The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Plagiarism in higher education: consensus and consistency when punishing student cases

Plagiarism in higher education: consensus and consistency when punishing student cases
Plagiarism in higher education: consensus and consistency when punishing student cases
This research focuses on the punishment and sanctions awarded to student cases of plagiarism within a Higher Education (HE) setting. More specifically, this research investigated two key aspects: the extent and nature of consensus amongst those who work and study within HE; and whether penalties could be applied consistently. Consensus and consistency should be evident in any punishment system if it is going to be viewed as fair by the community who use it, and by those who receive a penalty as a consequence of it. Hence, this research is important if the HE community is to develop a shared understanding of this very complex and sensitive topic area, and develop fair and just practices when punishing student cases.

The research used a mixed methods approach and consisted of an initial exploratory study of interviews followed by two main studies: the first using a survey and interviews in order to explore the nature and extent of consensus, and the difficulties in achieving consistency; the second developed a new tool in order to measure and quantify inconsistent decision making, and to explore whether some penalty systems achieved a greater or lesser level of consistency when punishing student cases of plagiarism. Educational theories (Engestrom's (1987) Activity Theory and Wenger's (1998) Communities of Practice), along with literature from assessment marking (where fairness, consensus and consistency are also important principles), were used to help provide context and understanding for the findings of this research.

It was found that consensus does not exist within or between communities which work and study within HE: there was evidence of diverse opinions regarding appropriate sanctions for cases of student plagiarism. It is probable, therefore, that some individuals would view a penalty outcome unfair even if the penalty regulations have been strictly adhered to. This thesis also found that consistency of penalty award can be difficult to achieve if the system is highly flexible and non-prescriptive, even when those applying it are compliant. However, non-compliance, due to a disagreement with the penalty system, is also of concern and this thesis has shown that this would result in inconsistent penalties being awarded. It would appear that the HE community must negotiate meaning (as described by Wenger (1998)) more clearly and/or develop an agreement and better understanding of the tool and object (as described by Engestrom (1987)) before it will be possible to develop a penalty system for the punishment of student plagiarism which would be viewed as fair by all those working and studying in HE. Hence, it is suggested that developments should focus more strongly on the learning and teaching aspects of academic integrity, such as appropriate research skills, acknowledgement and citation, and also assessment design in order to reduce the need for punishment resulting from plagiarism.
Price, Julie
92ef44f2-70b4-410f-8498-2846b0f00ae2
Price, Julie
92ef44f2-70b4-410f-8498-2846b0f00ae2
Conole, Grainne
fa25d715-d791-4fe5-9ada-21ceacd4cc25
Seale, Jane
0690bf9a-2457-4b75-a13f-4236202ca787
Lumby, Jacky
83299e7c-1819-47aa-8971-76f4a7a62bb5

(2009) Plagiarism in higher education: consensus and consistency when punishing student cases. University of Southampton, School of Education, Doctoral Thesis, 304pp.

Record type: Thesis (Doctoral)

Abstract

This research focuses on the punishment and sanctions awarded to student cases of plagiarism within a Higher Education (HE) setting. More specifically, this research investigated two key aspects: the extent and nature of consensus amongst those who work and study within HE; and whether penalties could be applied consistently. Consensus and consistency should be evident in any punishment system if it is going to be viewed as fair by the community who use it, and by those who receive a penalty as a consequence of it. Hence, this research is important if the HE community is to develop a shared understanding of this very complex and sensitive topic area, and develop fair and just practices when punishing student cases.

The research used a mixed methods approach and consisted of an initial exploratory study of interviews followed by two main studies: the first using a survey and interviews in order to explore the nature and extent of consensus, and the difficulties in achieving consistency; the second developed a new tool in order to measure and quantify inconsistent decision making, and to explore whether some penalty systems achieved a greater or lesser level of consistency when punishing student cases of plagiarism. Educational theories (Engestrom's (1987) Activity Theory and Wenger's (1998) Communities of Practice), along with literature from assessment marking (where fairness, consensus and consistency are also important principles), were used to help provide context and understanding for the findings of this research.

It was found that consensus does not exist within or between communities which work and study within HE: there was evidence of diverse opinions regarding appropriate sanctions for cases of student plagiarism. It is probable, therefore, that some individuals would view a penalty outcome unfair even if the penalty regulations have been strictly adhered to. This thesis also found that consistency of penalty award can be difficult to achieve if the system is highly flexible and non-prescriptive, even when those applying it are compliant. However, non-compliance, due to a disagreement with the penalty system, is also of concern and this thesis has shown that this would result in inconsistent penalties being awarded. It would appear that the HE community must negotiate meaning (as described by Wenger (1998)) more clearly and/or develop an agreement and better understanding of the tool and object (as described by Engestrom (1987)) before it will be possible to develop a penalty system for the punishment of student plagiarism which would be viewed as fair by all those working and studying in HE. Hence, it is suggested that developments should focus more strongly on the learning and teaching aspects of academic integrity, such as appropriate research skills, acknowledgement and citation, and also assessment design in order to reduce the need for punishment resulting from plagiarism.

PDF
00423995.pdf - Other
Download (27MB)

More information

Published date: January 2009
Organisations: University of Southampton, Southampton Education School

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 374735
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/374735
PURE UUID: 5964ca73-8d1e-451c-bd66-6a88f581b1cb

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 27 Feb 2015 11:50
Last modified: 17 Jul 2017 21:23

Export record

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×