Nottingham Trent University | Centre for Academic Development and Quality
CADQ Guide
Plagiarism and other academic misconduct
T
he term ‘academic misconduct’ is often used
synonymously with ‘plagiarism’, but may also
include collusion, cheating in examinations,
falsifying data and piracy, amongst other
phenomena. The sector is far from consensus on
any of these terms. The areas this resource
discusses can be linked to via the adjacent
contents box.
Contents




Exploring conceptions
Assessment design:
encouraging originality,
discouraging plagiarism
Using Turnitin
Other resources and toolkits
Exploring conceptions
The key texts discussed here have been chosen as they are influential or comprehensive in
their coverage, although there is no one work that is decisively so. Most of the literature
considers plagiarism, but there is a diversity of opinion on how it should be approached,
what it means, and how significant it is. The selection of papers offered here is intended to
offer an overview of the discussion around conceptions of plagiarism.
Clegg and Flint (2006) propose that plagiarism is being discussed in an atmosphere of
moral panic and that the tone of the debate ‘…suggests plagiarism is a lightning rod for a
series of anxieties that run deep within contemporary academia’ (p. 373). The authors go
on to argue, in common with others, that not only is there a lack of shared understanding
between students and staff of what constitutes plagiarism, but also that this state exists
between colleagues. However, where other papers have suggested that the differences lie
along discipline lines, Clegg and Flint argued that personal values are more influential in
shaping staff conceptions. Papers which explore staff perceptions in detail include Flint et al.
(2006) and Borg (2009); articles investigating students’ conceptions of academic
misconduct include Park (2003), the widely-cited Ashworth et al. (1997) and, on collusion,
Sutton and Taylor (2011). Barrett and Cox (2005) investigate staff and student perceptions
of plagiarism and collusion, reporting that for many in their study the line between collusion
and collaboration was ‘hazy’.
Jude Carroll has been influential particularly in terms of changing learning and teaching
practice. The briefing paper referenced here (2001) offers another perspective on to what
extent plagiarism is a cause for concern. It also presents a short exercise for exploring
conceptions of plagiarism.
Many writers conceptualise plagiarism as the antithesis of effective scholarship. A very
influential text on student writing is by Lea and Street (1998) who discuss student writing
within the academic literacies approach. This approach recognises the contexts of individual
identity and institutional power. Student and staff conceptions of plagiarism are discussed
specifically on pages 167-168. The uncertainty reported by students is contrasted with the
certainty conveyed in institutional literature. The impact of legalistic language in discussing
plagiarism is examined briefly.
CADQ Guide: Plagiarism and other misconduct
Nottingham Trent University| www.ntu.ac.uk/cadq|Mar-13
1
Nottingham Trent University | Centre for Academic Development and Quality
Advising on practices
As with the literature on conceptions, the focus of practice advice is on plagiarism, rather
than other forms of academic misconduct. Some of the following publications argue that
plagiarism is on the increase; this may be balanced with a reading of, for example, Clegg
and Flint (2006).
Leask (2006) argues that plagiarism is a ‘culturally constructed concept” (p. 183) and that
‘[a]ll students are to a large degree “cultural others” seeking acceptance into the academic
cultural community’ (p. 187). The author compares the discourse of plagiarism to those of
war and empire. The implication for practice is that it is suspect to single out cultural
groupings of students as being more likely to plagiarise. Recommendations are made to
help lecturers engaged in intercultural discussions about plagiarism.
Many studies have indicated that referencing is a source of anxiety to students, particularly
where there are small variations in preferred practice between lecturers (as opposed to
disciplinary differences). Useful support includes a referencing guide from NTU Libraries and
Learning Resources which offers guidance on the NTU Harvard system and Learnhigher who
have a set of referencing resources for students and another for staff.
Assessment design: encouraging originality, discouraging plagiarism
Plagiarism can be tackled at the course design stage, assessment design stage and also
through communication with students throughout a course. In this way plagiarism strongly
relates to the Curriculum Review Assessment Proposals of whole course design and setting
of clear high standards. The other CR-Assessment proposals of more formative, less
summative, more self and peer feedback and limited range of assessment types should also
contribute towards decreasing plagiarism as they should allow students more time to
become familiar with standards and to practice different assessments. Carroll and Appleton
(2001) have written a guide giving advice on designing assessments, teaching approaches,
as well as strategies for assuring authorship. It discusses misconduct, collusion and
plagiarism.
