Introduction
The 'Digital Era' is personified by technology. As a result, there has been a distinct increase in knowledge procurement and dissemination (Sheard et al., 2003). Consequently, approaches to researching and constructing work, both in industry and for university assessments, has transformed (Ali et al., 2012). With the incorporation of smart technologies and the internet, come new challenges for Higher Education Institutions (HEI).
Academic misconduct can be seen in a multitude of formats. Sivasubramaniam, Kostelidou and Ramachandran (2016) outline issues encompassing, “fabrication of data, falsifying references, multiple submissions, collusion and sabotage, with two forms haunting academia, namely plagiarism and contract cheating” commonly known as ghost writing.
Plagiarism, as an integral arm of academic misconduct, is defined as, "the practice of taking someone else's work (and/or ideas), and 'passing them off' or representing them, as one's own" (Oxford Dictionary, 2017). More specifically, Appendix 1 of Coventry University’s General Regulations define plagiarism as “presenting the work of others as if it is one’s own (this includes buying or acquiring work/effort/programming code from another party (in full or in part) for the completion of an assessment)”.
This latter definition encompasses contract cheating. Thus, it is fair to say that this unethical act of plagiarism must be prevented.
​
In order for HEIs to educate students effectively, the staff themselves need to be well-versed in the categories of plagiarism and misconduct that exist.
-
Plagiarism guidance: Turnitin (2016) published online research, entitled “Instructor Insights into the 10 Types of Plagiarism”. Please follow the link to view the ‘Plagiarism Spectrum’: http://turnitin.com/assets/en_us/media/plagiarism-spectrum/
-
Contract cheating research: Sivasubramaniam, Kostelidou and Ramachandran (2016) explore the modern issues of ghost writing in HEIs. Please follow the link to view ‘A Close Encounter with Ghost Writers’ https://edintegrity.springeropen.com/articles/10.1007/s40979-016-0007-9.
-
Turnitin will soon launch a new service to identify contract cheating: http://turnitin.com/en_us/authorship-investigation.
-
​
So, what is the root cause of these threats to academia? The question begs ... is technology the sole factor that has contributed to this cultural shift and conundrum?
Coventry University (CU) uses Turnitin for grading students’ work. While Turnitin also produces an ‘originality report’, it does not check for plagiarism. What Turnitin will do is check a student’s work for similarity to a database of sources, including web pages, journals, and other students’ work (Turnitin 2018). This similarity is presented as a percentage. Students (and staff) will often ask what percentage similarity is “okay”. The simple answer is: it’s not as simple as that! A high similarity score may be due to the inclusion of a lot of direct quotes or resubmitting a paper. A paper with a very low score may still have plagiarised ideas from another paper, but the student has been skilful in rewording and paraphrasing the original work. It is important for the marker to view the similarity report in full rather than just looking at the overall percentage.
​
​
Turnitin Guidance
​
The Turnitin website provides useful guidance on viewing the report:
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Coventry University also has a short video guide here:
​
Identifying and Reporting Plagiarism
What part does Cultural Differences play?
The definition of "plagiarism" varies from one educational system to another around the world. The acceptance or existence of academic misconduct or "cheating", for example by the submission of contract essays, also varies greatly around the world (Bretag et al. 2016).
The UK has one of the stricter academic integrity regimes relative to other countries (Bretag et al. 2016). UK students are familiar with rigorous mechanisms to avoid "cheating" in exams, having followed a typical GCSE/A-Level route (General Regulations - JCQ Joint Council For Qualifications 2018) but are often unfamiliar with the concept of "referencing" and "plagiarism" per-se (Higher Education Academy 2014). Nevertheless, these students are relatively accepting of a university regulatory regime of the type in place at Coventry University (CU), however they still breach it (QAA 2016).
Non-UK students, on the other hand, come from different educational systems, not to mention, different cultures and typically, languages. This, in effect, places them at a greater risk of breaching the University's academic regulations. Post graduate students on taught Masters courses (i.e. one year) can be particularly exposed.
Consequently, it is generally accepted that non-UK students breach academic regulations in relation to plagiarism more regularly than UK students (Higher Education Academy 2014). This has for example, been highlighted in press reporting (Kenber and Mostrous 2016).
