Improving national and institutional policies and systems for upholding academic integrity: Irene Glendinning, Academic Manager for Student Experience, Faculty of Engineering and Computing, Coventry University
- 1. Improving national and institutional policies and systems for upholding academic integrity Irene Glendinning Principal Investigator and project leader: Impact of Policies for Plagiarism in HE across Europe 2010-2013 510321-LLP-1-2010-1-UK-ERASMUS-EMHE
- 2. Lead Partner: Coventry University, United Kingdom; Aleksandras Stulginskis University, Lithuania Coordinator: Dr Linas Stabingis email: linas_lzuu@yahoo.com Mendel University, Czech Republic Coordinator: Dr Tomáš Foltýnek email: foltynek@pef.mendelu.cz Technical University of Lodz, Poland Coordinator: Agnieszka Michałowska-Dutkiewicz email: agnieszka.michalowska-dutkiewicz@p.lodz.pl University of Nicosia, Cyprus Coordinator: Dr Catherine Demoliou email: demoliou.c@unic.ac.cy Project Consultant: Jude Carroll, Educational Consultant, UK Project Conference Sponsors: Turnitin / iParadigms / IS4U
- 3. Presentation content • IPPHEAE project • Survey results from across EU • Survey results from Republic of Ireland • What role can university libraries play? • Challenges • Strengths and opportunities • Future research
- 4. 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
- 5. Research and Development ANTON – software tool development Survey across EU countries 10 Case studies – exploitation Materials, resources developed Analysis, reporting Dissemination
- 6. Survey Methodology •Institutions, on-line questionnaires in14 languages –Bachelor and master’s degree students –University teachers and researchers –Senior managers •National/senior management Interviews •Student focus groups •Tested survey questions – for reuse Analysis and comparison: •Academic Integrity Maturity Model (AIMM)
- 7. Survey Outputs •Almost 5,000 anonymous responses •Over 200 institutions and organisations •Mixture of quantitative and qualitative data •Separate reports for all 27 EU countries –Executive summary –Details of research –Analysis of results –Recommendations •EU-wide comparison of policies using AIMM
- 8. Academic Integrity Maturity Model (AIMM)
- 9. Students’ views - Ireland • they expect you to critically evaluate but no one ever taught you to do it. No one ever taught me to write • I want to learn and write well, but it is difficult to understand what is "common knowledge" and what isn't • There needs to be more awareness and education about the problem. I admire the work you are doing in highlighting the issue because I have never been educated about it by my faculty or lecturers during my four years in college. I find that worrying, to say the least.
- 10. Students’ ideas - Ireland • More frequent but shorter reading assignments which allow students to get a feel for writing and for them to receive feedback on their own work • Universal referencing style per faculty (if not university). Mandatory lecture to begin year explaining how to properly reference given on universal basis and not course specific, review lecture at beginning of each year. Handouts that make information easy and accessible, reducing daunting task prospect. New plagiarism expansions in each style to take account of new sources (podcast, youtube lecture series, blogs, articles in random online sources, talk series, in- face interviews etc).
- 11. Republic of Ireland Academic Integrity Maturity Model profile 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Transparency Policies Sanctions Software PreventionCommunication Knowledge Training Research AIMM Irish Republic AIMM Irish Republic 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
- 12. 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
- 13. Republic of Ireland Weaknesses and threats • Maturity of policies 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
- 14. Summary of IPPHEAE findings • Great differences between countries and institutions – Approaches to quality assurance – Perceptions, awareness – especially what is plagiarism – Policies and procedures • Maturity of systems – Nationally, regionally, institutionally • Inconsistency in – 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
- 15. Student Responses I have received training in techniques for scholarly academic writing and plagiarism issues
- 16. Student Responses The institution where I now study has policies and procedures for dealing with plagiarism
- 17. Teacher responses: Are cases of plagiarism handled consistently and fairly? I believe that all teachers follow the same procedures for similar cases of plagiarism
- 18. Student responses I believe I may have plagiarised (accidentally or deliberately)
- 19. 40% copied word for word with no quotations, citations, references - Is it plagiarism? Eg Bulgaria (n=93) 5-57-14-19-4 % 40% copied with some words changed with no quotations, references or in text citations Eg Bulgaria (n=93) 9-13-11-43-25 %
- 20. Findings: Policies and procedures • Lack of agreement on definitions, policies • National stats in Sweden and Austria, but … • Focus on plagiarism in research and PhD students, not bachelor, masters • Link to quality assurance, 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 of digital tools – teachers, students • Pockets of research across EU
- 21. Recommendations for Europe Reduce variation across countries and institutions in: • Agreement on what constitutes plagiarism • 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 • 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
- 22. Questions for you • What policies and systems need to be in place for upholding academic integrity in higher education institutions (HEIs)? • How can university libraries contribute to institutional policies and systems • What role should national organisations and associations have? eg – Help to encourage improvements – Monitor institutional systems and processes – Support and finance innovation
- 23. Challenges to future progress • What could we 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
- 24. Reflections on research • Very difficult to persuade institutions and individuals to participate in survey • On-line questionnaires long and complicated • Most of data collected biased positively – self-selected participants with something to report • Institutions with no policies and people oblivious to the problems did not participate • Low numbers of respondents in some countries means not possible to generalise • Difficult working with EU partners
- 25. What’s next? • EU-wide report and 27 country reports available: 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