The ideas bulleted below are based on a variety of sources.
General strategies
 Ensure students understand that plagiarism includes citing from tutor/lecturers own
work (e.g. course hand-outs) without appropriate referencing.
 Provide guidance on referencing, citation etc.
 Interactive (small group) activities, rather than passive (lectures) will aid students to
learn by doing rather than listening – and hence not regurgitate.
 Do as you say – Be sure that lecturer course materials/hand-outs are referenced
and sources acknowledged.
At course design stage
 Map assessments at course as well as module level to help avoid bunched deadlines
which might result in students taking shortcuts.
 Provide students with opportunities to practice different assessment types in
preparation for actual assignments.
 Formative tasks could relate directly to a summative assessment to enhance student
understanding of the assessment task and encourage a steady workload.
CADQ Guide: Plagiarism and other misconduct
Nottingham Trent University| www.ntu.ac.uk/cadq|Mar-13
2
Nottingham Trent University | Centre for Academic Development and Quality


Create opportunities within the course for peer feedback and self-assessment on
work-in-progress such as essay plans, literature reviews, first drafts to encourage
students to work steadily.
Create a collaborative/collegiate environment – this will resist plagiarism through
peer pressure – group written projects. “The challenge of peer evaluation tends to
reduce plagiarism as does group work”. N.B., when introducing group work it is
important to discuss collusion with students.
At assessment design stage
 Vary the assessment each year, e.g. different type (e.g. a web page instead of a
report; a poster instead of an essay), wording and title.
 Avoid general questions.
 Don’t set assessment questions which have only one answer or an ‘oven-ready’
answer.
 Set assessment tasks which can only be completed if students apply their own
thinking and give evidence of having done so.
 Require submission of “work in progress reports/drafts” to encourage students to
manage their time and avoid last minute panics which may tempt them to plagiarise.
 Ensure that assessment criteria reward higher level learning.
 Have a specific or unique element to the assessment (related to personal experience,
a particular case or theory, a unique data set, a recent event, a building or location).
 Avoid words like …… ‘explain’, ‘describe’. Use instead ‘justify’, ‘create’ , ‘rank’,
‘defend’, ‘interpret’, ‘analyse’, ‘catalogue’, ‘critique’, ‘plan’, ‘invent’, ‘revise’.
 Request evidence of coursework creation (as well as reducing plagiarism this can
help you identify typical ‘sticking points’ for students) e.g. copies of research papers,
assignment plans, drafts, records of supervision meetings, work plans (i.e. which
show how the group decided to organise the assignment tasks).
 Attach marks to different aspects of the assignment creation process, not only the
completed assignment, e.g. attach marks to an abstract, a literature review, quality
of peer feedback given on draft work etc.
Using Turnitin
Turnitin allows staff and students to check documents online against a database of papers
and webpages. Turnitin is integrated with the Dropbox in NOW. Depending on School policy,
work might be submitted to Turnitin on all or selected modules.
When a document is submitted to Turnitin, an ‘Originality Report’ is produced and this
provides a percentage of how much text matches text elsewhere (‘similarity index’) and
highlights where these matches can be found. The Originality report needs to be interpreted
carefully as it is not simply an indication of plagiarism. Although Turnitin is primarily
designed to detect plagiarism, it is also used by some colleagues in a developmental way to
help students to understand and avoid plagiarism.
Guides are available for students and staff and LLR offer training and support. If you find an
instance of possible plagiarism and are not sure what to do, please contact the module or
course leader.
CADQ Guide: Plagiarism and other misconduct
Nottingham Trent University| www.ntu.ac.uk/cadq|Mar-13
3
Nottingham Trent University | Centre for Academic Development and Quality
Other resources and toolkits
RefWorks
This referencing management software is available for all NTU students and staff. It is
supported by Libraries and Learning Resources and there is a guide to using it at the LLR
site.
Plagiarism Badger and Harvard Referencing Ferret
Two diagnostic/formative tests developed at NTU. They are computer marked and give
immediate feedback, with links to developmental resources. They could be used with tutor
support, or as stand-alone activities. The tests can be set up for module or course cohorts.