There is often a perception that plagiarism by non-UK students is simply "cultural" – but this is too simplistic (Sowden 2005, Le Ha 2006, Adhikari 2018). CU Academics need to be aware of a range of issues that prompt referrals for possible breaches of academic misconduct and malpractice regulations.
These can be cultural, prior academic system, financial or a simple lack of educational practice related to the issues of plagiarism – intentional or non-intentional (Adhikari 2018). In addition, the literature suggests that the causal factors are multi-factorial:
-
Academic performance differences; those who struggle tend to plagiarise more frequently (Marden et al., 2005);
-
Academic desire; those with low self-efficacy and reduced learning goals tend to plagiarise (Faria, 2009);
-
Peer pressure; owing to a lack of understanding of plagiarism and a belief of not being caught (Nora and Zhang, 2010); and
-
Lack of time management (Comas-Forgas and Sureda-Negre, 2010).
ABOUT
Team Genesis was formed as part of the 2017/18 cohort of the PgCert in Academic Practice in Higher Education (PgCAPHE) course, the M03ODL Advanced Practice in HE module. Our objective was to create a learning/knowledge resource that is accessible online, which could help our colleagues in higher education with their teaching, learning and/or assessment. Consequently, we have created an online guidebook for identifying and preventing plagiarism for academic staff. We hope you find it helpful.
Genesis Members and Roles:
​
Researchers:
Nigel Bray, Lecturer in Leadership, Employability and Professional Development – CGE
Cassie Clarke, Academic Practice Tutor – CUC
Jiayao Hu, Lecturer in Operations and Supply Chain Management – FBL
Jo Mason, Lecturer in Occupational Therapy – HLS
Web Developer:
Jessica An, Lecturer in Business Management – FBL
Team Leader/Editor:
Deneise Dadd, Lecturer in Business and Management – FBL
If you would like to contact us, please email Deneise Dadd on ac4998@coventry.ac.uk.
Academic Misconduct and Cheating
If the Turnitin report suggests there is a plagiarism issue, the CU’s Academic Misconduct process should be followed. Firstly, refer the case, together with evidence, to the designated administrator in the Faculty. An Academic Conduct Officer (ACO) will then be assigned to investigate the case. Please review this flowchart for details on the process (click to open on a new tab):
​
​
​
​
​
References
Adhikari, S. (2018) "Beyond Culture: Helping International Students Avoid Plagiarism". Journal Of International Students 8 (1), pp. 375–388
Ali, W.Z.W., Ismail, H., and Cheat, T.T. (2012) UKM Teaching and Learning Congress 2011 Plagiarism: to What Extent it is Understood? Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences. 59; 604–611.
Bretag, T., Glendinning, I., Thomas, J. and Scott, J. (2016) Handbook Of Academic Integrity. Singapore: Springer Singapore
Carroll, J. (2002) A Handbook for Deterring Plagiarism in Higher Education, OCSLD.
Comas-Forgas, R., and Sureda-Negre, J. (2010) Academic Plagiarism: Explanatory Factors from Students’ Perspective. Journal of Academic Ethics. 8, 217–232.
Faria, R.J. (2009) Da intransparência ao crime na ciência e no ensino superior: Estudo empírico sobre processos desviantes e corruptivos emPortugal. Tese de mestrado em Sociologia, Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, Portugal.
General Regulations - JCQ Joint Council For Qualifications (2018) available from <https://www.jcq.org.uk/exams-office/general-regulations> [26 February 2018]
Higher Education Academy (2014) Addressing Plagiarism [online] Higher Education Academy. available from <https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/resources/addressing_plagiarism.pdf> [1 February 2018]
Introna, L. and Hayes, N. (2004) ‘Plagiarism, detection and intentionality: on the construction of plagiarists’ Proceedings of the Plagiarism: Prevention, Practice and Policy Conference, Northumbria University, 28-30 June 2004
Kenber, W. and Mostrous, A. (2016) Universities Face Student Cheating Crisis [online] available from <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/universities-face-student-cheating-crisis-9jt6ncd9vz7> [1 February 2018]
Lathrop, A. and Foss, K. (2000) Student cheating and plagiarism in the Internet era—a wake-up call. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited.
