I agree with Len.
Dickson Telfer
Academic Development Tutor
School of Health & Life Sciences
Glasgow Caledonian University
0141 273 1814
You can find useful study materials, book yourself a place in a workshop
or book one-to-one appointment on our GCU Learn community page:
http://tinyurl.com/LDCGCULearn
-----Original Message-----
From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: 07 April 2015 16:12
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Collusion?
Colin
just because an exam question requires students to provide a 'narrower' set of responses than an academic paper set as a coursework assignment, does not mean that it does not involve authorship, surely? Don't we require students to (a) select relevant and appropriate material (concepts, arguments, theories, research) and (b) construct these into cogent and coherent discursive text? Isn't that authorship? It requires them to recognise and discriminate between the wide range of 'stuff' they could bring to bear to address a question/ task, and engage in the construction of reasoned argument, expressed in appropriate language.
The first part, selection of relevant material, is the part on which we should encourage student collaboration. It's the next stage that becomes collusion if a common text is produced with the intention that it be presented as if by an individual.
Memorising what has been discussed together is no problem if the discussion has remained at the first stage - it still requires the individual to translate that often inchoate chat into reasoned discussion in textual form.
Len
-------------------------
Dr Leonard Holmes
Research Degrees Convenor
Reader in Management
University of Roehampton | London | SW15 5PJ www.roehampton.ac.uk/staff/LeonardHolmes
Centre for Organizational Research
Tel: +44 (0) 20 8392 8151 |
Follow us on TWITTER | Find us on FACEBOOK Watch us on YOUTUBE| Check in on FOURSQUARE
________________________________________
From: learning development in higher education network [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Colin Neville [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 07 April 2015 15:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Collusion?
I take Len's point about joint authorship, but would argue that this argument has less resonance in relation to summative exam questions and answers, where the questions are often set to elicit a narrower set of responses, compared to more formative course work assignments, and where writing in an exam is more an editing, rather than authorship, process. (Authorship, for me, implies a more creative set of responses).
It seems to me that the learning element of this situation is potentially within the 'work together' and 'discussion' parts of this scenario, and that memorizing what has been discussed together is a pragmatic response to the exams the students have to sit - an increasingly likely assessment scenario too, given the ongoing concerns about plagiarism linked to course work assignments.
Colin Neville
________________________________________
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 07 April 2015 14:26
To: Colin Neville; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Collusion?
Dear all
I think this shows that the whole arena of assessment offences remains confused, and that definitions, policies and practices tend to be made up 'on the hoof', in response to problems - bad cases yielding poor laws.
In the case presented, the problem, it seems to me, is that the students committed an assessment offence in so far as they colluded in producing a **text** that each **intended** to present as their original response to a relevant question. That goes beyond collaboration, cooperation, collegial dialogue etc (these would be perfectly acceptable and examples of normal academic practice, to be fostered). Jointly authored text is just that, jointly authored - so cannot be legitimately presented as solo authored.
I faced a similar case at Bedfordshire a few years ago, marking exam papers from full-time international students. Three students presented answers to questions that were clearly not their own work. They had memorised 'fact sheets' from the website of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Impressive - but not what was required. I gave low marks as they hadn't answered the question actually set (yes, agree with comments about taking care over question setting). But I was much more alert to similar ways in which some students with educational backgrounds that promoted memorisation might be able to 'get around' the intention of the assessment, ie to get the student to produce a discursive response to a particular task drawing upon key sets of ideas, concepts, theories etc.
After that I included the following in the exam paper rubric:
" All answers presented should be your own work; the extended presentation of memorised text will not be given any marks."
I encouraged students to collaborate on exam preparation (I avoid the term 'revision'), but advised that they never went as far as producing text (notes only).
regards
Len
-------------------------
Dr Leonard Holmes
Research Degrees Convenor
Reader in Management
University of Roehampton | London | SW15 5PJ www.roehampton.ac.uk/staff/LeonardHolmes
Centre for Organizational Research
Tel: +44 (0) 20 8392 8151 |
Follow us on TWITTER | Find us on FACEBOOK Watch us on YOUTUBE| Check in on FOURSQUARE
________________________________
From: learning development in higher education network [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Colin Neville [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 07 April 2015 13:21
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Collusion?
