Plagiarism Prevention - University of Stirling



Deterring Plagiarism:

Effective Course Design and Assessment Practices

Workshop Handout

(November 2007)

(Based on an amalgamation of documentation produced by Jude Carroll of Oxford Brookes University, Jenny Moon of the University of Exeter and Ginny Saich of the University of Stirling)

CONTENT

Page

Context 2

Why do students plagiarise? 5

How to detect and recognise plagiarised work 7

Helping students understand and avoid plagiarism 11

Designing and marking group work to miminise plagiarism 14

Tutor assessment of group product 15

Student assessment of group product 16

Tutor assessment of group process 17

Student assessment of group process 18

Other assessment possibilities 18

Strategies to minimise plagiarism 19

Teach students about authorship conventions and about how to 19

avoid plagiarism

Counter plagiarism through the design of assessment tasks 19

Counter plagiarism through course design 22

Ask students to provide evidence that they have not plagiarised 22

Make positive use of collaborative work 23

Take an active approach to supporting students 23

Become familiar with resources that may be used for plagiarism 24

Make use of detection software and other deterrents 24

Respond quickly to incidents of plagiarism 25

Other strategies 25

References 26

Context

Research evidence suggests that the incidence of plagiarism is increasing within Higher Education (Furedi, 2003; Maslen, 2003; Park, 2003; Carroll, 2001; Childs, 2001). In 2003 a survey of UK universities undertaken by BBC Radio 4’s “World at One” programme identified 31 universities admitting to a total of 1600 cases of plagiarism (Ledgard, 2003).

A 2003 study in the USA of 18000 students across 23 campuses, at Rutgers University and Duke University, found 38% of undergraduate respondents admitting to use of cut and paste in the last year, to paraphrase or copy, from the Internet without citing the source. Worryingly, 44% of students did not consider this to be cheating. A similar survey carried out two years earlier found only 10% of respondents paraphrasing or copying from the Internet without citation. It is generally accepted that the availability and use of electronic resources has contributed to the increasing prevalence of plagiarism, although more complex reasons and motivations for plagiarising have also been identified (Carroll, 2002)

Whilst there is considerable concern about students cutting and pasting from the web, Carroll (2002) suggests that the problem is still largely one of copying from books, journals and course notes without referencing. Different disciplines appear to have different patterns, however, relating to a number of factors such as disciplinary conventions, the format of disciplinary sources and the types of assessment employed.

This is a difficult area to research, since cases of plagiarism that are detected do not necessarily provide any indication of the full extent of plagiarism, just those that are caught. Asking staff for their observations results in considerably varying views (even within the same discipline, programme or department). If you ask students about the practices of which they know, they are often wary. If you ask them about their personal behaviour you have to rely on their honesty. Most research in this field falls into the latter category, with students being asked to talk about/divulge their own behaviour.

In response to increasing concerns about incidences of plagiarism, a number of UK universities (more than 80%) have adopted the JISC ‘Turnitin UK’ plagiarism detection software; the majority for use as a ‘catch and punish’ (detection) initiative. The JISC Plagiarism Advisory Service,[1] however, promotes use of Turnitin UK as part of a more strategic and comprehensive approach to plagiarism and encourages use of the software as both a policing and pedagogic tool with particular emphasis placed on deterrence over and above detection. This approach is widely supported and considered effective (Carroll, 2002).

When staff are asked, alongside their own students, about plagiarism they tend to underestimate the incidence of plagiarism to which their students admit (Dordoy, 2002). Staff views on plagiarism impact directly on the implementation of policy and practice. Whilst universities have policies on plagiarism, individuals implementing these policies have their own internalised beliefs, values and interpretations relating to plagiarism which may mediate the way in which they implement these policies.

Research at the University of Northumbria (Borg, 2002) suggests that lecturers’ perceptions of plagiarism vary, both in terms of what constitutes plagiarism and where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable academic practice. This is particularly the case for collusion and collaboration. Subject specialisms as well as individual attitudes appear to contribute to these different perceptions. Roig (2001) surveyed over 200 academics on a selection of incorrectly and correctly paraphrased pieces of text. He found none of the texts yielded unanimous agreement on whether they were correctly paraphrased or not.

The University of Stirling’s plagiarism policies[2] for undergraduate and postgraduate coursework and dissertations state its institutional stance on, and response to, plagiarism. Less apparent, however, is how these regulations are interpreted and implemented in practice. A recent (February/March 2006) online survey of Stirling staff was undertaken by DAICE (in partnership with the JISC Plagiarism Advisory Service). Only 96 responses were received, hence no claim can be made that this sample is representative of staff at Stirling, however a number of interesting dichotomies were apparent among respondents. Whilst 44.78% of respondents felt that the university’s policies allowed them to take extenuating circumstances into account, 55.13% felt that this was not the case. Although the University’s plagiarism policy states that students may appeal any decision taken via its standard procedures for academic appeals, there is no mention of extenuating circumstances and when/if or by whom any consideration would be given. The lack of explicit direction regarding this matter in the University’s plagiarism policy leaves an opening for colleagues to internalise and interpret the policy differently. Survey respondents were equally divided as to whether they would discuss their suspicions of plagiarism with a student before taking any further action, again indicating a clear divergence on implementation. Just over a third (35.8%) of respondents agreed that they tended to ignore minor incidences of plagiarism and 84.15% of respondents agreed that making an accusation of plagiarism meant a lot of extra work. This would appear to reinforce Martin’s finding (1994) that word for word plagiarism constitutes most of the plagiarism picked up and ‘prosecuted’ by staff.

Stirling’s policy includes a definition of plagiarism and refers to correct paraphrasing and acknowledgement of source material. It does not, however, identify for students how this should be done or what assistance will be provided to assist students in avoiding plagiarism. Although information on referencing and plagiarism workshops are available through the University’s Student Learning Services (SLS), the policy does not link to these or reference them currently. Recently, text relating to plagiarism within student handbooks has begun to include specific reference to the availability of SLS and the support it can provide for students. An extensive (yet easily accessible) plagiarism guide is currently being developed for students along with an associated referencing guide.

Relatively few students are believed to set out to defraud in any substantial way, although incidences are thought to be increasing (Carroll, 2002). Paper mills, people who can be hired to write essays and cheat sites are now endemic. Some sites suggest ways for students to personalise essays. Others state that they do not support or condone plagiarism and emphasise that their material is only for guidance. Some students use the sites to help them start their essays, others use the sites more extensively.

Statistics would suggest that more international students plagiarise, but this may not be the case. International students are frequently most likely to be caught plagiarising (Leask, 2004), however this may be because instances of plagiarism are more easily detected within submissions that contain generally poor English. Admittedly paraphrasing may prove more difficult if your English is poor, hence this may result in unintentional plagiarism. ‘Copying’ by students learning to read and write in a language that is not their own may arise from their attempts to ‘imitate’ rather than any intention to ‘deceive’ or plagiarise. Apparent plagiarism may arise from ‘patch writing’ approaches commonly used by those learning to write in a new language (Angelil-Carter, 2000: 11, Graham & Leung 2004: 29).

