Transcript Slide 1

Impact of Policies for
Plagiarism in HE across Europe
Irene Glendinning
Principal Investigator and
project leader
510321-LLP-1-2010-1-UK-ERASMUS-EMHE
Lead Partner:
Coventry University, United Kingdom;
Aleksandras Stulginskis University, Lithuania
Coordinator: Dr Linas Stabingis
email: [email protected]
Mendel University, Czech Republic
Coordinator: Dr Tomáš Foltýnek
email: [email protected]
Technical University of Lodz, Poland
Coordinator: Agnieszka Michałowska-Dutkiewicz
email: [email protected]
University of Nicosia, Cyprus
Coordinator: Dr Catherine Demoliou
email: [email protected]
Project Consultant:
Jude Carroll, Educational Consultant, UK
Project Conference Sponsors:
Turnitin / iParadigms / IS4U
Small beginnings…
June
2009
Oct
2009
Feb
2010
June
2011
Oct
2010
July
2010
Oct
2011
Jan
2012
Sept
2012
Sept
2013
June
2013
Jan
2013
Dec
2013
Mar
2014
Jun
2014
IPPHEAE Aims and Objectives
• Identify what is being done to combat
plagiarism in HE institutions across Europe
• Develop tools and resources
• Capture case studies of good practice
• Support interventions for preventing /
detecting plagiarism
• Recommend ways to discourage, find
and deal with plagiarism and academic
dishonesty
• Improve standards and quality in HE
institutions across Europe and beyond
Research and Development
ANTON – software tool development
Survey across EU countries
Case studies – exploitation
Materials, resources developed
Analysis, reporting
Dissemination
Survey Outputs
•Institutions: 3 questionnaires, 14 languages
•Student focus groups
•National/senior management structured interviews
•Almost 5,000 anonymous responses
•Separate reports for all 27 EU countries
–Executive summary
–Details of research
–Analysis of results
–Recommendations
•Academic Integrity Maturity Model
•EU-wide comparison of policies
•Tested survey questions – for reuse
Summary of findings
• Great differences between countries and institutions
–
–
–
•
Inconsistency in
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
Approaches to quality assurance
Perceptions, awareness – especially what is plagiarism
Policies and procedures
Understanding
Accountability for decisions
Processes
Transparency
Good practice – lots of it
Head in the sand – lots of it
Not everyone accepts there is need for change
Maturity of policies and systems
–
Nationally, regionally, institutionally
Student Responses
I believe I may have plagiarised (accidentally or deliberately)
40% copied word for word with
no quotations, citations,
references - Is it plagiarism?
Eg
Bulgaria (n=93) 57-14-19-4-5 %
Ireland (n=82) 84-13-1-0-1 %
40% copied with some words
changed with no quotations,
references or in text citations
Eg
Bulgaria (n=93) 13-11-43-25-9 %
Ireland (n=82) 33-40-17-9-1 %
Teacher responses: Are cases of plagiarism handled
consistently and fairly?
I believe that all teachers follow the same procedures for similar cases of plagiarism
Findings EU: Policies and procedures
• Sweden and Austria maintain national stats, but …
• Focus on research and PhD students, not
bachelor, masters in some countries
• UK and Ireland different, eg transparency
• Students and most teachers calling for more
student training and information
• But not all teachers want CPD, “training”
• Separating V Integrating student guidance
• Use and abuse of digital tools – teachers, students
Questions for you
• What policies and systems need to be
in place for upholding academic
integrity in higher education institutions
(HEIs)?
• What are the characteristics of
“mature” policies for upholding
academic integrity in HEIs?
• What role should national quality
assurance organisations have
regarding academic integrity and
plagiarism policies in HEIs?
Academic Integrity Maturity Model
(AIMM)
Republic of Ireland
Academic Integrity Maturity Model profile
AIMM Irish Republic
Transparency
4.00
Research
3.00
Policies
2.00
Training
1.00
Sanctions
AIMM Irish Republic
0.00
Knowledge
Communication
Software
Prevention
Overall AIMM score 18.94 / 36, Ranking 4th out of 27 countries
Based on responses from 82 students, 14 teachers, 3
senior/national and 3 student focus groups
Republic of Ireland
Strengths and opportunities
• Good appreciation of threats to
academic standards
• Special units established at some
institutions
• Effective software tools used by most
institutions
• Good training for staff and students,
eg PgCert
• Expertise utilised and shared
Republic of Ireland
Weaknesses and threats
• Maturity of policies and systems varies
• Some overconfidence about
effectiveness of policies
• Inconsistent application of policies
internally in some institutions
• Overestimation of students’ skills and
knowledge for academic integrity
• No national system for oversight
Recommendations for Europe
Reduce variation across countries and institutions in:
• National support for institution-wide strategies,
including licenses for digital tools
• Accountability and consistency in QA,
assessment grading and academic integrity
• Clear and transparent institution-wide policies
and systems
• Agreement on what constitutes plagiarism
• Fairness and proportionality of sanctions
• Education and training, staff and students
Need to promote
• Comparability of statistics to monitor impact
• Funding for further dissemination, developments
• Pre-university understanding and practices
Challenges to future progress
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What could change, what would be possible?
Reaching the right people to kick-start change
Gaps: low participation, institutions and countries
Autonomy institutionally and individually
Overworked, underpaid academics, second jobs
Large class sizes, under-investment
Scale of change needed in some places
Complacency, lack of interest
Costs in current economic climate
Fear of identification, exposure
Shoot the whistle-blower mentality
Lack of agreement about how to proceed
Not viewed as a priority
What’s next?
• EU-wide and 27 country reports available
on http://ippheae.eu
• Case studies available on request
– Examples of good practice in plagiarism
prevention and management
– Access to project resources: workshops, quiz
• Applied for further funding via Erasmus+
• Disseminate information to people of
influence and try to get buy-in
• Interventions, workshops seminars
• Scope for more research and analysis of
existing data and use of research tools
Thank you!
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://ippheae.eu
510321-LLP-1-2010-1-UK-ERASMUS-EMHE