LEARNING FROM STUDENT PLAGIARISM
COMPLAINTS
Presentation by
Rob Behrens
Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education in England and Wales
to
“Institutional Policies and Procedures for Managing Student Plagiarism”
Conference
ASKe Event, Oxford Brookes University
Tuesday 25 May 2010
OVERVIEW
• Re-visiting the OIA Mandate and Operations




Eligible Complaints by Year
Outcome of Eligible Complaints 2009
Complaints by Financial Status
Justified and Partly Justified by Category
• Evidence from the Pathway Report
• The OIA’s Approach to Plagiarism
• The Offence
• Procedural Fairness and Penalties
• Individual Circumstances
• Preventive Action -Towards Good Practice
1
REVISITING THE OIA MANDATE AND
OPERATIONS
•
National Adjudication Scheme
under 2004 Act has counterparts
in Austria and Sweden.
•
All universities in England and
Wales required to join Scheme
and comply with Rules.
•
Scheme free to students.
•
Dual test of whether university has
abided by its own procedures
and/or has acted reasonably “in all
the circumstances”.
•
Significant differences to Scottish
Scheme in terms of access and
transparency
•
Complaints must not relate to
“Academic Judgment” (ie ‘what is
plagiarism?’ in any given case),
employment issues or matters
before a Court.
•
Subject to Judicial Review (25
cases since 2007).
•
Received 3500 complaints and
made 3000 decisions since
inception.
•
Two-thirds of complaints relate to
academic appeals, exam results
and degree level.
•
39 per cent of complaints come
from postgraduates, 22 per cent
from international students outside
EU.
2
ELIGIBLE COMPLAINTS BY YEAR
Source: OIA Annual Report 2009
3
OUTCOME OF ELIGIBLE COMPLAINTS 2009
Source: OIA Annual Report 2009
4
COMPLAINTS BY FINANCIAL STATUS
Source: OIA Annual Report 2009
5
JUSTIFIED AND PARTLY JUSTIFIED BY
CATEGORY
Source: OIA Annual Report 2009
6
EVIDENCE FROM THE PATHWAY REPORT (1)
•
Pathway Consultation launched in
October 2008.
•
Sample of 776 complainants used
with response rate of 38 per cent.
•
125 submissions to Issues and
Questions Paper from
universities, students’ unions,
interested citizens and key
stakeholders.
•
Survey returns broadly
representative of students using
OIA services.
•
Report published on February 11
2010 with Launch at Institute for
Government, London.
•
Submissions and quantitative
survey were published on new OIA
website on 31 March 2010.
•
•
Meetings with Vice Chancellors,
Presidents of students’ unions and
other Stakeholders on campus
throughout the consultation.
Quantitative study of OIA
Complainants conducted by
researchers at King’s College,
London from 1 December 2008 to
30 June 2009.
7
EVIDENCE FROM THE PATHWAY REPORT (2)
Universities and students’ unions
•
Widespread agreement amongst
universities and students’ unions
that mandate is appropriate,
Scheme is Independent, Decisions
are consistent and that Scheme has
improved university practice.
Complainants
•
64 per cent of complainants thought that
university handling time was too slow.
•
79 per cent of complainants believed they
had not had a fair hearing.
•
81 per cent felt unsupported during
proceedings.
•
60 per cent of complainants believed their
issue was not taken seriously by
university.
•
58 per cent discovered university
documents through the OIA process they
had not previously seen.
•
48 per cent had not been kept informed
during the course of their complaint.
•
39 per cent of complainants not confident
that OIA Recommendations would be
implemented by the university.
8
EVIDENCE FROM THE PATHWAY REPORT (3)
Source: The Pathway Report
9
THE OIA’S APPROACH TO PLAGIARISM
•
OIA normally involved following
action taken by university against
student under its Academic
Misconduct regulations.
•
Has university applied Rule 7.3
(followed procedures/been
reasonable) ? This usually means
concerns with procedural fairness
not substantive merits of the
evidence.
•
Whether a student has exhibited
plagiarism (and how much) are
matters of Academic Judgment.
•
But will be concerned if key
evidence is not considered.
•
Complaints to OIA are usually one
or more of:
 Technical issues concerning
the offence (e.g. definition,
burden of proof, strict liability);
 Procedural unfairness in
dealing with the allegation
(including delay);
 Unfair penalties;
 Failing to take account of the
student’s individual
circumstances.
10
THE OFFENCE
•
Definition
 Need for clarity of definition
in circumstances of: (e.g.)
memorising text book
passages for exam;
prosecuting under wrong
offence; ‘autoplagiarism’.
•
Burden/Standard of Proof
 Regulations often vague
here. Burden of proof lies
with university, not with the
student. OIA does not insist
burden of proof must be
‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
•
Strict Liability
 At many HEIs, whether the
student intended to
plagiarise is irrelevant. But
where intention is required,
the evidence must be
reviewed.
PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND PENALTIES
•
Universities should ensure
students are aware of the charge;
that both parties are heard and
have the opportunity to hear what
the other side says about them.
•
There should be reasonable notice
of a hearing and advance access
to information to be considered by
the panel.
•
Legal test is Porter v Magill (2001
UKHL 67).
•
Penalties:
 2006 Baroness Deech commented
on the inconsistent range of variable
penalties;
 JISC research AMBeR
 NLearning points scoring system
taken into consideration a range of
factors.
 OIA does not consider penalty level
a matter of Academic Judgment. But
normally will not criticise an imposed
penalty unless the Penalty
was(e.g.):
 Disproportionate to offence;
 Seriously out of line with sector;
 Inconsistent with other departments within
university;
 Student treated differently to other students
within university;
 Imposed by Officer or body exceeding powers;
 Given notwithstanding incorrect advice given to
student on consequences.
12
INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES
•
Students may claim that, although
they accepted they plagiarised,
they had mitigating circumstances
e.g. suffering from stress or that
they had family problems.
•
Usually university regulations do
not allow consideration of
mitigating circumstances in these
cases when determining whether
or not the offence was committed.
•
OIA position is that this is
acceptable unless the regulations
allow for it.
•
However, mitigating circumstances
are likely to be relevant in relation
to penalties.
•
Situation is different where there
are mental health or other
disability issues. (e.g. student
claim that plagiarism arose from
“obsessive compulsive disorder”).
13
PREVENTIVE ACTION
Necessary preventive action arises
from:
 Quantitative finding in Pathway
Report that 60 per cent of
complainants reported that it
was ‘quite difficult’ ‘very difficult’
or ‘impossible’ (8 per cent) to
find out about the procedures to
follow;
 Cross-cultural experiences of
newly enrolled students
coming from different
countries, different schools,
different labour markets;
requires pro-active, educative
strategies to level the playing
field;
 Evidence that university staff
are not immune from
instances of plagiarism so
assumptions cannot be easily
made about what is known
and who knows it.
14