Meeting the plagiarism challenge

Diana Tribe and Catherine Rendell, University of Hertfordshire

“ Back in the good old days plagiarism had a price, even to those who didn't get caught. Plagiarising used to be hard work. Hours were spent in the library to find the correct passages to copy or paraphrase. Researching what to copy required almost as much effort as doing the job correctly in the first place. With today's technology, enter a keyword and click, click, click the research paper is in the printer, downloaded and in the post. ”

(Pean, 2000)

On the basis that prevention is better than cure, many universities are introducing changes to the teaching, assessment and staff management of the student workload, in the hope that these new strategies will be effective in encouraging students to avoid plagiarism.

This paper outlines some of the changes employed and considers their effectiveness. In particular we consider:

• changes to assessment timetables
• changes to methods of assessment
• alternatives to standard law assessments
• reconsideration of learning outcomes
• creation of individualised tasks
• penalties for plagiarism

However, it is unhealthy for universities to focus only on the detection and punishment of plagiarism. Difficulties occur where a student disciplinary code automatically associates plagiarism with 'cheating', and academic staff often feel that many cases of plagiarism and collusion do not call into question the honesty of students in quite the same way as do other types of examination offences. Therefore we also consider:

• the technical definition of plagiarism (if indeed there is one)
• the effect of different levels of study on findings of plagiarism
• the distinction between plagiarism, examination offences and cheating

Introduction

There are few published references to plagiarism in the UK prior to 1995, however the Institute for Learning and Teaching reports that by the year 2000 it had become an increasingly serious cause for concern (Carroll, 2001) and the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) commissioned a series of projects on the electronic detection and prevention of plagiarism with the aim of providing a Plagiarism Advisory Service (noiw Plagiarism Advice). It would seem that there is now evidence that law students can (and sometimes do) buy answers from 'ghost writers', download free papers or parts of papers from the Internet, copy material from other students (past or present) and fake citations.

There have been various interesting suggestions made as to the reasons for this apparent change in student behaviour:

• In its Sixth Report (2001; section 1 para 1) the Education and Employment Committee of the House of Commons recognised that many students coming into higher education do not have recent experience of continuous and intensive study and have not acquired the learning and self organisation skills that such an experience provides. Commenting upon this report, Vernon (2002) hypothesises that "poor retention among first year students often reflects what might be termed as a lack of engagement". It is this lack of engagement, of integration into the academic community, which in part at least encourages students knowingly to plagiarise. "Some students are less committed to the learning experience and instead concentrate on achieving the final certificate" (JISC, 2002); they are, as Harris (2001) describes them, "natural economisers who are interested only in the shortest route possible within the course".
• JISC suggests that it may be the case that student lifestyle, family responsibilities, housing problems and cultural imperatives (this particularly applies to students from overseas) combine to encourage students to acquire the best possible results on the basis of a minimum of work (JISC, 2002).
• Research carried out in the University of Hertfordshire Law Faculty with the first year cohort in the academic year 1999/2000 (Tang, 2000) indicated that students from the Hertfordshire/Bedfordshire area who live at home and who have formed social groups away from the campus find it difficult in the early stages of academic life to integrate into the university. As a result it appeared from the study that these students were less likely to manage their time effectively and more likely to leave work to the last minute, when they panic and, in desperation, are forced back upon downloaded text and collusion with other students to complete the required course assessments (JISC, 2002 and Sampbell, 1997).
• The government's policy of widening student access to higher education has had the effect that universities are now registering students who have little experience of the study and time management skills necessary for success at university level. Students are now admitted with wider educational backgrounds and lower entry qualifications.
• Moreover, the previous school/FE college experience of these students may enhance the problems they experience in higher education. Thus, Bathmaker (2002) comments that assessment at AS and A levels is now staged or end of course assessment, and that students commonly have the opportunity to repeat examinations to enhance their grades. She states that there is also anecdotal evidence that the financial importance to colleges of the success of their students means that learning and teaching is "geared to getting students through their qualifications. Independent and self directed learning is considered (by schools/colleges) to be too risky in terms of outcomes".
• Pupils are encouraged to use the Internet as a basis for research from an early age, and it would appear that little checking is carried out in schools to identify and subsequently discourage this type of plagiarism; thus, when students first enter university, they are genuinely confused that a practice that was apparently acceptable in the school/college environment has become a culpable offence under university regulations.
• Another possible cause of student plagiarism derives from genuine student confusion over the continuum which ranges from co-operation (talking about a problem and sharing ideas with fellow students), which is normally encouraged by academic staff, through collaboration (sharing material that might be included in a final version), which is reluctantly accepted by staff, to copying (presenting material that was written or developed by another person, possibly with some element of disguise), which is unacceptable (Culwin and Lancaster, 2001a and 2001b).
• Websites are increasingly, and quite rightly, seen by students as a 'library'; this necessarily gives rise to 'cut and paste' possibilities as well as the purchase of answers from online 'cheat' providers. However, as Carroll (2001) indicates several studies have shown that students are less likely to submit work that is plagiarised where they perceive the lecturer as being highly motivated, interested in the work and interesting in their delivery.
• Moreover, research at Sheffield Hallam University has shown that students saw cheating as "relatively legitimate where a course is seen as being of marginal importance or is badly taught" (Macdonald, 2000), and Bannister and Ashworth (2000) provide similar interesting 'justifications' and 'explanations' for students' dishonesty.
• Where there is an institutional focus on detection and punishment alone students appear to become even more inventive in their efforts to avoid detection by staff.