Plagiarism may be acceptable (or even encouraged) within a student’s ‘home’ culture, where they may have only been required to demonstrate their understanding of the work of experts in their field by restating and integrating their ideas coherently (Feldman, 1989). Plagiarism by international students is also complicated by the fact that Western views of authorship and intellectual property are not universal (Bloch, 2001). This is apparent in cultures where it is considered a compliment to use the words and ideas of an author without referencing and some cultures do not believe in the individual ownership of ideas and discoveries.

These additional issues faced by international students mean that they may need more assistance to help them avoid plagiarism (even if they know what it is). Given Stirling’s internationalisation strategy and the drive to increase the number of international students, this is particularly pertinent.

It has been shown that even home students do not always understand plagiarism (Ashworth, Bannister and Thorne, 1997). Most plagiarism appears to be committed by students who misunderstand plagiarism issues or misuse academic and cultural conventions in writing (Martin, 2004). Only a minority of students deliberately plagiarise, however this minority are still clearly a concern. In order to combat this situation and minimise the likelihood of plagiarism being committed unintentionally, students need to be supported in their avoidance of plagiarism and the development of their academic writing skills, by teaching academic ‘skills’, (re)designing assessments and using appropriate learning support tools (Carroll, 2002). Good academic practice by students needs to be accompanied by effective and supportive practices by academic staff that actively discourage and, where possible, prevent plagiarism (whether intentional or inadvertent).

Why do students plagiarise?

(based on Chester, 2001)

‘I just had too much to do and got desperate at the last moment’

Time management is one of the main issues for students these days. They take on too much work or have to juggle family and sometimes career demands with study. Managing their time is something they have to learn how to do.

‘I could not keep up with all the work’

Time management again. The modular system at Stirling often means that there are many assignments to come in at the same time and often students are not able to work in advance for them. The modular system also makes it difficult for staff to take an overview of a student’s programme of study to check the demands on them at any one time. This can result in bunched assignment deadlines.

‘I heard that our tutor has not noticed that others have copied chunks from the web. Why can I not get away with it too?’

Tutors who ignore instances of plagiarism, or simply mention it in passing to the student, telling them not to do it again may develop a reputation for not taking action on obvious infringements of university policy. If the tutor does not appear to take plagiarism seriously then it will be difficult for students to learn to do so.

‘Last years’ students had the same essay, so I used one of theirs for an outline’

Annually repeated assessment tasks enable this to happen. Using the same materials and assessments each year may lead students to feel that the tutor has no interest in the course/subject and little enthusiasm for teaching them.

‘I have to succeed. It is expected of me’

Pressure can arise from parents, cultural expectations, career demands and finances.

‘I know that plagiarism is wrong, but I don’t really understand how to avoid it’.

This can arise from a lack of clarity provided by an institution, department or tutor – basic definitions may be given but not practical examples and opportunities to develop academic writing skills. Students lack experience of academic writing and referencing and may lack a basic understanding of what is considered to be ‘wrong’ with plagiarism.

Students may also have encountered different cultural norms of academic behaviour (eg between school and higher education and between their home country and the UK etc.).

‘I just cannot do this and yet I’ve got to get it in’

Possibly a lazy student, who may have left their work until the last minute. Possibly the student does not understand what is required and/or it is too advanced/complex for them to comprehend. Instructions for the assessment task may have not been sufficiently clear. Opportunities for assistance and support may not have been made available or may not have been used appropriately by the student

‘Everyone else seems to get away with this, so why shouldn’t I?’

Students may relate to a culture of ‘getting away with it’ among colleagues. Some may want to actively challenge authority. Other students may assess the penalties and deem them relatively small in comparison to the potential personal benefits, leading to a risk taking strategy where cost/benefit analysis leads to plagiarism. They may believe that they will ‘get away with it’ because of lax practices for detecting and subsequently penalising instances of plagiarism

‘I don’t need to know this, I just need to pass’

Students may not see the relevance or importance of the assessment, leading them to employ strategic learning approaches that will make the most of their available time.

The end is perceived to justify the means – the course process is seen as irrelevant for their future needs.

‘But we were told to work together!’

Students may not understand collaboration/group working and required boundaries. The difference between collusion and collaboration may not have been discussed and/or clarified. The need for individual work to be submitted for assessment may not have been explained. Practices developed for working together in class may have been translated into practices for undertaking assessments.

‘It would be rude to paraphrase and not use their words”

International students particularly may come from a culture where it is good practice to quote the masters in full without necessarily citing them.

The table below outlines some of the possible reasons for intentional plagiarism in higher education.

|Noah and Eckstein (2001) identified five factors that influence dishonesty among academic staff: |Are these pertinent to students? |

| |(Y/N) |

|1. pressures on the individual to succeed and the penalties for failure |  |

|2. the expected reward to be gained |  |

|3. the opportunities to be dishonest |  |

|4. the probability of getting away with it |  |

|5. the social norms governing such behaviour |  |

In addition, or conversely, there may be unintentional reasons that students plagiarise including:

• limited or incorrect understanding of what, exactly, plagiarism encompasses

• incorrect understanding of citation and referencing conventions

• limited skill base in:

o summarising

o paraphrasing

o critical analysis

o argumentation

o managing contributions to group work

o time management

o workload and stress management.

A potentially complex combination of factors may contribute to student plagiarism.

How to detect and recognise plagiarised work

Using marker vigilance, possible indicators of plagiarised work might include:

• Is the formatting what was required by the assignment?

• Is the student’s relevant information appended to less relevant or overly general content? (perhaps indicating an attempt to adapt another person’s work to fit)

• Writing style, language, vocabulary, tone, grammar, etc. that is unusual for the student ie. it does not sound like the student (not possible with anonymous marking).

• American spellings, phrases and language.

• Sections or sentences, particularly relevant to the assignment, that do not relate to the overall content of the paper. (illustrating an attempt to adapt an existing paper to the assessment set).

• Strange text is apparent at the top or bottom of printed pages (possibly html from a web page, possibly a web address if printed from a web page).

• Grey letters in the text (indicating that the page may have been downloaded from the web, since coloured letters on a screen show up grey in a printout).

• Graphs, charts, or accompanying material is referenced but not included.

• Reference is made to tutors, classes or units not taught at the University of Stirling.

• Quotes in the paper are not appropriately referenced.

• References are generally not held by the University of Stirling’s library and/or are from another country (such as the US).

• Citations in the paper are not included in the references

• Web sites referenced are inactive.

• References are dated

• Different reference formats

• Odd uses of tippex

• Historical events or people are referred to in the current sense (eg. “Tony Blair (Prime Minister)….”

