J M A Rt I N

Learning about reflection from the

Keywords: reflection, reflective practice, student experience, student support, supervision, teaching

A B S T R AC T Reflection, in a classroom setting, presents educators with a method for narrowing the theory-practice gap. Material from the practice environment can be brought into the classroom and used as the substance of learning from experience. Enabling students to understand and value reflection is an essential part of this process. It is also a process which should be a carefully considered and managed part of the curriculum. This article reports on a small-scale participatory action research project that examines the development of reflection from the perspective of the student.

 world. Boud et al. (1985)and Boud and Walker (1993) describe the initial development of a model of reflection and its subsequent modification. Boud and Walker's (1993) work identified that internal barriers (selfawareness, preparedness, intent, etc.) and external barriers (support systems, inadequate preparation, etc.) will impact upon the ability of the learner to reflect. Mezirow (1981reflect. Mezirow ( , 1990) ) and Boud and Walker's (1993) work can be compared to that of Wildman andNiles (1987, cited by Moon, 2000: 68). These authors recognized that reflection created problems for the learner in balancing the abstract with reality. The conditions necessary to bolster reflection were identified as support, time and space and a collaborative environment.

In recent years there has been considerable interest in the role of reflection within professional education. Reflection is found within health, social care and education curricula where it is described as an essential part of professional practice (e.g. GSCC, 2003;ILTHE, 2003: 5;NMC, 2002: 21;Parsell et al., 1998). Reflection has become a significant component of professional education at both pre-and post-qualifying levels in nursing, social work and education. Moon (2000) argues that this is partly because practice in these professions is often rapid, with proof of expertise based on outcome rather than underpinning knowledge -'Action is what counts' (Moon, 2000: 55). In addition, these and similar professions rely less on factual detail and more on interpretation and understanding of a complex situation (Moon, 2000: 55). The aim is 'wise action in a social context of judgement about what is right' (Boud et al., 1985: 145). This brief overview of the current literature suggests that there are a number of significant gaps in knowledge concerning the facilitation of reflection within an educational environment. These gaps include the student experience of, and meaning attributed to, reflection; strategies by which reflection is facilitated; and the application of participatory research methods as an effective means of exploring the phenomenon. There is limited research concerning the facilitation of reflection in a training environment.

The research presented in this article examines the development of reflection within a counselling training environment. The study explores the experience of reflection and the meaning students attribute to these experiences. A participatory action research method was selected as it is congruent with the principles espoused by both adult education in general and counselling training in particular (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988;Schwartz and Ogilvy, 1979). Participatory action research is also consistent with Brookfield's concept of critical reflection (1987) and is, according to Carr and Kemmis (1986), an effective means of bridging the theorypractice gap through teacher-as-researcher. Very little research on reflection was identified that adopted participatory action research despite the apparent close association. The current project was one small-scale attempt to do so and to raise some of the issues that may be inherent in such a project. The student experience, reported through this research, raises issues about the delivery of reflection within a curriculum. The findings and implications are of relevance to those working within formal and informal educational environments where students are assisted to develop reflection. The terms reflection and reflective practice are used interchangeably in this article.

Method

Eight second-year students, a complete cohort, undertaking a Diploma in Pastoral Counselling in 2002 were invited by the researcher (HB) to participate in the study. Data were collected in a classroom in which a group of students engaged in discussions about reflection under the facilitation of a course leader. Data included in this study derived from six discussions, which were audio-recorded and transcribed by the researcher. The authors acknowledge that the sample, method of selection and relationship to the researcher raise issues concerning trustworthiness and generalizablity of the final dataset.

In the first session, the aim of the project was introduced. Students were invited to participate in exploring ways in which their curriculum could be adapted in order to enhance opportunities for the development of reflection. It became apparent that the students were unfamiliar with the term reflection and wanted time to explore the concept in theory and practice. Data produced in these initial discussions led to a review of the research procedures. It was decided that the focus would be on the initial exposure to reflection rather than a more substantial examination of the subject. This is congruent with McCleod's (1994) assertion that the research processes in participatory research are responsive to, and shaped by, contributions from each participant. Subsequent sessions enabled the group to explore their understanding of reflection and its relevance within their counselling practice. In the final session (Discussion 6) the group reviewed the discussion so far and compiled a list of possible ways forward for their curriculum.

The data gathered through the extended exploration of meaning were examined. Preconceived ideas and assumptions about reflection were bracketed (Ashworth, 1996;Husserl, 1931) in order that the essence (Moustakas, 1994) could emerge with the group's own constructions and meanings intact. Data were examined for themes through the application of techniques associated with grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).

