Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Vol. 31, No. 2, April 2006, pp.

151154

EDITORIAL

Plagiarism: prevention, practice and policy

Fiona Duggan*
Plagiarism Advisory Service, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Assessment 10.1080/02602930500262452 CAEH_A_126228.sgm 0260-2938 Original Taylor 2005 0 2 31 210 FionaDuggan 00000April Technopole, and & Article Francis (print)/1469-297X Francis & 2006 Evaluation Kings Manor in Higher (online) Business Education ParkNewcastle upon TyneNE1 6PAf.duggan@unn.ac.uk

Whilst plagiarism is not a new problem for education providers in the UK and worldwide, widespread access to the World Wide Web and its wealth of resources is changing the nature and extent of the problem. Academics are increasingly concerned that what was once a case of manageable infringements of academic regulations is in danger of becoming a problem of epidemic proportions. Underwood and Szabo (2003, p. 2) noted recently that the Internet has changed the dynamics of academic dishonest practice; access is no longer for the knowing few but is there for the majority. Whilst Carroll (2002, p. 14) comments that when academics worry about plagiarism arising from fraud rather than misunderstanding, most of the worries are about electronic resources. The first recorded study of student cheating, (p. 161) including plagiarism, in the UK was conducted by Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead in 1995, before access to electronic resources became commonplace in Higher Education institutions. Students in the study were asked to estimate how frequently they thought cheating occurred in their year group. In addition, the student participants were also asked to rate the severity of a range of cheating behaviours. The results highlighted that the students ranked behaviour such as fabricating references, paraphrasing without references and copying without references as amongst the least serious of cheating behaviours and, perhaps unsurprisingly therefore, also estimated the frequency of these behaviours to be particularly high, 52%, 60% and 54% respectively (Franklyn-Stokes & Newstead, 1995, p. 164). A more recent study (Dordoy, 2002, p. 2) found that 74% of the student respondents believed that copying a few paragraphs of an essay from a book/ Internet uncited was a common activity amongst their peers. The students in Dordoys study (2002) also ranked submitting work containing uncited text as the least serious form of cheating. Surveys of academic staff corroborate these findings of a perceived increase in the incidence of student plagiarism (Dordoy 2002; Bull et al.,
* Plagiarism Advisory Service, 210 Technopole, Northumbria Learning, Kings Manor Business Park, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 6PA. Email: f.duggan@unn.ac.uk ISSN 0260-2938 (print)/ISSN 1469-297X (online)/06/02015104 2006 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/02602930500262452

152 Editorial n.d.). In both of the student studies the respondents were asked to indicate possible reasons for engaging in cheating behaviour. Although the frequency of the behaviour had increased in the intervening years the reasons provided by the students were similarproblems with time management and a desire for a higher mark. Parks (2003, p. 479) review of the literature on plagiarism, which included a typology of reasons why students plagiarise, also highlighted misunderstanding and confusion when students are not familiar with proper ways of quoting, paraphrasing, citing and referencing and/or when they are unclear about the meaning of common knowledge and the expression in their own words as major factors in much student plagiarism. For international students also struggling to cope with the myriad issues associated with relocation to a new country with, in some cases, a very different academic culture, this is perhaps the most probable reason. Against this perceived rise in the incidence of student plagiarism, whether due to greater awareness of the issue, better methods of detection or the existence of the Internet there is some concern as to how effectively universities and colleges are tackling the problem. Culwin and Lancaster (p. 37) who, in 2001, contended: institutions seem to be struggling to update their policies, identified two particular stances taken by institutions to deal with the issues raised. Institutions who adopted a reactive stance did not actively seek to identify incidences of plagiarism but when alerted to possible plagiarism, cases were treated as a serious academic offence (Culwin & Lancaster, 2001, p. 37). On the other hand, institutions adopting a proactive stance were attempting to identify the scale of the problem and address the issues raised using technical and other means (Culwin & Lancaster, 2001, p. 37). For proactive institutions the number and variety of technical solutions available to them is continually growing. Since the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) funded a review of five detection software products in 2001 (Bull et al., n.d) and subsequently purchased the licence for the Turnitin software on behalf of UK institutions, a number of new plagiarism detection products have been developed, with varying degrees of success. As the desire for the products increases and the existence of a potentially lucrative market becomes more apparent, we will undoubtedly continue to see new technical solutions developed in the future. Interestingly the focus of some of these products is shifting from tertiary education providers to secondary education providers where there are increasing concerns about the integrity of coursework submitted by pupils (Anon, 2005). Improved detection alone, however, will not address all of the issues raised in Parks (2003, p. 479) typology of reasons why students plagiarise. Tackling these issues effectively requires a holistic approach, in which detection is undoubtedly an element, and through which institutions consider the nature and role of assessment needed to reduce the opportunities for plagiarism, develop fair and transparent policies and procedures to ensure identified incidences are dealt with consistently across the institution, and develop mechanisms for information and feedback to students to prevent plagiarism arising from misunderstanding and confusion. All of these themes were in evidence at the inaugural Plagiarism: Prevention, Practice and Policy Conference held in St James Park, Newcastle upon Tyne in June 2004, at