• Students are unable to identify original references or provide copies of them.

• Students are unable to summarise the main points of their paper or answer questions about specific sections of it.

• When provided with a page from their paper that has words or passages removed, students are unable to fill in the blanks appropriately.

• The student cannot produce notes, draft copies etc that would indicate that they had gone through the process of constructing the work handed in as her own.

• Obtain opinions/views of colleagues (who may even recognise a source)

A number of dedicated electronic methods of detection of collusion or plagiarism have been developed (such as Turnitin UK), which can be used proactively to check for plagiarism or reactively once the misconduct is suspected. They are also useful as a deterrent, encouraging students to think about plagiarism and warning them that their work can or may be scrutinised, as part of a wider holistic approach to plagiarism (Carroll, 2003). Disadvantages are mostly linked to cost in terms of money and time (however the latter may be less than some other means of detecting plagiarism, and certainly locating original source material). Electronic means of detection require work to be submitted electronically. There will always be some forms of plagiarism that they will not detect eg. from sources that are not available online.

Using technical resources/tools:

• Typing particular phrases (within quotes) from the assignment into a variety of search engines (such as Google) will seek matches within online resources

• Search for the paper’s title (within quotes) online using search engines

• Search full-text databases such as Science Direct etc. available through the library

• Some databases and web sites are not indexed by regular search engines (known as the invisible web), however web sites such as and will link to many such sites (Harris, 2001).

• Search paper mills.

• Use plagiarism detection software (eg. Turnitin)

Beware of free plagiarism detection services since there have been concerns expressed that some of these may be linked to paper mills themselves.

Using Advanced Search on Google:

This is a reactive method used with one document at a time and is used generally when there are suspicions that material is plagiarised. Carroll (2002) suggests that a search is best done with a phrase of around 10 words. Advanced Search is found to the right of the search box. The exact words are put in. In any sources that are listed, the ‘cache’ button will enable the display of the words highlighted within the document that is selected for view. Advanced search on Google relies on exact matches. The student only has to change a word in the phrase and it will not be detectable by this method. It can also be a lengthy and time-consuming process with careful choice of words and phrases required.

Investigating the authorship of a document:

Details of authorship of a document can be located by clicking on ‘properties’ on the ‘File’ button. This gives various information about authorship and, under ‘statistics’, edit time for the piece of work. Useful evidence may be picked up from this information.

Screening for similarities between written work and the web and collusion within a cohort:

The University of Stirling piloted the JISC Plagiarism Detection Software (Turnitin UK) between 2003/4 and 2006/7, with institutional administration and support provided through Educational Development in DAICE.  In 2006/7, following increasing use and positive feedback from departments, the University (via QEC) unanimously agreed to centrally support and fund continuation of the institutional licence for this software. Administration and support for Turnitin UK is now provided by CELD, with pedagogic support available through Educational Development and SLS in DAICE.

The software is used in different ways by different departments. On some modules all assignments are automatically checked, on other modules only a selection of assignments is checked. Some departments only use the software to check work about which they already have suspicions. A minority of departments allow students access to the software to check their own assignments, whilst others restrict access to tutors.

The software operates by comparing students’ work with online resources and an ever-increasing local database of submitted assignments. It uses a character checker to match up words, phrases and sentences and compiles an ‘originality report’ for each submission. The software works on very small fragments of text, so it has the potential to flag instances where only a few words have been changed. Unfortunately it only works with text, so will not flag up diagrams or other images. Detecting matching text between documents is a time-consuming activity and, without appropriate technological support, could require considerable staff time to implement on a departmental or university-wide basis (Baskett et al, 2004)

The software’s search engine works with Latin script, hence it will work with documents written in French, German, Spanish etc., however the system is not able to translate documents to detect matching text from sources in a different language. It cannot work with languages such as Japanese and Chinese where the character set differs from that of western languages.

Turnitin UK compares submitted papers against:

• A database of previously submitted material (i.e. other students essays and assignments)

• Over 12 billion web sites, including archived materials

• Essays from cheat sites

• Several databases including GALE InfoTrac, One File ()

• Emerald Publishing Data, and the Gutenburg Collection of Literary Works

• content

• The JSTOR webpage at stored within the Turnitin UK database - 4412 pages of non-subscription content

An ‘originality report’ indicates a plagiarism rating for the assignment and highlights sections that could, potentially, be classed as ‘copied’. ‘Originality reports’ highlight matching text found in submitted work and colour code such text as follows:

• Blue (no matching text)

• Green (1 word – 24% matching text)

• Yellow (25 – 49% matching text)

• Orange (50 – 74% matching text)

• Red (75 – 100% matching text)

The sources of matching text are indicated. If the source is a student paper belonging to the same class the paper can be displayed with matching text highlighted, however sources from other classes can only be displayed if permission is granted by the relevant tutor (in which case a copy of the paper will be sent by email). In the case of Internet sources the URL will be provided.

Submitted papers will normally generate originality reports in a matter of minutes, although this can extend to 24 hours at peak times such as during the examination period. In the case of resubmitted papers, where the resubmission is overwriting a previous submission, the originality report will take at least 24 hours.

The software cannot automatically indicate where plagiarism takes place and the report will only flag up ‘potential’ problems. The tutor then has to reach a considered decision about the matched text; is it legitimate (as in a series of acknowledged quotes) or has academic misconduct occurred. Of two pieces of work with a plagiarism rating of 50%, one could be a piece of legitimate academic writing and the other indicative of gross plagiarism. A particular rating cannot therefore automatically be taken as indicative of academic misconduct.

Training videos on Turnitin UK are available online at . Of particular interest may be the videos on peer review and grademark facilities. User manuals are available from

Turnitin UK has a number of advantages but has to be used with care.

• The software will flag up potential cases of ‘word-for-word’ plagiarism but suspected cases still have to be reviewed by the tutor.

• Turnitin UK does not detect plagiarism of ideas or plagiarism of authorship.

• Turnitin UK will only identify sources that are accessible online (and may not identify all online sources).

• Depending on how they are used, ‘catch and punish’ approaches can be self-defeating in that they can take up disproportionate amounts of staff time (Carroll, 2002) if they are extended across large cohorts of students.

• Many cases of plagiarism are due to students misunderstanding academic conventions. This is particularly true in the first year of study and for International students.

• The use of Turnitin UK as a detection tool does not facilitate student learning. It can deflect students from learning and focus their behaviour towards ‘not breaking rules or not getting caught’. (Cole & Kiss, 2000). 

• Detection of ‘word-for-word’ plagiarism may disadvantage non-native writers, who may be more likely to be detected due to linguistic characteristics of their writing, even if they do not necessarily plagiarise any more frequently than home students (Leask 2004).

