1 / 43

A Benchmark Tariff for the Application of Penalties for Student Plagiarism in Higher Education

A Benchmark Tariff for the Application of Penalties for Student Plagiarism in Higher Education. Peter Tennant and Gill Rowell. Background. 2004-2006, Baroness Ruth Deech → inconsistency in application of penalties for plagiarism in HE JISC & HEA:

sopoline-abbott
Download Presentation

A Benchmark Tariff for the Application of Penalties for Student Plagiarism in Higher Education

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Benchmark Tariff for the Application of Penalties for Student Plagiarism in Higher Education Peter Tennant and Gill Rowell

  2. Background • 2004-2006, Baroness Ruth Deech → inconsistency in application of penalties for plagiarism in HE • JISC & HEA: • Academic Misconduct Benchmarking Research (AMBeR) Project 1-2 1: Tennant P, Rowell G, Duggan F, (2007) ‘Academic Misconduct Benchmarking Research Project Part I: The Range and Spread of Penalties Available for Student Plagiarism Among UK Higher Education Institutions’ JISC Plagiarism Advisory Service Newcastle (UK). Available at: www.plagiarismadvice.org/documents/amber/FinalReport.pdf 2: Tennant P, Duggan F, (2008) ‘Academic Misconduct Benchmarking Research Project Part II: The Recorded Incidence of Student Plagiarism and the Penalties Applied’, Academy/JISC Academic Integrity Service, Newcastle (UK). Available at: www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/AMBeR_PartII_Full_Report.pdf

  3. Background • Phases I & II confirmed variation between: • Penalties AVAILABLE • Procedures involved in recommendation • Actual penalties APPLIED

  4. Background • Transparent penalty tariffs: • Improve student behaviour • Protect against legal complications • Institutions regularly update penalty tariffs • However, there remains a lack of guidance 3 4 3: Macdonald R, Carroll J, (2006) ‘Plagiarism – a complex issue requiring a holistic institutional approach’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 31(2) pp. 233-245 Available at: www.liu.se/content/1/c6/01/80/56/Jude%20Caroll.pdf 4: Baty P, (2006) ‘Inconsistent penalties raise risk of legal action, Deech says’, Times Higher Education Supplement, 23 June, pp. 4. Available at: www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=203884

  5. Background • 2008, OIA: • “plagiarism guidance and the basis for awarding penalties needs to be made clear and to operate fairly” 5 5: The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, (2008) ‘Annual Report 2008: Resolving Student Complaints’, Available at: www.oiahe.org.uk/docs/OIAHE Annual Report 2008.pdf

  6. Aim • To develop a reference tariff for the application of penalties for student plagiarism in HE

  7. Methods • April 2009 → Contacted 104 individuals working with HE from across UK • Either participants in AMBeR II, or had expressed interest

  8. Methods • Invited to complete online questionnaire • Section 1: Participants identified which factors they felt were important, and how these ranked • Section 2: Participants identified which penalties they felt were appropriate for three theoretical incidents of student plagiarism • Free text box

  9. Methods • Questionnaire designed from AMBeR • Potentially important factors were most commonly cited in regulations • Potential penalties were most commonly available and most commonly applied • However, unlike AMBeR I-II, answers personal, not institutional

  10. Methods • Followed-up to ask: • What they felt should classify as extenuating circumstances • How they would define ‘intention to deceive’ • How they would measure ‘amount of material plagiarised’

  11. Methods • Points-based penalty tariff designed • Points assigned to each factor based on responses to section 1 • Scores matched to penalties according to section 2 of questionnaire • Fed back for comment, and refined

  12. Results • 67/104 (64% of sample) completed questionnaire • 15 provided additional details on extenuating circumstances, ‘intent’, and ‘amount’ • 23 commented on draft tariff • Range of institutions with participant in the study representative of HE sector

  13. Results • Which factors were considered important?

  14. Results • What was the relative importance of these factors?

  15. Results • Points assigned accordingly:

  16. Results • Points assigned accordingly:

  17. Results • Points assigned accordingly:

  18. Results • The right penalty – Case 1 (minor)

  19. Results • The right penalty – Case 2 (severe)

  20. Results • The right penalty – Case 3 (moderate)

  21. Results • The right penalty – Case 3 (moderate)

  22. Results • The points match the penalty

  23. Results • The points match the penalty

  24. Results • The points match the penalty

  25. Results • The points match the penalty • Boundaries determined by cut-offs for key variables • Biggest penalty group → most commonly applied List A List B List C List D List E List F

  26. Results • Qualitative findings • No agreement on measuring ‘amount’ → tariff includes several definitions • Level 1 should be a ‘training environment’ → tariff more lenient on level 1 students than 2/3/PG • Formative work shouldn’t be punished at all → separate penalty tariff for formative assessments

  27. Results • Extenuating circumstances • Life changing event illness → student not fully in control of actions • Inadequate preparation or training in good academic practice → precondition to detection/penalty policy?

  28. Results • Extenuating circumstances • Tariff does not explicitly consider • Cases can be addressed within inherent flexibility of tariff • Else more appropriately handled by alternative authority

  29. Results • Intent • Area of most disagreement • 1/3 said intent was most important factor • Many felt draft points for intent too low • Conversely → Difficult (impossible?) to prove

  30. Results • Intent • Purchased from essay mill / ghost writing service • Clear attempt to avoid detection by substituting words and/or references

  31. Results • Intent • Tariff considers intent implicitly, through other characteristics of the case (e.g. Previous history of student) • Additional punitive measures for extreme, clear-cut incidents

  32. Scope • An example of a research-led penalty tariff • Can be used as: • A reference for HEIs that already have a policy → usable as a benchmark and/or audit tool • A reference to aid the evolution of existing policies • A reference to aid the design of future tariffs • A usable tariff in its own right

  33. Scope • Does not help determinate whether plagiarism has occurred → Not replacement for judgement • Assumes that students have learnt the skills of referencing / know the rules with regards to plagiarism • Should be considered part of a wider holistic approach to plagiarism

  34. Summary • There is an historical lack of guidance to help HEIs design penalty regulations for plagiarism • This study combined national data on policy and practice with a novel consultation → reference tariff • Hoped → Will improve consistency and transparency across the sector

  35. Tariff available from:

More Related