The analysis attempted to derive a thick description (Geertz, 1973) of the students' understanding rather than interpretation, the aim being to derive meaning of the concept to these people at this time, rather than moving to a further level of abstraction and generalization, as might be expected in a purely grounded theory approach.

Findings

The data derived from the discussions raised issues for both theory and practice. Unbeknown to the students who contributed, there was a high level of concurrence with the descriptions of reflection found in the literature. The transcripts were scrutinized and emergent categories examined.

The essence of reflection was distilled and formulated into a single statement agreed by the group.

Reflection is a process triggered by an unsettled sensation, either by choice or by chance, which has the potential to be beneficial to counsellors in their counselling practice. It has a meta or set-apart quality about it. It takes the form of an internal conversation and comprises a process of anticipating the consequences of the available courses of action in order to make an informed choice, and occurs before, during or after the triggering event. It involves emotions, learning, thinking, daydreaming, instincts, pondering, gut feeling and awareness, and is influenced by our spirituality and our personality. It can be enabled by external input, such as supervision or discussion with others. The process changes you and, at best, brings peace and resolution to the unsettled sensation, but it also carries with it the danger that its very set-apartness may be detrimental to a counselling process that depends upon congruence and being fully present in the counselling encounter.

The findings were grouped into three categories addressing three questions.

One, what is reflection? Two, how do counsellors reflect? Three, how does reflection relate to other processes? Quotations from student participants are coded, for example, 3TI. The first number represents the discussion number (that is, 1-6); the two letters are not initials, but identify the student who is being quoted.

What is reflection?

The group described reflection as an opportunity to look at an event from a different perspective. Reflection had a quality of set-apartness from the immediate environment and included anticipating the consequences of various courses of action. In terms of the meaning of reflection: it's replaying a conversation or an event and reflecting on the impact of it on myself or the other person. (3KX)

There was recognition that reflection changes you in some way, and that the ending is characterized by a renewed sense of peace or acceptance.

I put the aim of reflection as 'seeing things as they are' and being transformed or changed. (2NH)

How do counsellors reflect?

Students recognized that reflection is a process and it can occur before, during or after the event. It is triggered by some kind of unsettled feeling, or lack of peace.

The first thing that comes is a feeling. (2QB) That feeling of not feeling comfortable. (3QB)

Reflection was described as being an informal and a formal process. There was a shared sense that formal reflection involved conscious activity. This might include discussion with peers/supervisors, writing or thinking. Informal reflections were uninvited, and not always welcome.

With the informal, it's more emotional. There's a lack of control. The formal is easier to cope with. (2QB) I just do it . . . I reflect on things a lot. Yes, sometimes it's beneficial, sometimes it's not and I think if it's a worrying type of reflection it is not beneficial. I wish I could just leave it, but it's quite involuntary. (3KX)

Reflection was described as something that cannot always be turned on and off at will, and was not always comfortable.

The things that go on in my head -you can become preoccupied with. (5KN)

The freedom to actually not reflect, not to sort of analyse; that would be ideal. (5QB)

Reflection was described as a meta or set-apart process that occurred in the background whilst students were engaged in some other activity. Students expressed concern that this would prevent them from paying full attention to the client.

In counselling, if I reflect on my own, then it's not being present with the client which is what I need to do. (5NH)

Students described reflection as a developmental stage. Some believed that sufficiently experienced counsellors would no longer need to reflect. However, others saw an ongoing role for reflection in professional practice.

In counselling, you get to a place where you do it automatically without thinking. Some people, even without training, do it. (3FG) I think the reflection just changes. At the beginning there's lots of things to practise and then you become aware. The reflection then changes, but doesn't become any less. (4KX)

How does reflection relate to other processes?

Reflection was linked, by the group, to a number of other experiences, the two most often referred to being emotions and learning. Other related processes that emerged were thinking, spirituality and personality, as well as some more intuitive processes, including instinct, gut feeling, daydreaming, praying and pondering.

Discussion

The students felt that reflection could create change, leading to growth and transformation, all of which are supported in the literature. However, the findings also raise a number of other issues not often addressed in the literature.

• Reflection is not always a positive experience, and cannot always be turned on and off at will. • Reflection is a much broader experience than purely a rational, thinking process. It may involve, for example, feeling, instincts and spirituality. • Reflection has a meta quality that may be detrimental to a counselling process that depends on being fully present. • Guided reflection and reflection within supervision, are variable processes that may or may not be helpful.