• Detection can create a climate of surveillance, mistrust and fear (Martin, 2004) amongst honest students (particularly first years and International students), which can hinder learning. (This is supported by plagiarism questionnaire returns from students at the University of Stirling in 2005).

• Electronic plagiarism detection cannot resolve the problems of plagiarism and should only be used as part of a wider approach to prevention.

Tackling plagiarism has to be a balance between deterrent/intervention activities and detection. Emphasis needs to be placed, therefore, upon students’ learning, and effective assessment and course design. The University of Stirling is working towards such an approach, including actively encouraging the use of Turnitin UK as a tool for student learning rather than simply plagiarism detection. This approach is supported by Martin (2004), who argues that plagiarism detection software can make a valuable contribution to learning.

Helping students understand and avoid plagiarism

(based on Carroll, 2004)

Some of the common problems/misunderstandings encountered by students include:

• What does ‘other people’s work’ mean?

• How do I know the difference between ‘common knowledge’ and ‘other people’s work’?

• Is it all right to put down my own thoughts?

• How much do I need to change this to make it my own work? How much can I change it?

• The text says exactly what I need to say, so why do I need to write it any differently?

• Where does referencing stop?

Hints and tips:

• Think of tackling this with students in two stages (although not necessarily in this order or sequentially):

o giving information about what constitutes plagiarism;

o working with them on the skills that they need in order not to plagiarise.

• Recognise that students will need reinforcement and practice. It is not enough to simply talk to them at induction and provide them with an explanation of plagiarism, why it is unacceptable and how it will be penalised. It is likely to be more effective if students can undertake exercises based on the definitions of plagiarism in order to reinforce the message and ensure that they are able to apply their knowledge. It is also more helpful if these exercises are contextualised within their discipline.

• Students may not take in the detail of what has been said to them initially, but will need the information when they have an assignment to do. The information may need to be reinforced at appropriate times within the course and should be available in a range of alternate formats to suit different students’ needs eg. departmental handbooks, on the departmental/institutional web site, from tutors, SLS staff etc.

• Information and skills work needs to be ongoing all the way through a programme of study with reinforcement, practice and feedback.

• Avoid talking about plagiarism as something to be feared, since this may do more harm than good, particularly for international and mature students.

• Ensure that consistent messages are given to students within the department/discipline (particularly since they will inevitably face the additional complexity of encountering different conventions in other disciplines/departments).

• Avoid reliance on written information about plagiarism with an expectation that students will read it. Even though students should not be able to claim that they were not made aware of plagiarism, they could claim that they did not understand the information given to them.

• Non-native speakers of English may need additional help in determining what is, and what is not, acceptable academic practice. This may depend on the criteria associated with correct language that you set in assessment. You may feel that specialist support is required from units such as the Centre for English Language Teaching (CELT) or SLS, however this may need to be scheduled and planned ahead of time and built into your course.

• Whenever you are asking students to work in groups (particularly if you are then assessing them on an individual piece of work) take care to ensure that they are clear on the rules relating to collusion and clarify how they should avoid it.

• Avoid leniency since if rules about plagiarism are stated and you are then lenient over their implementation it reduces the power of claims that the practice of plagiarism is unacceptable (Carroll, 2002). Any lack of clarity or consistency should be avoided.

• Talk about academic conventions with students, such as:

o those who work in higher education and research work within a community (the academic community). Like every community it has its own set of rules to which members must adher. Secondary schools have similar rules but allow more flexibility.

o academic conventions treat new ideas like property that is owned. One reason for this is that there are rewards and awards (grants, prizes, qualifications etc) given to people for the quality of their ideas. Use of unattributed ideas for the gain of another person is thus a form of theft.

o since knowledge is built by adding ideas together, modifying them, rejecting some and so on, it is essential that we can use and work with the ideas of others. We can regard the process as ‘borrowing’ the ideas but the academic convention is that we must say where the ideas have come from and show how another person can find them. There are various words for the manner in which we indicate that the ideas were generated by someone else ie. a reference, citation, acknowledgement. We talk about ‘attributing work’ to someone else.

o not all ideas belong to others. Most of what we know is in ‘everyday’ use, or is in the common domain as knowledge about which most people agree. This is known as ‘common knowledge’, found in reference books such as encyclopedias or dictionaries. These ideas do not need to be referenced.

o Consider referring your students to available resources for practice and further reinforcement, however check out the sites to make sure that the message they are giving is the same one that you are wanting to send.

• Make sure that students are aware of available support and resources at Stirling eg. Student Learning Services workshops, one to one tutorials and online guidance/resources, Library guides on referencing, Stirling’s (forthcoming) little book of plagiarism and associated referencing guide, departmental referencing conventions (and where they are documented).

• Clarify for students what they need to be able to do in order to write within academic conventions for your discipline (without plagiarising) and ensure that they have the opportunity to encounter and practice these conventions:

o differentiating material that needs attribution from that which does not:

- common knowledge

- facts that are generally agreed, or that are common to a variety of sources

- their personal ideas, suggestions etc

o using in-text referencing:

- direct quotations;

- situations in which reference is made to a reference already cited in a text;

- references to web-based material;

- paraphrases or precis of others’ quotations;

- summaries of others’ ideas (ie where it is not common knowledge);

- statistics, figures, charts, tables, pictures graphs etc.

- references within edited texts;

o writing an appropriate reference list and understanding the difference between this and a bibliography

o working appropriately with quotations:

- referencing the direct quotation correctly

- following local conventions such as the amount of quotation, the format of it,

- ways of abbreviating quotation by selecting only some parts and so on.

o managing the relating of others’ ideas in written work:

- paraphrasing where a general picture of information is needed;

- precis where information is needed that is very close to the meaning of the text

- relating one idea to another (accumulating ideas as evidence, comparing etc)

o identifying what does not require citation

o weaving together material from several sources

These conventions may be covered without any mention of plagiarism in the context of study skills, however they may be best tackled within the context of developing writing skills.

Designing and marking group work to minimise plagiarism

Group work is one approach sometimes employed as a means of reducing commonly occurring forms of plagiarism since:

“If the group is to plagiarise as a group… then the group members must either be ignorant of the plagiarism policy, or they must collude in breaking it.” (Isaacs, 2002: 16)

How can you identify individual student’s contributions to group work and minimise plagiarism/collusion?

In what ways can group work be assessed?

Which ways of assessing group work are most/least open to plagiarism?