Editorial

153

which the papers in this issue of Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education were originally presented. The conference, which brought together individuals from around the world, engaged in their own institutions in tackling the problems outlined above, aimed to showcase innovative practice in HE and FE institutions in the UK, and stimulate wide-ranging discussion in the community. The first two papers in this issue focus upon what can at times be seen as the magic bullet of plagiarism preventionthe nature and role of electronic plagiarism detection. McKeever provides a snapshot of the products currently available to HE institutions in the UK, with an emphasis upon the practical aspects of implementation such as cost, functionality and performance. The numerous notices of demise contained in the paper exemplify the volatile nature of this fledgling industry. As the number and range of electronic plagiarism detection providers has changed considerably since the JISC funded review in 2001 (Bull et al., n.d.), this paper provides a useful entry point for institutions considering the implementation of detection software. One of the detection tools discussed in McKeevers review, OrCheck, is the subject of the second paper in this issue. Detection software is sometimes viewed with apprehension by both academics and students, but Culwins paper demonstrates that used imaginatively detection software can play an important role in an institutions plagiarism prevention strategy. Culwins study, which involved demographic analysis of the plagiarism screening results, also highlights the importance of early identification and appropriate support of vulnerable students. This theme is reinforced most strongly in Leasks paper on embracing the challenges of cultural diversity when dealing with plagiarism. Although written from a particularly Australian perspective, the problems outlined by Leask will be familiar to many practitioners in the UK Higher Education community. Leask argues for greater understanding of cultural others and the problems they face when trying to adapt to the new rules of academia in their host institutions. In line with the holistic and practical approach advocated throughout the conference, Leasks paper highlights that good teaching is in itself a deterrent to plagiarism. As a staff developer, Leask goes on to identify the key areas where staff development should be focused to facilitate intercultural learning. Reflecting the links between the principles of good teaching and effective plagiarism prevention highlighted by Leask, the theme of the fourth paper in this issue is the incorporation of different learning styles in the assessment of student work. Walden and Peacock outline the development and application of their Infomaps, or i-Maps as they became known as. The i-Map is a working record of the way ideas have been developed and information gathered, and as such is designed to accommodate diverse learning styles as well as emphasizing the importance of the information gathering and evaluation stage of the assessment process. The authors found that as the focus of the map is on representing the individuals route to the final assessment outcome, and is in line with the principles of student-centred learning, it promotes good academic practice and removes the motivation for plagiarism. The final two papers in this issue consider the complexity of dealing with plagiarism from an institutional rather than an individual perspective. Pickards paper details

154 Editorial research undertaken with staff and students in her own college, which, it was anticipated would facilitate the changes in culture that would provide the environment for a holistic revision of institutional practice. Pickards survey of staff and student perceptions and understanding of plagiarism builds upon previous studies such as those of Dordoy (2002) and Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead (1995). Again, in line with the practical approach taken at the conference, Pickards paper outlines the staff and student development activities instigated as a result of the research, which will undoubtedly be of interest to individuals engaged in similar development work within their own institutions. Finally, Macdonald and Carrolls paper calls for recognition that plagiarism is a complex problem, being dealt with by complex institutions in an increasingly diverse higher education system. Their paper provides details of three case studies, where various factors led to the institutions involved reviewing their policies and procedures in relation to plagiarism. For one of the institutions in particular this was a reactive stance, as outlined by Culwin above, rather than a proactive measure. Whilst it is too early to determine the success, or otherwise, of the measures taken in one of the cases, the studies highlight that despite the origins of a review the rationale for a holistic approach to the problem was overwhelming. Echoing the focus of Walden and Peacocks Infomap, as part of a holistic approach to the issue, Macdonald and Carroll call for a switch to assessment for learning where the emphasis is upon helping students to acquire the skills needed to not only understand how but also why to avoid plagiarism, a call that will be echoed by everyone involved in dealing with the increased incidence of student plagiarism in Higher Education. References
Anon (2005, 11 May) Cheating, coursework and a lesson in fairness, The Independent (Editorial). Bull, J. Collins, C., Coughlin, E. & Sharp, D. (n.d.) Technical review of plagiarism detection software report (University of Luton, Joint Information Systems Committee). Carroll, J. (2002) A handbook for deterring plagiarism in higher education (Oxford, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development). Culwin, F. & Lancaster, T. (2001) Plagiarism issues for higher education, Vine, 31(2), 3641. Dordoy, A. (2002) Cheating and plagiarism: student and staff perceptions at Northumbria, in: A. Dordoy & C. Robson (Eds) Proceedings of the Northumbria Conferenceeducating for the future, Newcastle upon Tyne, Northumbria University. Available online at: http://www.jiscpas.ac.uk/ apppage.cgi?userpage=7509 (accessed 28 September 2005). Franklyn-Stokes, A. & Newstead, S. (1995) Undergraduate cheating: who does what and why? Studies in Higher Education, 20(2), 159172. Parks, C. (2003) In other (peoples) words: plagiarism by university studentsliterature and lessons, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 471488. Underwood, J. & Szabo, A. (2003) Plagiarism: is this a problem in tertiary education? Available online at: http://www.jiscpas.ac.uk/apppage.cgi?userpage=7509 (accessed 28 September 2005).