What is certain is that, for whatever reason, there is a growing number of students who actively plagiarise work that is not their own in order to pass university assessments.

Changes in curriculum design which may assist in solving the problem of plagiarism

On the basis that 'prevention is better than cure', changes to the design of teaching, assessment and to staff management of the student workload are being widely introduced in the hope that these strategies may prove more effective in encouraging students to avoid plagiarism than existing university regulations and penalties.

Suggested changes include (see also Gross Davis, 1993):

Staff management of student time:

• assessment timetables organised so that students are less likely to fall behind with their work and thus less likely to be panicked into cheating
• assessment by examination alone so that there are no opportunities for plagiarism
• assessment in a series of repeatable 'bite sized chunks'
• assessment commencing early on in the first term of the first year of study
• 'current' problems devised nearer to the assessment point so that there is less opportunity for the purchase or downloading of relevant responses

Staff management of assessment requirements:

• case study alternatives to the standard essay designed to present students with problems in locating relevant information
• as Carroll (2002) suggests academics could 'design out' the easy cheating option, ie using the same problems, essays or practicals each year in which numbers or names have been 'tweaked'
• re-consideration of learning outcomes substituting analysis, evaluation and synthesis for knowledge and understanding. Thus, questions should ensure that students are required to evaluate information rather than merely collect it.
• coursework that requires the integration of theory and practice, and/or is based upon personal experience requiring students to 'self reflect' upon the completion of their task. It is unlikely that students will be able to purchase ready made coursework for this purpose. "The more analytical and creative the task, the less likely it already exists." (Carroll and Appleton, 2001)
• information gathering skills which are identified as an outcome in their own right (Macdonald, 2000)
• the creation of individualised tasks for each student to reduce the possibility of student collusion
• assessment by in-class open book assignments
• topic changes on a yearly/semester basis

For further examples see Carroll (2002).

A core module of study for all students, to provide:

• instruction on the use of websites
• explanation of the rule that where 'copying' explicit reference must be made; where 'quoting' author, title, date, page, publisher, place of publication must be provided; where 'paraphrasing' acknowledgements must be made in every paragraph. Rodgers (1996) points out that plagiarism is committed in many cases simply because the student does not know the proper process of citation; see also Tenpenny (1998).
• examples of plagiarised and non-plagiarised text
• explanation of the distinction between plagiarism and the legitimate, drawing on acknowledged sources to encourage student comment (Harris, 2002)
• explanation that universities wish to avoid plagiarism to encourage individuality and true learning and to assist in the development of the necessary skills for employment

See for example Leland (2002).

Most contentiously, Carroll and Appleton (2001) recommend that academic staff should follow academic values 'scrupulously' by "citing those whose ideas they use in lectures and crediting others' ideas rather than treating them as their own". By this means a model of good practice is provided by academic conduct.

Problems with penalising plagiarism

It has already been suggested that it is unhealthy for institutions to focus only on the detection and punishment of plagiarism. The educating of students in research skills and appropriate curriculum design must play a significant part in solving the problem of plagiarism. This is not, however, to say that appropriate procedures with suitable penalties for plagiarism do not also have an important role to play.

Difficulties occur when a student disciplinary code automatically associates 'plagiarism' with 'cheating'. Definitions of cheating vary, but normally involve proving that the student had an intention to attempt to gain an unfair, improper or dishonest advantage in the assessment process. Even in cases of extensive or blatant plagiarism at a high level of study it may be difficult to establish the requisite intention. The following examples illustrate the potential problems.

Disciplinary panels would no doubt disagree about whether cheating was established in all or any of the above cases. Panel members may be reluctant to make a finding of 'cheating', as, in legal terms, this can be a grey area in which there is a danger of appeal or even litigation in the courts. Some academics may feel that most cases of plagiarism and possibly collusion do not call in question the honesty of the student in quite the same way as, for example, would concealing notes in an examination.