Tutor assessment of group product

(based on Winchester-Seeto (2002))

| |

|Assessment option |

|Some possible advantages |

|Some possible disadvantages |

| |

|Shared Group Mark |

| |

|The group submits one product and all group members receive the same mark regardless of individual contribution. |

|encourages group work - groups sink or swim together |

|decreases likelihood of plagiarism that is more likely with individual products from group work |

|relatively straightforward method |

|Individual contributions are not necessarily reflected in the marks |

|stronger students may be unfairly disadvantaged by weaker ones and vice versa |

| |

|Group Average Mark |

|Individual submissions |

| |

|Individually allocated tasks or reports are marked individually. The group members each then receive an average of these marks. |

|may provide motivation for students to focus on both individual and group work and thereby develop in both areas |

|may be perceived as unfair by students |

|stronger students may be unfairly disadvantaged by weaker ones and vice versa |

| |

|Individual Mark for Allocated Task |

| |

|Each student completes an allocated task that contributes to the final group product and gets the mark awarded for their own task |

|a relatively objective way of ensuring individual participation |

|may provide additional motivation to students |

|potential to reward outstanding performance |

|difficult to find tasks that are exactly equal in size/complexity |

|does not encourage the group process/collaboration |

|dependencies between tasks may slow progress of some students |

| |

|Individual Mark for Individual Report |

| |

|Each student writes and submits an individual report based on the group's work on the task/project and receives their own mark. |

|Ensures individual effort |

|Perceived as fair by students |

|precise manner in which individual reports should differ is often very unclear to students |

|high likelihood of unintentional plagiarism |

| |

|Individual Mark in Examination |

| |

|Exam questions specifically target the group projects, and can only be answered by students who have been thoroughly involved in the project |

|may motivate students to learn from the group project including learning from the other members of the group |

|may diminish importance of group work |

|additional work for staff in designing exam questions |

|students may still be able to answer questions by reading the group reports |

| |

|Combination of Group Average and Individual Mark |

| |

|Each student gets the group mark with a mechanism for adjusting for individual contributions |

|perceived by many students as fairer than a shared group mark |

|additional work for staff in setting up procedure for, and negotiating, adjustments |

| |

| |

| |

| |

|Student assessment of group product |

|(based on Winchester-Seeto (2002)). |

| |

|Assessment option |

|Some possible advantages |

|Some possible disadvantages |

| |

|Students distribute a pool of marks |

| |

|Tutor awards a set number of marks and lets the group decide how to distribute them eg. the product is marked 80 (out of a possible 100) by the |

|lecturer. If there are four members of the group then there are 240 marks to distribute to the four members (4 x 80). |

| |

|No student can be given less than zero or more than 100. If members decide that they all contributed equally to the product then each member |

|would receive a mark of 80. If they decide that some of the group made a greater contribution, then they can award them a higher mark with those |

|who contributed less receiving a lesser mark. |

|easy to implement |

|may motivate students to contribute more |

|negotiation skills become part of the learning process |

|potential to reward outstanding performance |

|may be perceived as fairer than shared or average group mark alone |

|open to subjective evaluation by friends |

|may lead to conflict |

|may foster competition and therefore be counterproductive to team work |

|students may not have the skills necessary for the required negotiation |

| |

|Students allocate individual weightings |

| |

|A group mark is allocated by the tutor. It is adjusted according to a peer assessment factor. The individual student's mark comes from the group|

|mark multiplied by the peer assessment factor (eg. x0.5 for 'half' contribution or x1 for 'full' contribution) |

|As above |

|As above |

| |

|Peer Evaluation by a random marker, using specified criteria and subject to moderation |

| |

|Completed assessment items are randomly distributed to students who complete a marking sheet identifying whether their peer has met the |

|assessment criteria and awarding a mark. |

|These marks are moderated by the tutor and, together with the peer marking sheets, are returned with the assessment item. |

|helps clarify criteria to be used for assessment |

|encourages a sense of involvement/responsibility |

|assists students to develop independent judgement |

|increases feedback to students |

|random allocation addresses potential friendship and other influences on assessment |

|may provide similar experiences to career peer review/judgement |

|time may have to be invested in teaching students to evaluate each other |

|staff moderation is time consuming |

| |

| |

| |

| |

|Tutor assessment of group process |

|(based on Winchester-Seeto (2002)) |

| |

|Assessment option |

|Some possible advantages |

|Some possible disadvantages |

| |

|Individual mark - based on records/observation of process |

| |

|Each individual group member's contribution is assessed using appropriate evidence. |

| |

|They are awarded their individual mark |

|logs can potentially provide plenty of information to form basis of assessment |

|keeping minutes of meetings helps students focus on the process - a learning experience in itself |

|May be perceived as a fair way to deal with 'shirkers' and outstanding contributions |

|Reviewing logs can be time consuming for the tutor |

|Students may need a lot of training and experience in keeping records |

|Emphasis on second hand evidence - reliability can be an issue |

|direct observation by a tutor may change the nature of the group interactions |

| |

|Group average mark |

|- based on records/observation of process |

| |

|Each individual group member's contribution is assessed using appropriate evidence. |

| |

|The group members each receive an average of these marks. |

|makes students focus on their operation as a team |

|logs can provide plenty of information to form basis of assessment |

|keeping minutes of meetings helps students focus on the process - a learning experience in itself |

|reviewing logs can be time consuming |

|students may need a lot of training and experience |

|emphasis on second hand evidence - reliability can be an issue |

|averaging the mark may be seen as unfair to those who have contributed more than others |

| |

|Individual mark for paper analysing process |

| |

|Marks are attributed to an individual paper from each student analysing the group process, including their own contribution and that of their |

|fellow students |

|helps students to focus on the process |

|minimises opportunities for plagiarism |

|information from students may be subjective and/or inaccurate |

|may increase assessment burden for the tutor |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

|Student assessment of group process |

|(based on Winchester-Seeto (2002)) |

| |

|Assessment option |

|Some possible advantages |

|Some possible disadvantages |

| |

|Peer Evaluation - average mark, using predetermined criteria |

| |

|Students in a group individually evaluate each other's contributions using a predetermined list of criteria. |

| |

|The final mark is an average of all marks awarded by members of the group. |

|Helps clarify criteria to be used for assessment |

|Encourages sense of student involvement/responsibility |

|May assist students to develop skills in independent judgement |

|Provides detailed feedback to students |

|Provides experience similar to career situations where group judgement is made |

|May reduce tutor’s marking load |

|may increase tutor workload in terms of briefing students about the process, ensuring the criteria are explicit and clear, teaching students how |

|to evaluate each other |

|students may allow friendships to influence their assessment - reliability may be an issue |

|students may not perceive this system as fair because of the possibility of being discriminated against |

| |

|Self evaluation- moderated mark, using predetermined criteria |

| |

|Students individually evaluate their own contribution using predetermined criteria and award themselves a mark. Tutors moderate the marks. |

|Helps clarify criteria to be used for assessment |

|Encourages sense of involvement and responsibility on part of students |

|May assist students to develop skills in independent judgement |

|may increase tutor workload in terms of - briefing students about the process - ensuring the criteria for success are explicit and clear - |

