Tackling plagiarism at Sheffield Hallam University

Case study from Lesley Lomax of Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) on efforts to tackle the growth in plagiarism (featuring a compusory moot), presented at UKCLE’s seminar on plagiarism and legal education on 22 September 2004.

In tackling plagiarism at Sheffield Hallam the university places much emphasis on student information and training, staff development, and procedures and regulations. Ranald Macdonald from the university’s Learning and Teaching Institute has led on the development of procedures and regulations with the Academic Registry, running workshops for Schools and using research to promote good practice to minimise the occurrence of plagiarism and cheating, recognising the importance of good academic practice.

The student intranet and course handbooks bring the students’ attention to what constitutes plagiarism and to the university’s rules and procedures in this area. From induction onwards students are directed to Key Skills On Line (access to students at SHU only), which helps them to research, structure and reference essays, and gives advice on how to avoid an accusation of plagiarism. Further advice is given on Blackboard, SHU’s virtual learning environment. Sessions are run for both staff and students and the Learning and Teaching Institute advises staff on how to construct assessments which minimise the opportunities for plagiarism.

New procedures were introduced in the 2003-04 session, as it was felt necessary to investigate links between centralised institutional policy and the implementation of that policy in practice in the various departments across the university.

Academic Conduct Panels were set up, with clear guidelines given to both staff and students as to what would constitute plagiarism and collusion. Criteria were set up in order to assess the seriousness and extent of the plagiarism, and a list of possible sanctions ranging from referral in the module to action under the university disciplinary procedures were put in place.

The new procedure consists of a two stage process:

• Stage 1: a meeting is set up between the programme leader, the member of staff alleging the plagiarism and the student (together with a friend if desired). There is a ‘fast track’ process if the plagiarism or collusion is partial or minor and is admitted. There is a report to the Chair of the Academic Conduct Panel, and the sanction is usually a warning and a referral in that piece of work.
• Stage 2: more serious cases go on to a meeting of the Academic Conduct Panel, which considers the evidence and questions the student (and staff, if necessary). A decision is made and if plagiarism is found, various criteria are employed to determine the severity of the sanction.

In all cases, students are advised how to avoid plagiarism. There are meetings across the university of Academic Conduct Panel Chairs and Secretaries to implement good practice and ensure consistency.

The law programme

Further to university-wide measures to tackle plagiarism, and in addition to the information contained in course handbooks and online in the university’s cheating regulations, the Law Division has introduced other processes within the taught programme.

Early in the first semester tutors run a workshop on plagiarism in the first year module, Law and Contemporary Society. Despite all our written efforts to appraise them, we find that students often do not understand what constitutes plagiarism. By participating in the workshop, they have the opportunity to work through examples and examine their own work.

Students are given advice and guidelines on answering law courseworks, including a section on how to correctly reference. Plagiarism is defined and the following exercise is then worked through. The aim is to heighten the students’ awareness of what constitutes plagiarism and to improve their essay writing skills.

Where do you draw the line?

Number 1 is plagiarism. Number 7 is not. Where do you draw the line?

1. Copying a paragraph word for word from a source without any acknowledgement.
2. Copying a paragraph, but making small changes, such as changing a few verbs, replacing an adjective with a synonym, with no acknowledgement.
3. As 2 above, but with an acknowledgement in the bibliography.
4. Cutting and pasting a paragraph by using sentences of the original, but omitting one or two, and putting one or two in a different order, with no quotation marks. In-text acknowledgement, for example (Jones, 1999), plus full bibliography.
5. Composing a paragraph by taking short phrases from a number of sources and putting them together with words of your own to make a coherent passage, with no quotation marks. In-text acknowledgement, for example (Jones, 1999) for each phrase from each source; full bibliography.
6. Paraphrasing a paragraph with substantial changes in language and organisation, the new version having changes in the amount of detail used and the examples cited. In-text acknowledgement, for example (Jones, 1999), plus full bibliography.
7. Quoting a paragraph by placing it in block format with the source cited in the text and a full bibliography.

(Based on an exercise in Academic writing for graduate students by Swales and Feale, University of Michigan, 1993.)

The moot

The issue of plagiarism is further addressed by a compulsory moot in Semester 2 in the Elements of Law module, which alerts the students to the potentially very serious consequences of being found guilty of plagiarism, both from the university’s point of view and that of the Law Society.

The subject matter of the moot is an appeal by a student who had been found guilty of plagiarism on the grounds that her treatment had not been impartial, that the university’s disciplinary procedures were flawed, and that academic decisions must be reasonable and objective.

The exact moot hypothetical will change each year, but this year’s question concerns two students who have worked together on a piece of coursework which was then marked by two different members of staff. Student A received a mark of 33% (a fail) and student B 42% (a pass). Student A complained to the member of staff © who marked her work, on the grounds that she had worked with student B who had obtained a pass mark.

C then instigated plagiarism proceedings against A before the module leader D and the LLB Programme Leader E, both of whom were social as well as work colleagues of C. The eventual outcome was that A failed the module and therefore would not get a qualifying law degree.

A appealed to the High Court who affirmed the university’s disciplinary findings, and held that: “Academic decisions are a matter for universities alone to decide”.

A has since discovered that C was formerly a practising barrister who frequently lost cases before Judge Tito in the Family Division of the High Court. Judge Tito is A’s father.

The student is instructed to represent either A or the university in the forthcoming appeal on the grounds that:

1. A’s treatment was not impartial.
2. The university’s disciplinary proceedings were flawed and incorrectly implemented.
3. Academic decisions must be reasonable and objective.

Students are given clear instructions on how to research, how to structure a skeleton argument and how to present a the case in the moot court.

Thus, not only does the moot require the student to further research skills in the area of judicial review, to present a coherent legal argument and to develop advocacy skills, but also it requires a full understanding of the university’s procedures.

It is hoped that these activities, together with advice on time management and methods of assessment which minimise opportunities for plagiarism, will equip the students with the knowledge and ability to avoid it. Sadly, despite these efforts, cases do occur, but we must keep trying!

Last Modified: 4 June 2010