Transcript ICAI_2014_Tomas_Foltynek - Center for Academic Integrity

Impact of Policies for
Plagiarism in HE across Europe
Tomas Foltynek
Mendel University in Brno, CZ
Irene Glendinning
Coventry University, UK
510321-LLP-1-2010-1-UK-ERASMUS-EMHE
Content
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
About the IPPHEAE project
Anton (SW tool)
Case studies
Survey results, statistics
Academic Integrity Maturity
Model
Students vs. teachers
West vs. east
Recommendations
Further plans
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
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
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
Research and Development
•
•
•
•
ANTON – software tool development
Survey across EU countries
Case studies – exploitation
Analysis, reporting,
dissemination
Anton
• Software tool for plagiarism detection
• Works within its internal database
– Methods for populating the database
• Compares hashes of the documents
•
•
•
•
•
– Plain texts do not have to be stored
API for batch upload of documents
Prioritization of documents  speed
Various input formats (DOCX, PDF,…)
Customizable
Output: Similarity report for each
document, overall statistics
• Available at anton.is4u.cz
• www.is4u.cz/en
Survey Outputs
•Institutions: 3 questionnaires, 14 languages
•National/senior management Interviews
•Student focus groups
•Almost 5,000 anonymous responses
•Separate reports for all 27 EU countries
–Executive summary
–Details of research
–Analysis of results
–Recommendations
•Comparison across the EU
•Academic Integrity Maturity Model
•Tested survey questions – for reuse
Case studies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Holistic Institutional Policy review
Good Academic Practice Quiz
Policies for distance learning
Critique of anti-plagiarism software
Comparison of 2 Estonian HEIs
Evaluation of plagiarism workshops
Student views of plagiarism
Case study Slovakia
Case study Latvia
Case study Lithuania
Code plagiarism
Comparison of 2 Polish Universities
Some student voices…
• “If both people agree, you can plagiarise
your friend” (Polish)
• “Stealing from book is more a crime than
stealing from Wikipedia” (French)
• “When you put something on the Internet,
anyone can take it”(French)
• “If we change a few words, then it’s
alright” (Polish)
• “When we paraphrase, why should we
reference?” (Polish)
• “[Is plagiarism immoral?] Moral? Today?”
(German)
• “…for teaching purposes it’s ok!”
(German)
• “It’s wrong, because I could be caught”
(German)
Findings
• Great differences between countries and institutions
–
–
–
Approaches to quality assurance
Perceptions, awareness – eg. what is plagiarism
Policies and procedures
• Differences in maturity of systems
–
Nationally, regionally, institutionally
• Inconsistency in
–
–
–
–
Understanding
Accountability for decisions
Processes
Decisions
• Good practice – lots of it (workshop)
• Head in the sand – lots of it
• Acceptance of the need for change – variable
I have received training in
techniques for scholarly academic
writing and anti-plagiarism issues
This institution has policies and
procedures for dealing with
plagiarism
Policies for plagiarism exist, are
known and effective
(3 questions together, max. 15)
I believe I may have plagiarized
(accidentally or deliberately)
I have come across a case of
plagiarism committed by a student
I believe my teachers may have
used plagiarized or unattributed
materials in class notes
40% of student’s work copied
word for word with no quotation,
references or citations
40% of student’s work copied
some words changed, no
quotations, references or citations
Academic Integrity Maturity Model
• Measuring Academic Integrity
Maturity of countries
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Transparency
Policies
Sanctions
Software
Prevention
Communication
Knowledge
Training
Research
AIMM National Scores (max. 36)
Positive correlation with
• Gross National Product
• Corruption Perception Index (Transparency Int.)
Students vs. teachers
• How students get to know about
plagiarism?
– Teachers: Class/workshop
– Students: Web pages
• What is difficult on academic
writing?
– Teachers: Referencing formats,
citing and referencing
– Students: Finding good sources,
paraphrasing
• Teachers know more abut
policies and procedures
Students vs. teachers:
Why do students plagiarize?
• Teachers
– it’s easy to cut and paste
– plagiarism is not wrong
– lecturer will not care
• Students
– run out of time
– unable to cope with the
workload
– their own work is not good
enough
Students vs. teachers:
40% copied, some words
changed. Is it plagiarism?
“West” vs. “East”
• Heritage of former communist
government?
• Western countries
– More training
– More cases of uncovered plag.
– Better students’ understanding
• Eastern countries
– Plagiarism is normal
– Reconciliation
– Shoot the whistleblower
Recommendations
Varies across countries and institutions,
examples:
• National support for institution-wide
strategies
–
Incl. licenses for digital tools
• Accountability and consistency in QA
–
Incl. assessment grading and academic integrity
• Clear and transparent policies and systems
–
–
•
•
•
•
More agreement on what constitutes plagiarism
Fairness and proportionality of sanctions
Education and training, staff and students
Comparability of statistics to monitor impact
Funding for developments
Strengthen pre-university understanding and
practices
Challenges to future progress
• What could change, what would be possible?
–
–
–
Scale of change needed in some places
Fear of identification, exposure
Fear of change
• Reaching the right people to kick-start change
–
–
–
–
Complacency, lack of interest
Not viewed as a priority
Costs in current economic climate
Lack of agreement about how to proceed
• Gaps: low participation, institutions and
countries
• Lack of time and effort
–
–
Overworked, underpaid academics, second jobs
Large class sizes, under-investment
• Shoot the whistle-blower mentality
What’s next?
• Disseminate information to
people of influence
– and try to get buy-in
• Interventions, workshops,
seminars
• More funding
– further projects
• More research and analysis
– of existing data
Would you like to be involved?
• IPPHEAE is a small step on a
long journey
• Are you interested in
participating in further
research?
• Devising strategies to bring
about changes?
• Please let the IPPHEAE team
know
Thank you!
[email protected]
http://ippheae.eu
510321-LLP-1-2010-1-UK-ERASMUS-EMHE