|teaching students how to evaluate themselves |

|self evaluations may be perceived as unreliable |

| |

| |

|Other assessment possibilities |

|The tutor may give two grades - one for the group presentation of the product (shared) and one for a reflective piece from each individual member|

|on the workings of the group itself (individual). Each may be assigned its own individual weighting. |

|Students receive two grades for the group work - one for the final group report/presentation from the tutor and one for their individual |

|contribution to the team as assessed by the others in their group. Each may be assigned its own individual weighting. |

|Portfolios may be used for evidence-based assessment of group work. The portfolios demonstrate the student's knowledge, understanding, skills, |

|values and attitudes relevant to the area of study. The portfolio includes examples of work that demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the |

|assessment criteria. Either the tutor or the student marks individual components and/or the whole portfolio. Components may include, for example:|

|report(s), assignment(s), minutes of meetings, observational data, interview data, reflective pieces, journal entries. Tutors can identify |

|individual contributions, authenticate each student's experience, reduce plagiarism and increase student responsibility for their learning. |

|However, assessing and grading portfolios can be very time-consuming for staff (or students where self- or peer-evaluation is used) and |

|information from students may be subjective and therefore compromise reliability. This sort of option is also especially difficult with large |

|classes. |

Strategies to minimise plagiarism

(based on McInnis and Devlin, 2003)

Adoption of strategies will be context-specific. Some strategies may add significantly to academic workload within particular contexts and others may not be appropriate within particular disciplines.

These strategies can be summarised into a three-point plan:

• Make expectations clear to students.

• Design assessment to minimise opportunities for plagiarism.

• Visibly monitor, detect and respond to incidences of plagiarism.

Teach students about authorship conventions and about how to avoid plagiarism

• Create a climate of involvement and interest rather than of detection and punishment (Carroll, 2000). Foster a culture where learning is valued and emphasise and encourage good practice rather than focusing on rules and penalties

• Warn students of the possibility of their work/programs/files being stolen/copied if left on the hard disks of university computers and teach them how to delete this work when they have finished.

• Teach the skills of summarising and paraphrasing (Carroll, 2000).

• Teach the skills of critical analysis and building an argument.

• Teach the skills of referencing and citation.

• Include in assessment regimes mini-assignments that require students to demonstrate skills in summarising, paraphrasing, critical analysis, building an argument, referencing and/or citation.

• Encourage students to proofread for missing quotations marks or missing citations (Wilhoit,1994)

Counter plagiarism through the design of assessment tasks

• Students are often asked to undertake a task that has previously been done by a lot of other students (Zobel & Hamilton, 2002). Maximising variation in assignments limits the scope for copying:

• 'Design out' the easy cheating options, for example, using the same essay questions year after year (Carroll, 2000). Change assignments regularly including changes to format, topic, focus, case study etc.

• Avoid using the same experiments for lab reports each year, since the previous year’s students can be asked for their reports, their experimental results, and their workings of the results;

• Write assessment criteria that reward good academic practice such as referencing and citation, individuality of thought or interpretation and higher level learning such as analysis, comparison, evaluation, argument, critical thinking, reflection on practice

• Avoid assignments that ask students to collect, describe and present information as these are more prone to plagiarism than those that ask for analysis or evaluation (Carroll, 2000).

• Assess the process and not just the final product. Rather than awarding all the marks to the final report/essay in one final high stakes piece of assessment, consider explicitly marking the record of activities leading up to the final product eg. comments given on draft work, essay plans, literature searches, log book, progress file, minutes of meetings, reflections on how the group worked, individual reflection etc.

• Randomise questions and answers for electronic quizzes/assignments.

• Ensure assessment tasks relate to the specific content and focus of the subject (and therefore the students) so students are less tempted to simply copy something from the web.

• Set the assignment specification on a unique or recent event on which there is unlikely to be much material available (Culwin & Lancaster, 2001).

• Use essay/assignment topics that integrate theory and examples or use personal experience (Carroll, 2000). For example, a field trip report, a task with no right answers or a personal reflection on a task.

• Use assignments that integrate classroom dynamics, field learning, assigned reading and classroom learning (Gibelman, Gelman and Fast, 1999).

• Use alternatives to the standard essay, such as case studies, which present more difficulties in locating suitable material to plagiarise (Culwin & Lancaster, 2001).

• Assess work produced in class, possibly with preparation allowed beforehand, to reduce the opportunities to plagiarise (Culwin & Lancaster, 2001).

• A timed open book essay in class is a variation on the above theme (Carroll, 2000). This is possible with large classes as long as the class is in one room at one time or parallel groups have different questions to answer. Administration and marking are considerations.

• Where feasible and manageable, viva (i.e. orally examine) a random selection of the students briefly in order to check what they have learned and that they are familiar with the ideas in the submission (Culwin & Lancaster, 2001).

• Ask students to make brief presentations to the class based on their written assignments (Gibelman, Gelman and Fast, 1999).

• Require all students or a random sample of students to submit essay outlines and/or non-final versions of assignments. Ensure that all students are informed that they may be called on to submit such drafts.

• Minimise the number of assessment tasks - continuous assessment and overassessment contribute to plagiarism. While three pieces of assessment per subject might ease the emphasis on the exam, this number multiplied by four subjects means a student faces the equivalent task of completing a serious piece of work each week of each semester (Langsam, 2001).

• Ask students to alter their final assessment product under exam conditions eg. ‘You wrote the programme to do X, how would you change it to do Y?’

• Require students to ‘become producers of insights and ideas instead of consumers’ eg. instead of asking why events turned out the way they did in the past, ask students to hypothesise why various outcomes did not occur; instead of asking how we might protect an endangered species whose chances have already been improved, focus on one which no one has managed to protect as yet; instead of asking students to study a single country or city, ask them to decide which would be best for various purposes such as a university degree, holding the olympics, building a theme park etc. The former in each case is rife with plagiaristic opportunities since there will have been many discussions around it. (McKenzie, 1998)

• Consider assigning shorter assignments, which will force students to be more concise and will often rule out paper mills which require papers of more than six pages.

• Require current references.

• Be creative in your assignments and possibly consider looking outside your discipline for example assignments and adapt them for your discipline.

• Use unique formats like newsletters, exhibits/posters, oral presentations, etc. for your students to exercise their communication skills beyond an extended piece of written work such as a report or essay.

• Consider a local focus or other means of narrowing the field of research to make it more difficult for students to find pre-written material.

• Have students locate and analyse a paper on a topic or have students compare and contrast several web sites on a topic.

• Consider the use of citation hunts in which students are assigned an article or book chapter and tasked with tracking down an original article listed in the bibliography. Each student documents and rationalises their approach, shares the content of the original article and explains its relationship to the assignment.

• Require students to include something specific in the assignment such as:

1. something specific to the student eg. personal experience

2. something specific to the subject eg. a case or theory

3. something specific to the moment eg. a recent news item

4. something specific to the location eg. a particular building/valley etc.

