Collusion, collaboration or help? Issues of power and identity in university group work

1. Collusion, collaboration or help? Issues of power and identity in university group work Dr Wendy Sutherland-Smith Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) Deakin University wendy.sutherlandsmith@deakin.edu.au

2. ‘Almost everyone has difficulty identifying where collaboration stops and collusion begins’ (Carroll and Appleton, 2001, p.15 ) ‘It appears that there is no consensus on the boundary between collaborative behaviour and collusion’ (Barrett and Cox, 2005, p.107).

3. Collusion: three theoretical ideas

4. Skeptron of power: academic identity • A speaker or writer must be recognised as a ‘legitimate’ member of a group to develop ‘authorial voice’: A fact concretely exemplified by the skeptron that, in Homer, is passed to the orator who is about to speak. Language, at most represents this authority, manifests and symbolizes it (Bourdieu,1997:109) • ‘Identity constructs and is constructed by language’ (Norton, 1995:419) • Identity is related to ‘habitus’, situates students as ‘authorised’ or ‘unauthorised’ users of language. • Team participation involves interacting according to socially negotiated norms (Lave & Wenger,1991). Through participation, students develop a ‘feel for the game’ as academic ‘subjects’ (theory of subjectivity)

5. Collaboration v. Collusion • Students must attain the discourse of the discipline and demonstrate it in the group task. They must become ‘the legitimate speaker, authorized to speak and to speak with authority” (Bourdieu, 1991, p.41). • Discourse communities are specific within certain disciplines (science labs, business schools, psychology, law moot court) • Students must collaborate to achieve assessment ends but not take or use language they have worked with during collaboration in an ‘unauthorised’ way (collusion). They must KNOW where the line exists in order not to cross it….how clear is the line? how is the line explained in assessment tasks/ criteria? Is collaboration graded?

6. Prior studies - collusion • Anna Sutton and David Taylor (2011) • Bob Perry (2010) • Erik Borg (2009) • Ruth Barrett and Anna Cox (2005) “Ironically it might be that the positive teaching practice of using groups and the encouragingly high levels of student integration may to some extent help drive collusion” (Perry, 2010: 103).

7. This study – one Australian university* • 17 students found ‘guilty’ of academic misconduct (collusion) by faculty disciplinary committees • undergraduate (n=11) and postgraduate (n=6) students • male (n=10) and female (n=7) • from Arts* (n=6), Engineering (n=3), Science (n=5), Education* (n=4) *(one student double degree) • 34 staff members involved in disciplinary procedures (including collusion) • Interviewed post hearing and post penalty *This project was conducted under Ethics Committee guidelines in 2010

8. Staff comments on collusion • Collusion is • vague or negative in policy – says ‘no’ but not ‘how not to’ • no clear guidelines to indicate difference between ‘unauthorised collaboration’ and ‘authorised collaboration’ • hard to explain clearly to students • varied across the disciplines as to what was acceptable and not acceptable collaboration • disagreement amongst committee members whether collusion or not (discipline dependent) in some cases • process is often traumatic for staff as well as students • collusion ≠ serious plagiarism (similar to prior findings) • collusion is more of a grey area than plagiarism

9. Student comments on collusion • “If it is a group work project - how do you know where this mythical line is between ‘collaboration’ and ‘unauthorised collaboration’?” • “It is ridiculous to expect students’ group talk will not be reflected in their writing! Do lecturers expect us to talk about something, share ideas and then not reflect it in our writing?” • “Why do lecturers make us work in groups and then assign an individual writing task for assessment? I don’t get it at all” • “Why would I not help my friends if they ask? It is helping each other, learning together, so how is it collusion?” • “I trusted him, he is from my church, and asked me there to let him see my work. I didn’t think he would copy my work, and my words. At uni I have learned I must not trust anyone”. • Internet – free market, ‘common knowledge’ argument

10. Kiara’s experience…. When I got the letter to come to a hearing, well I cried for four weeks and I don’t cry easily. I felt like a criminal. I did. I did. …It was the worst Christmas I’ve ever had… And then the person said, “I thought you had more integrity” and I thought, “OK, I can’t say any more because that person’s not going to believe me, um, I just sat there”… And a student in my group asked me not that long ago, “Oh can you email me this?” and I said “No!”. I said “I’ve already been caught up on this and I’m not risking anything any more”. You know, it wasn’t intentional and I will not risk anything….I know they don’t think I ‘collaborate’ in the group, but I don’t care…I’m not going to be charged with collusion ever again. I reference every sentence now. I don’t share work with anyone in any group and I don’t speak much either. That’s what I’ve learned at uni…trust no-body, including your lecturers!

11. Collusion and identity • Students: • spoke of friendship, loyalty, trust in their academic peers – they can’t decipher the collusion / collaboration line. • see it as part of their growing academic identity to ‘help’ peers • use group work to develop academic discourse in their field – however, some will now not collaborate (Kiara) • raised questions of ‘mentoring /collusion’ discord (particularly in laboratory work) • asked how they develop a sense of authorial voice that does not include the work / voices of others (afraid of collusion) • believe they have ‘negative’ academic identity (“sponger”) if not seen as legitimate user of the discourse (deficit model)

12. Questions • How do we support the development of ‘authorial voice’ if students are afraid of academic misconduct, so they reference every line? • How do we build teamwork if students are afraid to share their ideas because others will use them and then they will be accused of ‘collusion’? • What experiences of academic integrity, sharing knowledge and working in a collaborative team do we enable through assessment design?

13. References Barrett, Ruth & Cox, Anna. (2005) At least they’re learning something: The hazy line between collaboration and collusion. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30 (2): 107-122. Borg, Erik, (2009). Local plagiarisms. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34 (4): 415-426. Bourdieu, Pierre. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge MA: Polity Press Bourdieu, Pierre & Passeron, Jean. (1997). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Carroll, Jude. & Appleton, Jon.(2001). Plagiarism: A good practice guide. Joint Information Systems Committee: Oxford-Brookes University. Lave, Jean & Wenger, Etienne. (1991) Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press Norton, Bonny. (1997). Language, identity and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31 (3):409-429. Perry, Bob. (2010). Exploring academic misconduct: some insights into student behaviour. Active Learning in Higher Education 11(2): 97-108. Purdy, James. (2009). Anxiety and the archive: Understanding plagiarism detection services as digital archives. Computers and Composition 26: 65-77. Sutherland-Smith, Wendy. (2011).  Crime and punishment: An analysis of university plagiarism policies. Semiotica 187 1 (4): 127–139. Sutherland-Smith, Wendy. (2010). Retribution, deterrence and reform: The dilemmas of plagiarism management in universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management 32 (1): 1-12. Sutton, Anna & Taylor, David. (2011). Confusion about collusion: working together and academic integrity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36 (7): 831-841. Yeo, Shelley.(2007). First-year university science and engineering students’ understanding of plagiarism. Higher Education Research & Development 26: 199–216.