Leask, B. (2006) “Plagiarism, cultural diversity and metaphor-implications for academic staff development”. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 31 (2), pp. 183-199.
Le Ha, P. (2006) "Plagiarism And Overseas Students: Stereotypes Again?". ELT Journal 60 (1), 76-78
Marden, H., Carrol, M., and Neill, J.T. (2005) Who Cheats at University? A Self-Report Study of Dishonest Academic Behaviours in a Sample of Australian University Students. Australian Journal of Psychology. 57 (1); 1–10.
Nora, W. L. Y. and Zhang, C. (2010) Motives of Cheating Among Secondary Students: The Role of Self-Efficacy and Peer Influence. Asian Pacific Educational Review. 11, 573-584.
Oxford Dictionary (2017) Define Plagiarism [Online]. Available: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/plagiarism [3 Feb 2018].
QAA (2016) Plagiarism In Higher Edication [online] QAA. available from <http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Plagiarism-in-Higher-Education-2016.pdf> [28 February 2018]
Sheard, J., Markham, S., and Dick, M. (2003). Investigating Differences in Cheating Behaviours of IT Undergraduate and Graduate Students: The Maturity and Motivation Factors. Higher Education Research and Development. 22(1), 91-108.
Sivasubramaniam, S., Kostelidou, K., and Ramachandran, S. (2016) A Close Encounter with Ghost-Writers: an Initial Exploration Study on Background, Strategies and Attitudes of Independent Essay Providers. International Journal for Educational Integrity. 12: 1-14.
Sowden, C. (2005) "Plagiarism And The Culture Of Multilingual Students In Higher Education Abroad". ELT Journal 59 (3), 226-233
Turnitin (2016) The Plagiarism Spectrum: Instructor Insights into the 10 Types of Plagiarism [Online]. Available from http://turnitin.com/assets/en_us/media/plagiarism-spectrum/ [3 February 2018].
Turnitin (2018) Interpreting the Similarity Report [online] available from : <https://guides.turnitin.com/01_Manuals_and_Guides/Instructor_Guides/Feedback_Studio/19_The_Similarity_Report/Interpreting_the_Similarity_Report> (1 February 2018)
Wang, Y. M. (2008) University Student Online Plagiarism. International Journal on E-Learning. 7(4), 743-757.
Many academic staff claim they do not have enough time or the requisite knowledge to educate the increasing number of students about plagiarism, compared to the discipline-based knowledge. However, it is necessary to teach students about plagiarism and specifically to include and integrate the relevant discipline’s perspective (Leask 2006). Moreover, it is important and meaningful to involve academic personal tutors and library staff to take part in module and coursework design due to their expertise in academic misconduct (Lathrop and Foss 2000). Furthermore, academic staff should pay more attention if the assessment requires students to access the same set of data or information (e.g. math, statistics); the essay titles are very broad; and the same topics repeated year after year, as these will increase the academic misconduct of the students (Carroll 2002). Therefore, it is crucial to design open questions for these kinds of assessments to avoid the potential of plagiarism. Other assessment options include reflections, oral presentations, viva voce, and assessments completed in class.
Preventing Plagiarism
In order to effectively prevent plagiarism and other academic misconducts at CU, academic staff should focus on the following three aspects: teaching and assessment preparation, referencing and paraphrasing, and staff development.
- Teaching and Assessment Preparation
- Referencing and Paraphrasing
Instead of merely emphasising the penalty of plagiarism, academic staff should focus more on how to teach students to paraphrase and cite appropriately. For example, academic staff should assist students in building the habit and skills of keeping good quality notes. It is always important to work with library staff to help students to locate, analyse and use information appropriately.
- Staff Development
Academic staff should be encouraged to actively engage in related training and participate in the relevant sessions with enthusiasm. A good practice is to share and discuss real academic misconduct cases with training tutors to build the ability in practice. Moreover, academic staff should work with ACOs to better understand the academic conduct policies and collaborate with staff from Centre of Academic Writing to access more professional writing advice.
​
​