1 / 16

Investigating the use of the Plagiarism Reference Tariff

Investigating the use of the Plagiarism Reference Tariff. Jon Scott 1 , Gill Rowell 2 , Jo Badge 1 & Margaret Green 3. 2 iParadigms Europe Ltd Newcastle upon Tyne. 1 School of Biological Sciences University of Leicester, UK. 3 School of Health Sciences University of South Australia.

gray-christian
Download Presentation

Investigating the use of the Plagiarism Reference Tariff

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Investigating the use of the Plagiarism Reference Tariff Jon Scott1, Gill Rowell2, Jo Badge1 &Margaret Green3 2iParadigms Europe Ltd Newcastle upon Tyne 1School of Biological Sciences University of Leicester, UK 3School of Health Sciences University of South Australia

  2. Independent Adjudicator for UK HE 2nd international plagiarism conference, 2006 ‘A cross-sector view on what should be done where students are found to be cheating would be enormously helpful. Some consistency is urgently needed..’ Deech (2006) Photo credit: JISCPAS

  3. AMBeR Tennant, P., Rowell, G., and Duggan, F. (2007). Academic misconduct benchmarking research project: part IThe range and spread of penalties available for student plagiarism among UK higher education institutions.http://www.plagiarismadvice.org/documents/amber/FinalReport.pdf

  4. Results from AMBeR part I

  5. The Benchmark Plagiarism Tariff • Survey of the UK HE sector • Participants asked to identify: • 1. which factors they felt were important when assigning penalties for student plagiarism, and how these rank • 2. which penalties they felt were appropriate for three theoretical incidents of student plagiarism Tennant, P. & Rowell, G. (2008) http://www.plagiarismadvice.org/BTariff.pdf

  6. The Benchmark Plagiarism Tariff • 5 Factors identified as being most significant: • History: has it happened before? • Amount/extent: relates to how much of the text was plagiarised and whether or not this text was a critical aspect of the task. • Level: how long the student has been at university • Value of assignment: standard task or large task (eg final thesis) • Additional characteristics: e.g. evidence of deliberate intent.

  7. Tennant, P. & Rowell, G. (2010) http://www.plagiarismadvice.org/documents/AMBeR%20Tariffv2.pdf

  8. Implementation Survey • 9 HEIs (7 UK) • 155 cases • Re-examination of cases from 2009-10 • Noted the original Penalty • Calculated the Tariff Score • Comparison of Penalties • Commentary on non-matches • Commentary on utility

  9. Range of Cases Considered

  10. Match Between Original Penalty & Tariff 11 Cases of Collusion were excluded from the data

  11. Frequency of cases in each penalty category for the amount/ extent plagiarism recorded and whether or not this included ‘critical aspects’

  12. Frequency of cases in each penalty band 560+ 280-329 330-379 380-479 525-559 480 -524 Tariff Penalty Bands

  13. Analysis of cases which did not match the Tariff penalties

  14. Additional Issues • Collusion • Extenuating circumstances • ‘Guilty Plea’ • Large projects • Career impact related to professional bodies

More Related