Ferret uses questions developed from an established paper assessment to test knowledge
and application of Harvard citation and referencing conventions, with straightforward and
problematic examples. You can evaluate the Ferret on the website.
Badger has been developed to help students understand the range of activities that are
considered to be plagiarism and why it is an important issue. You can evaluate the Badger
on the website.
Case exemplars for staff identifying academic misconduct
The nine cases have been developed from the author's experiences to reflect main issues of
relevance to staff at NTU. These exemplars serve as discussion prompts for colleagues as it
is hoped that discussing problematic cases may aid colleagues in agreeing ways of
identifying and following up academic misconduct. Although various aspects of academic
misconduct are covered, the main focus is plagiarism. The document is available as a
separate download
References
Sources for design ideas
ASSESSMENT STANDARDS KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE (ASKe), no date. Reduce the
risk
of
plagiarism
in
just
30
minutes.
Available
at:
http://www.brookes.ac.uk/aske/documents/2576_123-ReducePlag.pdf [Accessed
16 December 2012].
CANTERBURY CHRIST CHURCH UNIVERSITY, no date. Designing out plagiarism in
assessment. Available at: http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/Support/learningteaching-enhancement-unit/Documents/StaffGuidetoDesigningOutPlagiarism.pdf
[Accessed 16 December 2012].
JISC INTERNET PLAGIARISM ADVISORY SERVICE, 2006. Reducing plagiarism
through assessment design. Available at:
http://plagiarismadvice.co.uk/documents/tipsheetsv3/tp05_ReducingPlagiarismThr
oughAssessmentDesign.pdf [Accessed 16 December 2012].
MACDONALD ROSS, G. and CARROLL, J., 2012. Cogitate don’t regurgitate. Times
Higher Education., 5 July 2012. Available at:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=420440 [Accessed
16 December 2012].
CADQ Guide: Plagiarism and other misconduct
Nottingham Trent University| www.ntu.ac.uk/cadq|Mar-13
4
Nottingham Trent University | Centre for Academic Development and Quality
References continued
UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS, no date. Designing assessments that prevent plagiarism.
Available at: http://www.ldu.leeds.ac.uk/plagiarism/design.php [Accessed 16
December 2012].
UNIVERSITY OF READING, no date. Designing out plagiarism. Available at:
http://www.reading.ac.uk/engageinassessment/assessment-design/eia-designingout-plagiarism.aspx [Accessed 16 December 2012].
UNIVERSITY OF SURREY, 2010. Designing out plagiarism: a brief guide for busy
academics. Available at:
http://www2.surrey.ac.uk/cead/resources/documents/Designing_out_plagiarism.p
df [Accessed 16 December 2012].
References
ASHWORTH, P., BANNISTER, P., and THORNE, P., 1997. Guilty in whose eyes?
University students’ perception of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and
assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 187–203.
BARRETT, R and COX, A.L., 2005. ‘At least they’re learning something’: the hazy
line between collaboration and collusion. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 30(2), 107-11.
BORG, E., 2009. Local plagiarisms. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 34(4), 415-26.
CARROLL J., 2001. What kinds of solutions can we find for plagiarism? Higher
Education Academy. Accessed online 16 December 2012.
CARROLL, J., and APPLETON, J., 2001. Plagiarism: a good practice guide. Oxford
Brookes University and Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). Accessed
online 20 December 2012.
CLEGG, S., and FLINT, A., 2006. More heat than light: plagiarism in its appearing.
British Journal of Sociology of Education. 27(3), 373-387.
FLINT, A., CLEGG, S., and MACDONALD, R., 2006. Exploring staff perceptions of
student plagiarism. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 30(2), 145–156.
LEA, M.R., and STREET, B.V., 1998. Student writing in higher education: An
academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157-172.
LEASK, B., 2006. Plagiarism, cultural diversity and metaphor-implications for
academic staff development. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,
31(2), 183–199.
PARK, C., 2003. In other (people’s) words: plagiarism by university students –
literature and lessons. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 47188.
SUTTON, A., and TAYLOR, D., 2011. Confusion about collusion: working together
and academic integrity. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(7),
831-41.
CADQ Guide: Plagiarism and other misconduct
Nottingham Trent University| www.ntu.ac.uk/cadq|Mar-13
5