Reflection as an involuntary, problematic experience

It's not unconditionally positive. The reflection sometimes plays on my mind.

(5KX) Boud and Walker (1993) note that reflection can be powerfully prompted by discrepancies or dilemmas that the individual is forced to confront. The findings indicate that students were disturbed by the unexpected emotional impact of thoughts and feelings emerging through reflection. Educators who encourage students to reflect should also make them aware that the process can be distressing. Furthermore, the students in the study indicated that, once activated, reflection could not always be turned off. With experience, practitioners learn to control their reflective processes in a more systematic manner, though not at every occasion. Educators should be aware, when using reflection in a student group, that events may quickly go beyond that which is controllable. The power of the students' experience within the study should not be understated. Educators can be effective in assisting students to engage with reflection in order for them to better understand and learn from their experiences. In the same way as students might be taught to engage and disengage with clients with whom they are working, students should be taught to disengage with reflection.

Reflection as a holistic process

As I'm doing this, I'm thinking that the potential is that it can completely change your view. (2QB)

The findings suggest that the students embarked upon unique journeys over which they had little control. It was this journey or process over time that was captured through the data. Students described reflection as a 'cathartic thing' (2OQ), an experience that led to a point of acceptance. Teaching reflection through the medium of a model (e.g. Boud et al., 1985: 36) or as a structured guided reflection (Johns, 1994) may not, necessarily, encompass the depth of engagement demonstrated by this student cohort, particularly those first encountering reflection. Notably, Boud et al. (1985: 21) acknowledge the importance of the affective component as both enhancing and constraining reflection. The students perceived reflection to be a significant phase in their development as professional practitioners, a view supported by Moon (2000: 88). However, the students expressed concern about their preparedness to engage in reflection. This may be related to Benner's (1984) work, which demonstrates how novice practitioners seek clear sets of rules by which to work. As the person develops skills and moves toward expert practice s/he is able to deviate from the rule-bound functioning and engage in practice shaped by their knowledge and skills within parameters set by themselves. At this early stage students sought clear rules and boundaries by which they might engage in reflection.

Reflection is a cumulative process that enables practitioners to build a store of practice knowledge on which to draw. Boud et al. (1985) describe the term 'association' as the relating of previous experiences, in a systematic manner, to the current situation. Furthermore, Schön recognizes the significance of previous experience within reflection in action where the practitioner relies upon a repertoire of images of contexts and actions (1985: 29). For the novice, without a range of experience on which to draw, this may appear as frightening and uncharted territory. This presents a challenge to educators in the recognition, by student and educator alike, of transferable skills. Educators have the opportunity to encourage students to value all their prior experiences and not only those directly related to their new profession.

Reflection and apartness

In terms of the meaning of reflection: it's replaying a conversation or an event and reflecting on the impact of it on myself or the other person. (3KX)

Students recognized that reflection is triggered by an experience. This is congruent with most literature (for example, Atkins and Murphy's (1993: 1190) review). The student group recognized that reflection within the counselling relationship meant a cognitive absence from the client. Schön (1987: 26) described reflection in action as a process that occurred in the 'action present', where a difference could still be made to the situation upon which one was reflecting. Benner (1984: 32) describes the intuitive grasp demonstrated by experts who are apparently able to focus on the accurate region of the problem 'without wasteful consideration of a large range of unfruitful, alternative diagnoses and solutions'. Such rapid and complete comprehension of the situation is not available to the novice, which presents a potential barrier to reflection if it is not addressed directly by educators.

Guided reflection and reflection within supervision

Not that my supervisor is wrong; they felt like good ideas at the time . . Educators seeking to assist students to reflect may provide supervision and guided reflection as part of a learning package. Johns (1994: 119) recommends the line manager as an appropriate person to supervise guided reflection and argues that guidance helps to make practitioners aware of the qualities (awareness, curiosity, reflectiveness and commitment) necessary for effective work (p. 128). However, some of the students indicated ambivalence toward supervision as a context for reflection, describing supervision as a hurdle that is separate from the real world in which they practise. The group did not, unanimously, see supervision as a positive aspect of reflection. Johns (1994: 111) describes a structured approach to reflection under the tutelage of an expert supervisor that involves the use of a model of structured reflection, supervision and a diary. Educators' use of supervised reflection is undoubtedly valuable, but students also need to develop trust in their own ability to reflect as an aspect of professional practice. If supervisors do not have a clear understanding of their role and function, supervision may encourage the abdication of responsibility by inexperienced practitioners.

