" with a little help from my friends ...."

" with a little help from my friends ...." Ruth Barrett, Austen Rainer University of Hertfordshire

Plagiarism in programming • Can we use an assessment to make students learn programming? • Can we deter students from copying from each other? • Where does peer-help stop and collusion begin?

Background • ~250 CS1 students • Eiffel for first semester, Java for second • Emphasis on basic constructs and file handling and an ‘objects last’ approach • Assessment includes a relatively large program so that a student tackles the design and implementation of a complete program.

Usual problems: • Little evidence of students reading notes or attempting exercises outside scheduled classes • “I’m a bit behind but will catch up over Christmas” • Attendance drops off • “I prefer to work at home” • Students find programming difficult

Design of a coursework • To get students to tackle the design of a program in their own time • To deter the students from plagiarising each others’ work • To detect cheating • To prove collusion and/or plagiarism has taken place

Design of a coursework • To get students to tackle the design of a relatively large program • To deter the students from plagiarising each others’ work • To detect cheating • To prove collusion and/or plagiarism has taken place

Collusion is common practice • In a survey by Sheard[1] 47% of IT students admitted to collaborating on an assignment meant to be completed individually, 67% knew someone who had done this • Carter[2] identified three categories of students in programming assignments: the loners, the co-operators and the collaborators. • Ashworth[3] found that there is a students’ ethical code in which students feel an obligation to help each other.

Assessment design 1

Coursework with interview • some students found the process stressful • some (who could program) could not express themselves well • inability to explain the code was not proof that plagiarism had taken place • many students appreciated the interest shown in their work • but were students deterred from working together?

Coursework with practical assessment 1 • Deterrence? • some students couldn’t make small changes to their programs • some couldn’t understand compiler messages • some could not obey instructions well enough to save their work in the designated area. • Out of 236 students there were about 50 who could not carry out the practical task

Coursework with practical assessment 2 • The 50 who could not carry out the practical task were narrowed down to 39, based on code inspections and individual circumstances • 39 went forward to plagiarism panel • 20 found guilty of collusion, 8% of cohort

Coursework with written assessment • Deterrence? • students who colluded or plagiarised should find the written test difficult • there was good correlation between the marks in the two assessments • but a number of potentially suspicious cases • No cases of plagiarism and collusion were pursued formally

What did we achieve? • Increased awareness by students of collusion and plagiarism – this is part of ongoing education • Increased awareness by staff of collusion and plagiarism and mutual support in dealing with it • Consistent help for students who were struggling and might be tempted to cheat

What did we achieve? • Deterrence would be difficult to prove • too many variables • only anecdotal evidence • Detection was consistently applied across all ten groups by lecturers • lecturers need support in dealing with plagiarism • Proof of plagiarism/collusion had to be on the code submitted, not on student behaviour

with a little help from my friends… • Peer-help was very obvious, both in students’ behaviour and in the code submitted • Lecturers need help from each other in deciding whether to pursue plagiarism

Plagiarism in programming • Can we use an assessment to make students learn programming? • yes • Can we deter students from copying from each other? • yes, by supporting students to get started on the program • Where does peer-help stop and collusion begin? • a large overlap, which lecturers ignore until cheating is obvious

Sheard J., Carbone A., Dick M., (2002) Determination of Factors which Impact on IT Students’ Propensity to Cheat, Australasian Computing Conference (ACE2003), Adelaide. Carter J., (1999) Collaboration or Plagiarism: What happens when students work together, ITiCSE 99 6/99 Cracow, Poland Ashworth P. Bannister P., & Thorne P., (1997) Guilty in whose eyes? University students’ perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and work and assessment. Studies in Higher Education 22(2): 187-203

" with a little help from my friends ...."