Paula Miles, Martin Campbell & Graeme Ruxton School of Psychology & Neuroscience

1. Investigating staff & student understanding of good academic practice Paula Miles, Martin Campbell & Graeme Ruxton School of Psychology & Neuroscience pjm11@st-andrews.ac.uk

2. Introduction • Understanding good academic practice is an integral part of the learning process in Higher Education • Training in Good Academic Practice Module (TGAP) – compulsory for all students • But is good academic practice ‘Black & White’? • Is there a shared understanding of what constitutes good academic practice between and within student and staff populations?

3. Method • Online questionnaire • Sent to all Academic Staff, Postgraduates and Undergraduates • Total Sample = 605 (Staff=134; PG=179; UG=267) • Participants rated scenarios within four areas of academic practice: • plagiarism • multiple submission • aiding and abetting • contract cheating

4. Contract Cheating • A form of academic misconduct, currently on the rise, whereby a student commissions another individual to write an assignment on their behalf - paid or unpaid (TGAP; Lancaster & Clarke, 2012) • Often work is put out to tender via the internet and then submitted as the student’s own work (Roberts, 2008) • This form of academic misconduct is difficult to monitor (Walker & Townley, 2012)

5. Results Scenario 1: Using an internet company to provide you with a complete essay for a fee; you submit the essay in an unchanged form. Good Practice Poor Practice Misconduct Unsure TGAP: MISCONDUCT

6. Results Scenario 2: Using an internet company to provide you with a complete essay for a fee, which you modify substantially before submitting. Good Practice Poor Practice Misconduct Unsure TGAP: MISCONDUCT

7. Results Scenario 3: Asking your flatmate to edit your essay for improved grammar and spelling Scenario 4: Using an internet company to get your spelling and grammar checked on an essay for a fee Good Practice Poor Practice Misconduct Unsure TGAP: GOOD TGAP: GOOD

8. Results Scenario 5: Asking your flatmate to edit your essay for improved structure Scenario 6: Using an internet company to improve the structure of your essay for a fee Good Practice Poor Practice Misconduct Unsure TGAP: MISCONDUCT TGAP: MISCONDUCT

9. Considerations – Contract Cheating • The ‘agent’ involved seems to influence opinion: flatmate vs commercial entity • People are less clear about what is acceptable when a fee is paid • Scenarios 4 & 6 (Internet Company) may ultimately lead to Contract Cheating • University needs to clarify their position on: • the level of support allowed (e.g. grammar and spelling versus structure) • the use of commercial agencies to provide support

10. Conclusions - Overall • Staff and students understand the extreme ends of the academic practice continuum well • There are however ‘grey’ areas in all aspects of academic practice: aiding & abetting, plagiarism, multiple submission, and contract cheating • Pattern of responding is similar between staff and students • If there is a difference, students tend to be more conservative than staff • In cases where there is uncertainty, this uncertainty is seen across all participant groups • ‘Unsure’ response seldom used

11. Recommendations - Overall • Keep using TGAP • The ‘grey’ areas need to be addressed: • to determine the University’s position • to allow us to update TGAP accordingly • focus particularly on the appropriate role of peers • Acknowledge that there will always be ‘grey’ areas and that students should be encouraged to stay away from them • Staff need to be more familiar with TGAP & university policy (in particular - multiple submission)