This study, whilst acknowledging limitations, suggests that a guided approach is not the single ideal. Schön's description of the role of the coach (1987: 17) may provide a useful insight into overcoming supervisory problems. Coaching enables students to develop reflection with the support of a coach who maintains an environment in which the student can best learn. The research suggests that professional educators should examine how Schön's model of coaching could be applied within the real world environment of professional practice. In Schön's somewhat ideal world, the student has a supervisor whom they can work alongside, observing and developing their own skills. Such a relationship is described as occurring in an environment of order and calm. This is far from the real world of practice as experienced by many in health care, social care or education. The role adopted by the researcher corresponded with that of the coach in the development of reflection. In consequence, the research implicitly examines Schön's conception of the development of reflection. However, it is recognized that it was not to examine this issue that this research was designed.

Conclusions and implications for educators

The findings suggest that educators should concern themselves more with the development of a reflective environment than teaching students how to reflect. This might account for the slow adoption of reflection within education. Where reflection, as a prescribed activity, is encouraged as an organizational activity, the outcome may be limited. With the active and committed support of a coach, however, students may naturally adopt a reflective stance to their work. The results of this study have implications for educators:

• Reflection is not always a positive experience for students. It cannot always be turned on and off at will and can be disturbing. This should be acknowledged with student groups and provision made for appropriate support. • Reflection is a much broader experience than purely a rational, thinking process. It may involve, for example, feeling, instincts and spirituality. This should also be recognized within curricula and students should be encouraged to examine the fruit of reflection in many contexts and arenas.

• Reflection has a meta quality that may be detrimental to a process such as counselling, that depends on being fully present. The consequences of being even momentarily apart from the client should be discussed and appropriate strategies developed to manage the process. • Guided reflection and reflection within supervision are variable processes that may or may not be helpful. Educators should enable the student to explore strategies and adopt those that are congruent with the individuals needs.

This research has explored the development of reflection within one cohort of students undertaking a vocational training programme. Criticism concerning contamination of data and bias within the research design and problems of being a researcher-practitioner are recognized and acknowledged. The study indicates that there is need for further research in this area. More rigorous research that adopts a participatory action research approach will add to understanding the optimum methods of delivering reflection within professional curricula.

  It's about being detached enough from yourself to watch what you are doing. (2TI)

  . but, sometimes, they [the clients] need the space. To try and manufacture the conversation to come round to what my supervisor thinks I should include doesn't seem quite right. (5OQ)

A

  S H WO RT H , P. (1996) 'Presuppose Nothing! The Suspension of Assumptions in Phenomenological Psychological Methodology', Journal of Phenomenological Psychology 27(1): 1-25. AT K I N S , S . & M U R P H Y, K . (1993) 'Reflection: A Review of the Literature', Journal of Advanced Nursing 18: 1188-92. B E N N E R , P. (1984) From Novice to Expert. Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley. B O U D, D. & WA L K E R , D. (1993) 'Barriers to Reflection on Experience', in D. Boud, R. Cohen and D. Walker Using Experience for Learning, pp. 73-86. Buckingham: Open University Press. B O U D, D. , K E O G H , R . & WA L K E R , D. (eds) (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page. B RO O K F I E L D, S . D. (1987) Developing Critical Thinkers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. C A R R , A . & K E M M I S , S . (1986) Becoming Critical: Education and Action Research. London: Falmer Press. D E W E Y, J. (1933) How We Think. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co. E R AU T, M . (1994) Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence. London: Routledge. G E E RT Z , C . (1973) The Interpretation of Culture: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books. G S C C (2003) Social Work Post Qualifying Education Framework: Response to Consultation. London: General Social Care Council. H A B E R M A S , J. (1971) Knowledge & Human Interests. London: Heinemann. H U S S E R L , E . (1931) Ideas (trans. W. R. Boyce Gibson). London: George Allen & Unwin. I LT H E (2003) Imagining a Different Future -Working Paper II. London: Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. J O H N S , C . (1994) 'Guided Reflection', in A. Palmer, S. Burns and C. Bulman (eds) Reflective Practice in Nursing, pp. 110-30. Oxford: Blackwell Science. K E M M I S , S . & M C TAG G A RT, R . (1988) Action Research Planner. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Biographical note

