Academic Integrity Ensuring good academic practice Workshop for

Academic Integrity: Ensuring good academic practice Workshop for academic staff Dr Irene Glendinning Academic Manager for Student Experience Office of Teaching and Learning

Workshop aims • To promote good practice for academic professors, tutors and supervisors • To clarify policy and procedures for deterring and detecting cases of student academic misconduct • To encourage dialogue about measures for reducing cases of plagiarism, academic dishonesty, collusion, ghost writing, exam cheating, research misconduct • To foster a culture of good practice regarding student support and measures for preventing academic misconduct • To collect ideas and good practice to share with others 2

Research into academic integrity • Impact of Policies for Plagiarism in Higher Education across Europe - EU funded project 2010 -2013, Cov lead partner, Poland, Lithuania, Cyprus, Czech Rep (Mendel University in Brno) • Survey of 27 EU member states on HE policy • South Eastern European Project on Policies for Academic Integrity – Council of Europe, 6 more countries studied, Coventry, Mendel in Brno 2016 -17 • (http: //plagiarism. cz/ippheae, http: //plagiarism. cz/seeppai ) 3

Academic Integrity • Are you familiar with this term? • How would you define this? • Compare your definition with the person next to you 4

Academic Integrity, Research Integrity, Educational Integrity • Different aspects of practice, ethos, culture, strategy and policy for maintaining the security of standards and conduct within an institution or nationally • Converse of academic malpractice, dishonesty and misconduct • Comprising honesty, trust, responsibility, respect, fairness, transparency, courage (ICAI) • “How you behave when nobody is watching” 5

Definitions • Cheating eg – Deliberate plagiarism, collusion, impersonation, data fabrication, falsification, selectivity, exam cheating, ghost-written work, bribery for higher grades • Assessments eg – Essay, annotated bibliography, journal/diary, dissertation, thesis, closed/open book exam, viva voce/defence, quiz/test, formative/summative, practical, laboratory, presentation, – Group or individual work 6

Defining Plagiarism “ Plagiarism is intentionally or unintentionally reproducing (copying, rewording, paraphrasing, adapting, etc) work that was produced by another person without proper acknowledgement in an attempt to gain academic benefit. ” Adapted from HEA web site 2011– but no longer available 7

Why should we be interested in academic misconduct and academic integrity? • • Global phenomenon – huge problem Ignoring it undermines academic standards Responses vary hugely across the world BUT more can and should be done everywhere 8

Academic integrity policies • • • Research, pedagogy & assessment Prevention measures Detection of misconduct Use of text-matching software Investigating, hearing, adjudication Applying sanctions Reporting, recording accusations & outcomes Grounds and process for appeals Codes of conduct, codes of ethics – targeting different people 9

Your current policies? • Research, pedagogy & assessment – Individual, faculty or institutional policies for upholding Academic Integrity? • record-keeping of academic misconduct cases – at what level, what information? • Your views, concerns about levels and trends of student plagiarism and misconduct? • Exam-based or more flexible approach to student assessment? • How well are the policies working? 10

The process of detecting cheating • Vigilance in the course of grading and supervision • Fraud in research and academic misconduct • Plagiarism in programming code and writing – Intentional or accidental? – How extensive and central to the work? • Use of software for text matching – Formative > early pre-submission + guidance – Punitive > what action is taken? • Interpretation, limitations of text matching reports • Ghost-written work – a viva voce? 11

Detection - Consistent Approach TRUE OR FALSE? • Students who do not understand academic writing conventions will continue to plagiarise if they do not receive advice • If no record is kept of an offence then no way of identifying repeat incidents • Academics not following standard procedures provides grounds for appeal? • Tutors independently penalising student cheating leads to inconsistent outcomes > Poor practice, unfairness, QA and standards issues 12

Did the student write it? • Contract cheating: – Paper mills, essays to order, auction sites – Help from friends and family • How do you know the student wrote it? • How much assistance is acceptable? • Supervisor’s monitoring, support and help • Academic writing instruction provided? • Assistance - proof reading policy? • Use of translation software? 13

IPPHEAE / SEEPPAI Findings • Slovenia is 11 th from 33 European countries for Maturity of policies (AIMM) • Differences in definitions of plagiarism • No consensus on whether and how to penalise • Some focus on research level less bachelor • Many HEIs and some countries in denial • Sweden and Austria maintain national statistics on academic dishonesty cases, but not comparable across institutions 14