5. something specific to class sessions eg. article, book or internet site reviewed etc.

Counter plagiarism through course design

• Map/schedule assessments into modules and programmes to ensure that students are not overloaded and avoid bunching assessment deadlines as the resulting stress and time management issues can lead to students resorting to poor academic practices

• Write learning outcomes that reflect the desire for students to find something out for themselves by gathering and using information. Avoid words like ‘list’, ‘describe’ or ‘explain’ as these invite students to copy

Ask students to provide evidence that they have not plagiarised

• Consider how you can request evidence of how students have generated their coursework. This is a useful strategy for reducing the risk of plagiarism and encouraging students to think about the academic writing process. Evidence arising from the coursework process might include:

• Drafts, plans and electronic versions

• Notes taken from sources used

• Copies of research papers used

• Records of supervision meetings

• Ask students to supply photocopies of any references used as part of an appendix (or to have such an appendix available). This helps to ensure all their references are genuine (Culwin & Lancaster, 2001).

• Collect an annotated bibliography before the submission is due. This can be hard to construct from a supplied paper and ensures that the students have done some work before the submission date (Culwin & Lancaster, 2001).

• Insist on evidence for significant claims and let students know that the assignment will not be marked if this evidence is missing.

• Return assignments to students to redo if requirements for providing evidence of sources are not met. If they are never met, disallow students from using the assignment as part of their assessment for the subject.

• Evans (2000) suggests using a meta-essay or meta-assignment where students are asked to answer the question "What did you learn from your assignment?" or "What problems did you encounter while undertaking this assignment and how did you overcome them?"

• Set a series of dates through the semester for progressive steps of the assignment eg. preliminary bibiliography, outline, rough draft, final annotated bibliography, final draft etc. and requires these to be submitted for initialling (not necessarily marking) and included with the final submission.

Make positive use of collaborative work

• Make a virtue of collaborative work in subjects with large student numbers and common assignments. Use group work or syndicates. Ensure that both the criteria for assessing group work and the difference between collaboration and copying are transparent and clearly understood.

• Ask students to work on a task in groups but to submit individual assignments. Ensure the division between collaboration and collusion is clear - give examples of each. Have a mechanism in place to account for 'shirkers'.

• Involve students in peer review and peer assessment with a view to assisting them to develop their skills of analysis, providing constructive, critical feedback and recognising plagiarism.

Take an active approach to supporting students

• Familiarise yourself with departmental and institutional policies on plagiarism (Harris, 2001; Howard, 2001) and discuss these with students.

• Ensure that you understand why students plagiarise (Carroll, 2002; Harris, 2002) so that you can help them to avoid such situations.

• Learn to recognise different kinds of plagiarism (Klausman, 1999; Harris, 2001) so that you can identify when students are struggling with particular practices.

• Anticipate student questions and be prepared to explain and illustrate paraphrasing and referencing.

• Be aware of cultural differences in academic conventions and plagiarism (Lathrop & Foss, 2000) when identifying for students those required within your discipline.

• Review your assessment and marking practices to ensure that they do not encourage or facilitate plagiarism.

• Discuss plagiarism with students in class and, where appropriate, draw upon well known examples from your field to illustrate ethical dimensions of plagiarism

• Be clear about the extent of any collaboration expected and/or permissible on assignments (and clearly distinguish this from collaborative working during the module). In group assignments make clear what is expected, since encouraging students to collaborate may improve learning but can lead to confusion over where collaboration ends and collusion begins (James et al, 2002)

• Encourage students to be proactive and contact you or an alternate source of support if they are confused about paraphrasing or citations (Royse, 2001)

• Explain and discuss the benefits of citing sources (Harris, 2002; Cole & Kiss, 2000)

• Advise students on the plagiarism and paraphrasing standards for your discipline

• Consider using Turnitin UK as a learning support tool with students (particularly via its originality reports, draft submission facility and peer review features)

• Be aware that international students may struggle with proficiency in English writing and need to learn how to write in the disciplinary field. These students may go through a number of stages in their development of writing skills, starting from copying text to ‘plagi-phrasing’ (poor paraphrasing) until they become confident academic writers in English (Wilson, 1997). This transition takes time and effort during which students require understanding and support. The first year is thus particularly important for such students. (Stirling has identified to the QAA that it intends to focus on international dimensions of the first year experience over the coming year or so)

Become familiar with resources that may be used for plagiarism

• Educate yourself about electronic options available and attractive to students in your discipline. Culwin & Lancaster (2001) suggest checking that you are familiar with available resources related to the assignments you set.

• Use a search engine to help find the sites students are likely to find. Simply choose a phrase that students are likely to use.

• Demonstrate to your students your awareness of electronic resources available to them. Evans (2000) suggests downloading examples of the sorts of information students are likely to find in relation to the assignment and distributing it to them - to show that you are aware of their existence. You might even consider discussing the quality of the prepared work with students. As Evans (2000) says, the 'meat and potatoes' of most [undergraduate] research papers can be found on the sites below:







• Let students know that you are aware of paper mill sites and consider downloading an example from one of the sites to critique with students.

Make use of detection software and other deterrents

• Be open with students about your use of detection methods.

• Require all students to submit essays and assignments electronically, while making students aware of the plagiarism checking software that exists. The threat of using such software, even on a random sample of essays, may be sufficient deterrent.

• Archive electronic student essays and assignments to enable later crosschecking across students or between pieces of work submitted by an individual student (to establish an authorship index). Issues of expense and IT skills may arise. However, the threat of checking may be sufficient deterrent. (Note that Turnitin UK stores all submissions in a database against which it checks news submission)

• Request that all work outside of examinations be submitted with a cover sheet defining plagiarism and requiring the student's signature.

Respond quickly to incidents of plagiarism

• Do something about blatant examples of plagiarism immediately (Carroll, 2000).

• Do not be tempted to ignore minor cases of plagiarism (since this may encourage progression towards more serious offences)

Other Strategies

• Knowing that students often plagiarise because they are under stress, pay attention to signs of stress in your students and let them know about services they can use for help with writing, research, and even counselling (if required).

• Practice what we preach and ensure that are own course materials and handouts acknowledge their sources and are appropriately referenced

References

Angelil-Carter, S. (2000) Stolen Language? Plagiarism in Writing, Harlow: Pearson Education.