H E L E N B U L P I T T is a Learning and Teaching Adviser with the Higher Education Academy Health Sciences and Practice Network. She is also a teacher in adult education, as an Associate Lecturer with the Open University, and is an accredited counsellor, counselling trainer and supervisor. She is currently undertaking her PhD at the University of Essex, researching the practice of supervision in mental health professions. Address: Department of Health and Human Sciences, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, UK. [email: hlbulp@essex.ac.uk] P E T E R J. M A RT I N is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Health and Human Sciences at the University of Essex. He has a professional background as a mental health nurse and has worked as a practitioner and as a manager. He has an interest in reflective practice and supervision in both educational and practice settings. Currently, he is scheme leader for Professional Doctorates offered through the University of Essex. Address: Department of Health and Human Sciences, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, UK. [email: petem@essex.ac.uk]


S E N G A B R I G G S The

Robert Gordon

Changing roles and competencies of academics

Keywords: academics, competencies, online lear ning, roles

This article presents the findings of a small study in a single school of a post-1992 university. The study considered the roles of the online academic and ascertained perceived competencies in these roles. The findings suggest gender differences in perceptions of the importance of online roles and gaps between roles and perceived competencies in these roles, suggesting some academics feel illequipped to meet online demands. The study indicates that appropriate learning and development programmes underpinned by relevant competency development are required. Notwithstanding, when asked to identify differences in roles and competencies in online and traditional environments, respondents indicated that their roles were similar in both environments. This suggested that a new 'generic' framework for academic roles and competencies was needed. The study then moved to develop a generic role model for use in all learning and teaching environments.

Introduction

Changes in higher education including changes in funding, competition amongst institutions, the increased use of technology and a shift to learnercentred education are combining to change the roles of both universities and academics. This article suggests that clarity in roles and the development of appropriate competency frameworks is essential for optimal performance in online roles. This challenges the accepted evolutionary nature of academic roles because it involves clearly defining the roles and competencies of academics rather than allowing them to evolve intuitively over time. The role of universities is becoming more complex, encompassing both the transfer of subject knowledge and the capability to apply skills in the context of specific fields and sectors (Zafeiriou et al., 2001). Academics are confronting the pressures of competing demands, balancing teaching with research or opting for one or the other and attempting to balance traditional workloads and pressures with the new pressure of online delivery.

active learning in higher education

Roles and competencies of academics

Thomas and Biddle (1979) argue that role consists of the rights and duties associated with a post which are assigned to a post-holder. From a functional perspective roles are composed of behaviours that reflect responsibilities defined in job descriptions, such as designing and delivering learning and assessing learning outcomes. Changes in roles can lead to role overload, role ambiguity and role conflict (Rizzo et al., 1970). Role overload is used to describe situations where multiple roles are assumed to produce psychological distress. Role ambiguity arises from lack of clarity regarding duties, responsibilities and/or authority. Role conflict arises with the concurrent appearance of two or more incompatible expectations for behaviour (Biddle, 1986). Research has generally supported the hypothesis that role overload, role ambiguity and role conflict are directly linked to decreased job satisfaction, low performance and the propensity to leave organizations (Pearce, 1981). Indeed the literature suggests that lack of role clarity is the root cause of many organizational personnel problems and that role clarity gives a sense of belonging, a feeling of personal significance and a sense of continuity (Rizzo et al., 1974). Others suggest that defining the competencies which stem from roles not only reduces job dissatisfaction and low performance but is essential if organizations are to respond to change effectively (Johnson, 2000;Kelner, 2001).

Notwithstanding the terms, role and competency are often confused in the literature, but they are very different concepts. In particular, roles need to be broadly defined whilst competencies need to be specifically defined. Marrelli (1998) suggests that competencies are measurable capabilities that differentiate levels of performance in a job or role. Competencies flow from roles, and people who have the competencies required for a specific role typically perform better in that role than those who do not. This is no less true in higher education. Goodyear et al. (2001) suggest that a competent online teacher is a new and different role for academics and that the competencies required are different, e.g. IT expertise, information handling expertise, teaching and learning skills, time management and teambuilding skills. Some suggest that training and development in all aspects of online learning are required if optimal performance is to be achieved (Palloff and Pratt, 1999). However, relevant training and development programmes can only be identified once roles are clarified and underpinning competency frameworks developed.

The traditional role of the UK academic has evolved over time and, until recently, there was a clear view of what that role encompassed. Typically the academic was accredited as a subject expert, taught students and was involved in research. However, the online medium creates a unique environment which moves the time and place of the interaction and supports content in many formats. Thus engagement in online learning poses significant challenges for academics and universities. Role is at the heart of conflict and ambiguity in organizations and it is suggested that online roles and competencies are different from those required in the traditional learning environment. In line with literature on the subject, it is suggested here that organizations have to define roles and develop competency frameworks to understand and address the organizational and personal development challenges introduced by change.

