CompanyURL

IParadigms

Digital Integrity

CaNexus

Wordchecksystems.com

CopyCatch.com

Oxford Brookes University

Caroll J & Appleton J (2001) ‘Plagiarism: A Guide Practice Guide’, Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) at

JISC are in the process of establishing a national plagiarism advisory

service which will assist FE and HE institutions on the issues associated

with plagiarism detection, both from electronic and paper based resources. This service, planned for launch in September 2002, will also provide free access (for the first two years) to an electronic plagiarism detection system. This checks for electronic resources (i.e. web pages) and student collusion and copying.

1