At last we’re back on a sensible track!

I agree with Jude and Derek, though I would want to put a stronger emphasis on students adopting good academic practices to ensure that
their qualification is valued – something they have told us in our research. There has been too much discussion about ‘crime and punishment’
on this list and not enough about how to help student avoid it by designing it out. We need to ensure that we set assignments that don’t
encourage or reward plagiarism. Students need to see assessment as contributing to their learning and not merely a trivial hurdle to be
overcome.

On a slightly different tack …

We have recently introduced Academic Conduct Panels (ACPs) at Sheffield Hallam University – and thanks again to Jude for sowing the seeds of
the idea with us through her description of Oxford Brookes’ Academic Misconduct Officers. Running briefing sessions across the University in
recent weeks has made me even more aware of the massive staff development need that exists. Many staff still do not take seriously enough
their responsibility for helping students avoid plagiarism through clear guidelines, developing the students’ skills, and designing
opportunities and rewards for plagiarism out of their assessment.

One of the keys to the success of our ACPs looks to be the fast-track process for dealing with minor cases. These are dealt with and
reported to the Chair of the ACP for verification to ensure that the actions taken are in line with University policy and practice. By
introducing the ability to provide a written warning rather than just failing the students more staff have said they will deal with the
issue whereas previously the system was too onerous and draconian. As well as a warning, students are told where to seek help to avoid
plagiarism in the future. We believe that it is no good just telling students they have done something wrong if they still don’t understand
what it is and why it is wrong.

More serious cases of plagiarism and cheating in general are dealt with by a meeting of the ACP – all of which have the same Chair within
one School. Chairs will meet a couple of times a year to discuss how the system is working and to establish case law, as well as for their
own development. Decisions, NOT recommendations, of ACPs are reported to examination boards who decide on the nature of re-assessment but
not the sanction. This should ensure greater consistency of practice across the University and be more fair and transparent.

Time will tell how this works but it is all part of our holistic approach to plagiarism:

•     Designing it out
•     Improving student information and skills
•     Appropriate procedures and regulations

all built on a desire to establish an academic community where the individual’s work is valued as part of feedback on their learning –
whether formative or summative.

Ranald
****************************************
Ranald Macdonald
Head of Academic Development
Learning and Teaching Institute
Sheffield Hallam University
*****************************************

*************************************************************************
You are subscribed to the JISC Plagiarism mailing list. To Unsubscribe, change
your subscription options, or access list archives,  visit
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/PLAGIARISM.html
*************************************************************************