1. 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

2. 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

3. Lead Partner: Coventry University, United Kingdom; Aleksandras Stulginskis University, Lithuania Coordinator: Dr Linas Stabingis email: linas.stabingis@asu.lt 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

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. Small beginnings… June 2009 Oct 2009 Feb 2010 June 2011 Jan 2012 Oct 2011 Oct 2010 July 2010 Jan 2013 Sept 2012 Sept 2013 June 2013

6. Research and Development ANTON – software tool development Survey across EU countries Case studies – exploitation Analysis, reporting, dissemination

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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)

11. 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

12. I have received training in techniques for scholarly academic writing and anti-plagiarism issues

13. This institution has policies and procedures for dealing with plagiarism

14. Policies for plagiarism exist, are known and effective (3 questions together, max. 15)

15. I believe I may have plagiarized (accidentally or deliberately)

16. I have come across a case of plagiarism committed by a student

17. I believe my teachers may have used plagiarized or unattributed materials in class notes

18. 40% of student’s work copied word for word with no quotation, references or citations

19. 40% of student’s work copied some words changed, no quotations, references or citations

20. Academic Integrity Maturity Model Measuring Academic Integrity Maturity of countries –Transparency –Policies –Sanctions –Software –Prevention –Communication –Knowledge –Training –Research

21. AIMM National Scores (max. 36) Positive correlation with Gross National Product Corruption Perception Index (Transparency Int.)

22. 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

23. 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

24. Students vs. teachers: 40% copied, some words changed. Is it plagiarism?

25. “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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. Thank you! foltynek@pef.mendelu.cz http://ippheae.eu 510321-LLP-1-2010-1-UK-ERASMUS-EMHE