Au UK Sw stri a Iri ede sh n R e M p Sl alt ov a a C kia yp N Fin rus et la h n C erla d ze n ch ds Sl Re o p D ven en ia Bo B ma sn elg rk ia iu & m H Es erz to G nia r Li eec t h M u e ac an ed ia o C nia ro a Po tia l Al and ba Po ni rtu a g La al t S via G erb er ia m H an un y R ga om ry an Sp ia Fr ain an ce Lu xe It M mb aly on o te urg n Bu egr lg o ar ia Evidence from IPPHEAE & SEEPPAI 25. 00 20. 00 Research 15. 00 Training Knowledge 10. 00 Communication Prevention Software 5. 00 Sanctions Policies 0. 00 Transparency COMPARISON OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY POLICIES IN 33 COUNTRIES Based on ~5800 survey responses (Co. E SEEPPAI report 2017, AIMM) 15

AIMM Slovenia Transparency 4. 00 Research Policies 3. 00 2. 00 1. 00 Training Sanctions 0. 00 AIMM Slovenia Knowledge Communication Software Prevention 16

Activity Decide whether or not you think the following examples constitute plagiarism and what sanction would be appropriate Where does each example sit on the following scale: 1. Innocent 2. Minor 3. Moderately serious 4. Serious 5. Very Serious 6. Extremely Serious 17

Scenario 1 A student buys an essay from a web site and uses the material (a) just as it was provided or (b) with a few changes: 1. Innocent 2. Minor 3. Moderately serious 4. Serious 5. Very Serious 6. Extremely Serious 7. Don’t know 8. Other’ What Sanction? 18

Scenario 2 40% of a student’s work is taken from other sources and the text is copied word for word with no quotations, references or in-text citations: 1. Innocent 2. Minor 3. Moderately serious 4. Serious 5. Very Serious 6. Extremely Serious 7. Don’t know 8. Other What sanction? 19

Scenario 3 40% of an essay or paper is from other sources and the text is copied with a few changes into the student’s work with no “quotation marks”, references or in-text citations: 1. Innocent 2. Minor 3. Moderately serious 4. Serious 5. Very Serious 6. Extremely Serious 7. Don’t know 8. Other What sanction? 20

The role of academic staff • Personal tutor, student supervisor, professor, subject lecturer, etc • On the front line for detecting and correcting student misconduct • Encouraging a culture of academic integrity • Focus on prevention rather than detection? • Student community, assumptions and expectations: when/how do students acquire missing skills? • Provide opportunities formative learning 21

Challenges to UK academic staff • Maintaining the module syllabus currency, relevance • Aligning teaching, learning and assessment with course and module intended learning outcomes • Monitoring pedagogy – is the best approach? • Responding to feedback from students • Responding to internal and external moderators • Meeting targets for retention and attainment • Meeting deadlines for marking • Marking: following standards and procedures • Moderation, teaching, facilitating, supporting • Conducting subject research • Admin duties – eg overses link tutors, admissions • Mentoring colleagues, ++++ 22

Characteristics of assessment leading to cheating Assignment reuse, setting same assessment each year Assignments lacking critical analysis, evaluation, reflection Inappropriate supervision of examinations Unclear referencing requirements Assessments with only one solution or very limited answers One topic or objective, eg Ryanair Same assessment for whole class/cohort Assessment too broad, not specific Sharing answers is becoming popular via social media Multiple choice questions Group-work – collusion issue 23

Characteristics of “cheating unfriendly” assessment Not reusing assignments or exam questions from previous years Requiring and rewarding individual critical analysis Clear requirements Assessments which lead to very different answers Use of detection software to deter plagiarism and collusion Create a unique or individualised assessment Fresh context of assessment 24

Examinations • • • Setting exam papers / questions Checking for accuracy and currency Supervision of exams Ways that students cheat in exams How to address exam cheating 25

Student supervision • • • One-to-one supervision? Monitoring students throughout the dissertation Make sure the task has potential for distinction Does the student have (time to develop) necessary skills? Check progress, are students doing the work themselves? Don’t do the work for them, but signpost and guide students • Ask questions, correct poor practice, clarify, advise on standards and expectations 26

Student supervision Evidence of originality as the project progresses: • Project proposal • Ethical approval • Interim review • Draft chapters • Pre-submission to software • Final copy • Student diary or project log 27

Setting coursework assessments • • What is being assessed? Will it distinguish high achievers? Has this or similar work been set before? How likely is it to lead to misconduct (eg plagiarism, collusion, fabrication, ghost writing)? • Ensuring students are motivated to learn 28

Marking assessments • Assessment, marking: applying consistent standards • Independent second marking or moderation • Interpreting software report and other evidence • Agreeing final mark on project - third marker • External examiner’s input • How is it done here? 29