However, where programmes of study are subject to the scrutiny of professional bodies, the university may be under an obligation to report cases of cheating. This can have serious repercussions for students wanting to enter legal practice.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that staff responsible for marking work are often reluctant to report plagiarism where they perceive that the consequences for the student are too severe. Instead they simply reduce the mark on the grounds of lack of academic merit, but without clearly pointing out to the student the extent and seriousness of the plagiarism. The student, believing their conduct is not unacceptable, then plagiarises again. Eventually, perhaps only when the student has reached a more advanced level of study, a marker finally reports plagiarism. The student then claims innocence on the basis that s/he has done it before and no one has pointed out that such conduct amounts to 'cheating' (or any other disciplinary offence).

Under the regulations operated by some institutions, however, the consequence of not making a finding of cheating is that no assessment offence will have been committed. It would, of course, still be possible to ensure that the plagiarised work is not awarded a pass grade on the grounds of lack of academic merit, but, given the ease with which students can and do plagiarise without being caught, plagiarism should be an assessment offence as a deterrent, as well as to draw to students' attention that it is not just a matter of low quality work, but also unacceptable practice in an academic community. Plagiarism (although being capable of being treated as 'cheating' in extreme cases) should be an assessment offence in its own right and should not require disciplinary panels to establish intention on the part of the student to gain an unfair advantage.

In penalising plagiarism there is also the difficult issue of identifying at what point plagiarism should become an assessment offence. Technically, plagiarism occurs when as little as a phrase or series of phrases is taken from the work of another person without identifying the source. Does the answer depend upon the level of study, the significance or the amount of the plagiarised text in the context of assessed work taken as a whole? Is there likely to be a consensus amongst the academic team as to whether a particular assessment should be treated as being in breach in all but extreme cases? If it is difficult for academic staff to define at what point plagiarism is an assessment offence, how can the student? Are we so sure that students understand what plagiarism is (Wilhoit, 1994) even before electronic research tools became available?

And what of the case when the staff are sure this cannot be the work of the student? They believe that this student is not capable of such writing, analysis or exposition. They can detect the different styles of writing. All available plagiarism detection software has been used, all obvious textbooks and journal sources have been perused and blank is drawn. The student denies plagiarism. Not all academic staff would agree that plagiarism has occurred under these circumstances.

• Bannister P and Ashworth P (1998) 'Four good reasons for cheating and plagiarism' in C Rust (ed) Improving students' learning symposium pp233-421 Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development
• Bathmaker A-M (2002) at staff development session, University of Hertfordshire
• Carroll J (2002) Using assessment to deter plagiarism LINK Newsletter 5 Autumn
• Carroll J (2001) What kinds of solutions can we find for plagiarism? Institute for Learning and Teaching
• Carroll J and Appleton J (2001) Plagiarism: a good practice guide Bristol: JISC
• Culwin F and Lancaster T (2001a) Plagiarism, prevention, deterrence and detection Institute for Learning and Teaching public resources
• Culwin F and Lancaster T (2001b) 'Plagiarism issues in higher education' VINE 123
• Gross Davis B (1993) Preventing academic dishonesty Berkeley: University of California
• Harris R (2002) Anti-plagiarism strategies for research papers VirtualSalt
• Harris R (2001) The plagiarism handbook: strategies for preventing and dealing with plagiarism Los Angeles: Pyrczac Publishing
• JISC (2002) Electronic plagiarism detection Bristol: JISC
• Leland B (2002) Plagiarism and the Web Macomb: Western Illinois University
• Macdonald R (2000) 'Why don't we turn the tide of plagiarism to the learners' advantage?' Times Higher Educational Supplement 24 November
• Pean H (2000) Virtual fake outs Student.com
• Rodgers J (1996) Plagiary and the art of skilful citation Houston: Baylor College of Medicine
• Sampbell K, McDowell L and Brown S (1997) '"But is it fair?" An exploration of student perceptions of the consequent validity of assessment' Studies in Higher Education 23 (4) pp349-357
• Tang P (2000) Survey for the Faculty of Law, University of Hertfordshire
• Tenpenny P, Keriazakos M, Lew G and Phelan T (1998) 'In search of inadvertent plagiarism' American Journal of Psychology vol 111 no 4 p529
• Vernon S (2002) 'Something old, something new: confronting poor retention rates among first year law students by restructuring aspects of the teaching and learning experience' The Law Teacher vol 36 no 1 pp44-62
• Wilhoit (1994) 'Helping students to avoid plagiarism' College Teaching vol 42 no 4 pp161-164