Ashworth P.; Bannister P.; Thorne P. (1997) Guilty in whose eyes? University students' perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment, Studies in Higher Education, 22 (2) 187-203

Baskett, J.; Collings, P. Preston, H. (2004) Plagiarism or support? What should be the focus for our changing graduate coursework cohort? [Online] Proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum. Available at [last accessed 15.11.2007]

Bloch, J. (2001) Plagiarism and the ESL student: from printed to electronic texts’, in Belcher, D. & Hirvela, A. (eds) Linking Literacies: Perspective on L2 Reading-Writing Connections, University of Michigan Press, 209-228

Borg, E. (2002) Northumbria University lecturers’ experiences of plagiarism and collusion [Online] Proceedings of the Northumbria Conference Educating for the Future. Available at: [last accessed 18.02.2003]

Carroll, J. (2000) Plagiarism: Is there a virtual solution? Teaching News [Online], November. Available at: [last accessed 23.03.2002]

Carroll, J. (2001) What kinds of solutions can we find for plagiarism? Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford Brookes University [Online]. Available at [last accessed 13.10.2006]

Carroll, J. (2002) A Handbook for Deterring Plagiarism in Higher Education, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development

Carroll, J. (2003) Six things I did not know four years ago about dealing with plagiarism, in Proceedings of the Inaugural Educational Integrity Conference 2003, Adelaide, South Australia

Carroll, J. (2004) From PowerPoint slides and handouts at session on plagiarism at University of Portsmouth, Nov (2004)

Chester, G. (2001) Developing a good practice guide, London: JISC

Childs, S. (2001) Web dependency-plagiarism. Health Information on the Internet, The Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd., 21, June

Cole, S.; Kiss, E. (2000) What can we do about student cheating? About Campus [Online], May-June. Available at [last accessed 22.03.2005]

Culwin, F,; Lancaster, T. (2001) Plagiarism, Prevention, Deterrence & Detection [Online]. Available at [last accessed 21.05.2002]

Dordoy, A. (2002) Cheating and Plagiarism: Student and Staff Perceptions at Northumbria, [Online] Proceedings of the Northumbria conference Educating for the Future. Available at [last accessed 01.06.2004]

Evans, J. (2000) The new plagiarism in higher education: From selection to reflection. Interactions 4 (2) [Online]. Available at: [last accessed 21.05.2002]

Feldman, D. (1989) The International Student and Course-integrated Instructions: The ESL instructors perspective’, Research Strategies, 7(4), 159-166

Franklyn-Stokes A.; Newstead S. (1995) Undergraduate cheating: who does what and why? Studies in Higher Education, 20(2), 159-172

Furedi, F. (2003) Shortcut to success, Times Higher Education Supplement, 30 July, p.16

Gibelman, M.; Gelman, S. R.; Fast, J. (1999) The downside of cyberspace: Cheating made easy. Journal of Social Work Education, 35(3)

Graham, A.; Leung, C.K. (2004) Uncovering ‘Blind Spots’: Culture and Copying in Smith, A. & Duggan, F. (Eds) Plagiarism: Prevention, Practise and Policy Conference 28 - 30th June, Proceedings, Plagiarism Advisory Service, Newcastle, 73-82

Harris, R. A. (2001) The plagiarism handbook: Strategies for preventing, detecting, and

dealing with plagiarism, Los Angeles: Pyrczak.

Harris, R.A. (2002) Anti-plagiarism strategies for research papers [Online]. Available at [last accessed 22.04.2003]

Isaacs, G. (2002) Assessing group tasks [Online]. Available at [last accessed 15.11.2007]

James, R.; McInnis, C.; Devlin, M. (2002) Assessing learning in Australian Universities [Online], Available at [last accessed 04.10.2004]

Klausman, J. (1999) Teaching about plagiarism in the age of the internet, Teaching English in the Two-Year College [TETYC], 27(2), 209-

Langsam, D. (2001) Copy and paste no more, The Age, 25th July

Lathrop, A.; Foss, K. (2000) Student cheating and plagiarism in the Internet era: A wake-up call, Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited

Leask, B. (2004) Plagiarism ad cultural diversity – responsibilities, accountabilities and pedagogy in Smith A. & Duggan, F. (Eds) Plagiarism: Prevention, Practise and Policy Conference 28 - 30th June, Proceedings, Plagiarism Advisory Service, Newcastle, 275-289

Ledgard, C. (2003) Special report: Reporter Chris Ledgard has uncovered an extraordinary level of plagiarism in British universities, [Online], 16 July. Available at bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/pm/specialreport.shtml [last accessed 31/07/2003]

Martin, B. (1994) Plagiarism: a misplaced emphasis, Journal of Information Ethics, 3(2), 36-47

Martin, B (2004) Plagiarism: policy against cheating or policy for learning [Online]. Available at [last accessed 25.04.2007]

Maslen, G. (2003) 80% admit to cheating, Times Higher Education Supplement, 24 January, p.17

McInnis J.R.; Devlin, M., Minimising Plagiarism [Online]. Available at: [last accessed 13.10.2006]

McKenzie, J. (1998) The New Plagiarism: Seven Antidotes to Prevent Highway Robbery in an Electronic Age, From Now On [Online], May. Available at [last accessed 13/10.2006]

Moon, J. (1998) Cheating and plagiarism in undergraduate education, UcoSDA Briefing Paper 57

Newstead, S.; Franklyn-Stokes, A.; Armstead, P. (1996) Individual differences in student cheating, Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 229 – 241

Noah, H. & Eckstein, M. (2001) Fraud and education: The worm in the apple. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, Md.

Park, C. (2003) In other (people’s) words: plagiarism by university students – literature ad lessons, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5)

Roig, M. (2001) Plagiarism and Paraphrasing Criteria of College and University Professors, Ethics and Behaviour, 11(3), 307-323

Royse, D. (2001) Teaching tips for college and university instructors: A practical guide, Boston: Allyn & Bacon

Rutgers (2003) New Study Confirms Internet Plagiarism is Prevalent [Online]. Available at: [last accessed on 8.10.2003]

Swales, J. M.; Feak, C. B. (1994) Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan

Welch, L.H. (2005) Plagiarism Deterrence [Online], presented at “Teaching Matters: The Delivery of Ideas”, Third Annual Interdisciplinary Conference for Teachers of Undergraduates, Gordon College, Barnesville, Georgia, March 18-19. Available at [last accessed 01.11.2007]

Wilhoit, S. (1994) Helping students avoid plagiarism, College Teaching, 42(4), 161-164

Wilson, K. (1997) Wording it up: Plagiarism in the interdiscourse of international students, in Proceedings of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Conference, Adelaide, South Australia, 8-11 July

Winchester-Seeto, T. (2002) The Groupwork Assessment Dilemma [Online]. Presented at the Uniserve Science First Year Experience Forum: Assessment, The University of Sydney, 4th April. Available at [last accessed on 15.11.2007]

Yakovchuk, N. (2005) An analysis of online student plagiarism prevention guidelines at UK universities, Proceedings of Plagiarism: Prevention, Practice & Policy Conference, 28-30 June 2004, Northumbria University Press, 243-248

Zobel, J.; Hamilton, M. (2002) Managing Student Plagiarism in Large Academic Departments, Australian University Review, 45(2), 23-30

-----------------------

[1]

[2]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download