Resources • When and how do students learn how to write in academic style? • Referencing tools eg Ref. Works, endnote • At what stage should students be penalised for plagiarism? • At what stage should students be penalised for inappropriate collusion / sharing? 30

Activity looking for reasons • • • Why do students plagiarise? Why do students collude? Why do students cheat in exams? Is the number of cases increasing? Whether yes or no: Why? On your own write down one key reasons for each • Now share them with the people next to you 31

IPPHEAE findings - reasons Students from Slovenia • 66% they think they will not get caught • 63% don’t want to learn just pass the exam • 61% run out of time • 53% easy to cut and paste • 45% don’t understand how to cite and reference • 42% Not aware of penalties • 42% They have always written like that. 32

Activity What can we do about it? • Share your thoughts on how to address each of the reasons you identified 33

Preventing student cheating 1 • Do students understand your expectations? • Prevention measures in place here at present? • Training, guidance and support for students. What levels? What formats? • Testing to see whether students understand • Wording on assignment briefs • Awareness of consequences and penalties • What more could be done? 34

Preventing student cheating 2 • • Staff training and development Rules and regulations Clear and efficient procedures Awareness of consequences and penalties Consistent message from staff Consistent approach and actions by staff Use of tools – policy, training What more could be done? 35

Activity 4 - Paraphrasing example How good are your students at paraphrasing? What about you? Read the quotation below (Lindquist 1999) and try to paraphrase or rewrite this in your own words by referring to the source In E. E. Masters’ study of lifestyles in a working-class bar in a Midwestern town, for example, the author concludes early on that “the tavern in this small community was the centre of social life”, to the extent that “the proprietor had an amazing amount of knowledge about the residents of the town” such that “he could predict election results with great accuracy”. (Le Masters 1975) 36

Paraphrasing example Reference Le Masters, E. E. (1975) Blue-Collar Aristocrats: Lifestyles at a Working-Class Tavern, Madison: University of Wisconsin P cited by Lindquist, J. (1999) Class Ethos and the Politics of Inquiry: What the Barroom Can Teach Us about the Classroom, College Composition and Communication, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp 225 -247, National Council of Teachers of English 37

Paraphrasing Sample solution E. E. Masters’ reported in his study of lifestyles in a working class bar that the tavern was so central to communications of the local community that the bar owner was able to confidently guess the result of elections (Le Masters, 1975). 38

Paraphrasing • • Did you find it difficult? What skills are needed to do this? • How would your students cope with this task? 39

Further input please • • Thanks for participating Any questions? Comments about your own experience Contact details ireneg@coventry. ac. uk 40

More resources • http: //www. heacademy. ac. uk/resources/detail/a cademicintegrity/policy_works • http: //www. plagiarismadvice. org/resources • http: //www. heacademy. ac. uk/hlst/resources/azdirectory/plagiarism videos and definitions • Tracey Bretag Academic Integrity Toolkit • http: //www. qpen. com. au/__data/assets/pdf_file /0010/548605/EAIP-Newsletter_-September 2013. pdf 41

Bibliography Bretag, T. et al Exemplary Academic Integrity Project: www. unisa. edu. au/EAIP IPPHEAE project results: 27 EU national reports. [Originally available from http: //ippheae. eu/project-results] now available through http: //plagiarism. cz/ippheae/ accessed 25/03/2016. Glendinning, I. (2015 a) Prevention and fight against plagiarism: How to set up an institutional response to individual misbehaviour. Policies in the United Kingdom. International Institute for Educational Policy (IIEP) Policy Forum on Planning Higher Education Integrity. IIEP Paris, 18 th – 21 st March 2015. Glendinning, I. (2015 b) Promoting Maturity in Policies for Plagiarism across Europe and Beyond, 7 th Prague Forum of Council of Europe “Towards a Pan-European Platform on Ethics, Transparency and Integrity in Education, Charles University Prague, 1 st-2 nd October 2015. Glendinning, I. (2016) Book Chapter: European Perspectives of Academic Integrity in the Handbook of Academic Integrity, edited by Tracey Bretag, Springer Science + Business Media Singapore 2015. DOI 10. 1007/978 -981 -287 -079 -7_3 -2. Global Corruption report on Education, Transparency International: http: //www. transparency. org/gcr_education Morris, E. (2011) Policy Works. Higher Education Academy for England https: //www. heacademy. ac. uk/sites/default/files/policy_works_0. pdf Retrieved 28/04/16. International Center for Academic Integrity: http: //www. academicintegrity. org/icai/home. php 42