Below is a transcript of the speech I delivered to a major conference organised by UUK, GuildHE (formerly SCOP) and JISC on tackling collusion, plagiarism and cheating in Higher Education. I spoke as part of a panel from across the sector, including the QAA and Baroness Deech, the HE Independent Adjudicator. It sets out quite clearly what my priorities are on these issues and my demands for students’ unions to have access to ‘turnitin’ software generated interest from a number of institutions and the press. Some, such as Derby, have already allowed students to access software for self-assessment for plagiarism. I’d appreciate any thoughts or comments you have. Wes.

Good morning. My name is Wes Streeting and I’m Vice-President for Education of the National Union of Students. Can I begin by thanking Universities UK, Guild HE and JISC for organising this important one-day conference on tackling plagiarism, collusion and cheating in Higher Education and for giving me the opportunity to share some of NUS’ experience of these challenging issues and the student perspective on how these challenges can be met effectively.

I did consider beginning this morning with a bad joke about forgetting to write an original speech and downloading one off the internet instead, but of course we know that the issues being addressed here today are serious and problematic; not just for institutions, but for students as well.

At the heart of this problem lies drawing a clear distinction between mistake and misconduct; between students who unwittingly find themselves falling foul of academic regulatuions and those who intentionally set out to do so.

We are told that incidents of plagiarism are on the increase - perhaps unsurprisingly given the development and deployment of detection software that has finally caught up with the ‘Google Revolution’.

But I am convinced, from the cases I’ve come into contact with – and off the back of the ongoing conversations I have with my colleagues and counterparts in students’ unions locally – that the biggest problem facing students is understanding exactly what plagiarism is and, crucially, how to avoid it.

This problem is common to all students, but particularly acute for international students, many of whom come from different academic traditions and backgrounds and face a wide range of challenges that come with moving across countries and continents to study overseas. During my time addressing some of these issues at an institutional level, I was struck by just how significant these differences could be and how little we are doing to address the challenges they bring.

I am also told by my members that inconsistency in regulations across the institution, between departments, is creating a barrier to understanding the rules related to plagiarism and referencing. Only recently I discussed this problem with a friend on a combined honours course who found huge variations between what was expected of her by the two departments running her programme; in terms of referencing styles and in terms of standards required.

Of course, different disciplines and programmes will draw on different sources, which will be cited in different ways in the footnote and bibliography. But students’ unions report that getting a clear message out about referencing is made even more difficult when different departments are saying different things.

We know that not all incidents of plagiarism are unintended. The internet has revolutionised the way in which we can share and access knowledge and information. For all the tremendous potential this offers, we know that it has led to some students taking a ‘cut and paste’ approach to their courses.

It is an obvious point, but worth saying anyway, that NUS and its’ constituent members do not condone cheating. Individuals who engage in plagiarism, collusion and cheating are not only cheating themselves, but are also cheating the overwhelming majority of students who work incredibly hard to get the qualification they deserve.

But I’m a firm believer that prevention is far preferable to punishment, particularly in terms of academic misconduct – a view I am sure is shared in this room and across the sector. So it’s important to understand why some students turn to cheating.

During the past few weeks, I have been on a national tour of campuses, visiting more than thirty further and higher education institutions so far, with another dozen or so to follow. I’m not sure it will make me too popular in present company, I suspect, to mention that the purpose of my tour has been to build for the NUS National Demonstration on 29th October in Central London, which is against soaring levels of student debt, any attempt to lift the cap and the marketisation of education.

I mention this – not to be provocative – but because I’ve been struck by the number of students, including new arrivals, who can’t attend our Sunday demo because they’re working.

Unfortunately for universities, this isn’t the result of students becoming so studious that they don’t have time to demonstrate. It’s the result of the unfortunate reality that students are increasingly juggling their time between their course and their part-time job. Research shows that the number of students who take part in paid work to support their studies has risen 54% in the past 10 years.

Even worse, are the numbers of students engaged in not-so-part-time-work; the same research with the TUC revaled that 1 in 5 students now work 20 hours a week or more. Where is the time for a degree?

The impact of this trend on attainment and achievement is particularly worrying and it is worrying students, too.

This reality, alongside the general challenges and problems that students face whether in terms of general or mental health or other pastoral concerns, leads me to worry about the extent that some institutions – and I must stress that it is only SOME institutions – have adopted a heavy hand when it comes to dealing with cases of plagiarism, collusion and cheating through the disciplinary process.

Taking chunks out of students’ course marks or throwing them off courses is unacceptable and is a crude way of handling complex problems.

So, returning to the central challenge I set out earlier – that of distinguishing between mistake and misconduct – it remains clear that there are no simple answers. Distinguishing between people who wilfully break the rules and those who do so unwittingly isn’t easy, nor is identifying the extent to which mitigating circumstances have prompted someone to flout the rules.

Prevention is clearly better than cure and there are a number of recommendations that I can offer you this morning.

First – set in place fair, clear and transparent procedures; communicate them effectively and enforce them proportionately.

Where possible, regulations should be standardised around referencing, sources and working together across all departments in your institution, making it easier for you to communicate them.

To this end, I can say with confidence that you will enjoy the support of your students’ union. Use them. Give them the tools and – crucially – the funding to communicate the key messages and you’ll often find that they can reach the parts that are sometimes hard to reach. Where supported, robust course rep systems exist you will find that these, too, can be an invaluable resource for you to tap into.

I want to give you two case studies where students’ unions have been particularly proactive. Kent Union has produced a range of informative literature designed and set out in the style of a Google web page, providing an eye-catching and informative resource that has been well used by students at Kent University. The students’ union at the University of Central Lancashire are currently looking into getting regulations around plagiarism translated for their significant Chinese population. Two examples, which I am sure are not isolated, of students’ unions taking proactive steps to meet the challenges we are discussing today.

Secondly, ensure that the academic support and pastoral care is there to support students in their transition from school or college and university, or from one country to another and then throughout the duration of their course. We need to understand the reasons why students turn to cheating but we also need to be in a position to tackle them as early as possible.

I’m sure institutions are as concerned as NUS by the proliferation of essay writing or ‘checking’ services available online, as well as private tuition services. These ought to be as unnecessary to students as they are unscrupulous to our sense of fair play and can be avoided if appropriate support is in place.

Finally – onto cheating busting software like ‘turnitin’. NUS does not oppose the use of this software, but we do believe that students should have access to it for self-checking. We learn from our mistakes, so why do we wait for people to fall down after assessment deadlines instead of giving them the tools to avoid misconduct in the first place? Such software is already available to students to buy online, so why not allow access at an institutional level free of charge?

By focussing our time, energy and resources on prevention, Institutions, students’ unions and NUS working together can provide meaningful solutions to the difficult problems we are discussing today.

Thank you.

The Blogs on this site represent the individual views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or practices of the National Union of Students.

All links in blogs will open in a new browser window.

The permanent URL for this specific blog entry is: http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/wesstreeting/273388.aspx