Thanks for these replies so far; they chime with how I feel about it, although, alas, my case study was built around a real incident - leaving the students concerned feeling angry and bewildered at their treatment. 'Collusion' seems to me to the greyest of the grey areas of plagiarism.
Peter: nice to hear from you again. Yes, you are right, you never really retire; bits just keep falling off until you disappear. Book business is flourishing; see http://www.woodbinebooks.co.uk/index.php?main_page=<http://www.woodbinebooks.co.uk/index.php?main_page>
(10% discount for all LDHEN-ers)
Good wishes
Colin
________________________________
From: Peter Hartley <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 07 April 2015 12:43
To: Colin Neville
Subject: Re: Collusion?
So you are really semi-retired!
And is the book business still going?
I’m also semi-retired and still doing stuff with various universities - latest bed-time reading is http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415640282/
Now living near Dunfermline close to the Scottish Riviera.
As far as your case study goes, it is an interesting one and reminds me of a real case I experienced as a course leader many years ago. We found an exam answer that was suspiciously close to textbook accounts and asked the student to explain. It turned out she had a ‘photographic memory’ and had simply reproduced her notes which were mostly copied from the textbook. So she adjusted her technique to make sure she did not quote verbatim and emerged with a good degree 3 years later.
I don’t think your case is ‘collusion’ in any negative sense. The tutor should be castigated for using such a crude assessment device! So we should congratulate the students on productive use of collaboration and punish the tutor for poor practice!
Best wishes
Peter
On 7 Apr 2015, at 11:45, Colin Neville <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues
Can I try this case study out on you? I have it in mind for an article I am writing on plagiarism. I will not quote your responses - but they will be helpful in terms of anticipating a range of responses to the scenario. Thanks
Colin Neville
(retired - University of Bradford)
You and your friend are students studying in Britain. You are both from a country where examinations are the main way of assessing knowledge. It is common practice in your home country to anticipate what questions will be presented in exams and to memorise answers to those questions. In Britain, in preparation for an exam, you and your friend do the same thing. With broad hints from tutors, and a survey of past exam papers, you anticipate what questions will be asked in the forthcoming exam. You work together, discussing the likely topics, and think about how and what you would write in the exam. You work out and discuss together what you feel are good answers to likely questions and memorize what you would write.
On the day of the exam, you are seated a few rows apart from each other. A question you anticipate does appear on the exam paper, and you both write an answer you have memorized. However, when the tutor is marking the exam papers, he finds the two similarly worded essays. The tutor is very suspicious that you and your friend have colluded to commit plagiarism. Is the tutor right? Is this a case of collusion?
Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
________________________________
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressee and may also be privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee, or have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not copy, disclose or otherwise act upon any part of this email or its attachments.
Internet communications are not guaranteed to be secure or virus-free. University of Roehampton does not accept responsibility for any loss arising from unauthorised access to, or interference with, any Internet communications by any third party, or from the transmission of any viruses.
Any opinion or other information in this e-mail or its attachments that does not relate to the business of University of Roehampton is personal to the sender and is not given or endorsed by University of Roehampton.
University of Roehampton is the trading name of Roehampton University, a company limited by guarantee incorporated in England under number 5161359. Registered Office: Grove House, Roehampton Lane, London SW15 5PJ. An exempt charity.
Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressee and may also be privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee, or have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not copy, disclose or otherwise act upon any part of this email or its attachments.
Internet communications are not guaranteed to be secure or virus-free. University of Roehampton does not accept responsibility for any loss arising from unauthorised access to, or interference with, any Internet communications by any third party, or from the transmission of any viruses.
Any opinion or other information in this e-mail or its attachments that does not relate to the business of University of Roehampton is personal to the sender and is not given or endorsed by University of Roehampton.
University of Roehampton is the trading name of Roehampton University, a company limited by guarantee incorporated in England under number 5161359. Registered Office: Grove House, Roehampton Lane, London SW15 5PJ. An exempt charity.
Glasgow Caledonian University is a registered Scottish charity, number SC021474
|