Palloff and Pratt (1999) consider the transition to online learning means developing new approaches to education and new skills in delivery. Gustafson and Gibbs (2000) argue that teaching online requires strategies that develop new ways to guide students to discuss and reflect together. There are several classifications that seek to explain the roles of the online academic. Berge (1995) identifies four role categories: technical, managerial, pedagogical and social. This categorization illustrates that the online academic has a large range of roles (e. g. social, technical, discipline, etc.), each requiring the development of different types of competencies such as pedagogical and interpersonal skills. Lentell (2003) intimates that academics have to be knowledge experts, effective listeners and communicators as well as coaches, facilitators, mentors, problem solvers, designers, supporters and resource co-ordinators. A recent classification summed up much of the literature on roles and identified 11 clearly defined roles which appear in most classifications: technologist, manager, co-learner, designer, knowledge expert, researcher, facilitator, assessor, adviser-counsellor, etutor and mentor (Cornelius and Higgison, 2000). This classification will be used in this study.

Research methodology

A three-item questionnaire was designed to examine online roles and competencies. The first two questions measured perceptions of roles and competencies using the 11-role classification identified in Cornelius and Higgison (2000). Respondents were asked to identify which roles were essential and which were not and to measure their competencies in these roles against a 10-point scale. Each role was clearly defined (e.g. technologist: good operational understanding of software in use, reasonable keyboard skills and good knowledge of www and internet) to reduce potential ambiguity. The third question was open ended and examined perceptions of differences between roles and competencies in both the traditional and online environment.

The research was undertaken in the business school of a post-92 university. The target population was restricted to business school academics who were involved in both online and traditional learning. Approximately 105 academics work in the school and 59 were involved in both online and traditional learning at that time. Respondents were selected through a process of 'snowball sampling' (Vogt, 1999). This involved sending questionnaires to those known to be involved in both online and traditional delivery. Participants were asked to forward the questionnaire to other colleagues involved in both environments. The questionnaires were first issued in July 2003 and a representative sample was built over a six-week period. Fifty-two responses, 29 male and 23 female, were received; 65 per cent had been involved in online delivery for less than a year, 23 per cent for one to two years and 12 per cent for more than two years. In addition to exploring generic outcomes, the opportunity was taken to consider whether there might be gender differences. Fox (1990) suggests that males feel comfortable in a lecturing role and that lecturing is a demonstration of expertise and status. Conversely, females feel comfortable in a listening role and at ease sharing their expertise with others. This suggests that females might feel more comfortable in the online environment than their male counterparts. A hypothesis was developed, that is, do males and females respond in the same proportion to each of the roles? The Mann-Whitney test was used to test the findings.

The results

The results presented are from the three questions and reflect three related but distinct areas of the survey. Results are therefore presented separately for each question. The results for the first question, which asked respondents to score the roles in terms of their perceptions of whether these were essential or unimportant roles of the online academic, are illustrated in Tables 1a and1b.

These tables demonstrate that the majority of respondents scored all the roles (except technologist) as important to essential (i.e. scale 6-10). Indeed most of the frequencies are skewed towards the medium to high end of the scales. The consistently medium to high scores for all these roles (given the large number of roles) is of particular note. These findings were then collapsed into a scale of low, medium and high importance which illustrated that 17 females saw both the facilitator and mentor roles of equal high importance, followed by adviser/counsellor (16) and assessor (15). Twentyone males saw the facilitator role as of high importance, followed by assessor (17), co-learner (15) and mentor (15). Both genders saw the technologist role as being of low importance (males (10) and females (8)), followed by the manager role (males (7) and females ( 5)) and the e-tutor role (males (7) and females ( 5)). The low scores for e-tutor are perhaps surprising.

A C T I V E L E A R N I N G I N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 6(3) 260
The results for question two, which asked respondents to score their own competencies against the roles, are illustrated in Tables 2a and2b. Of particular note is the fact that the frequencies are much more evenly spread across the scale than was the case for the scoring on roles. This is especially noticeable in the male responses. Collapsing the responses to low, medium and high competency, males scored themselves as having low competency in several roles: e-tutor (13), designer (12), technologist (11), adviser/counsellor (10), mentor (8) and co-learner (8). Males had scored the adviser/counsellor (28/29), mentor (28/29) and co-learner (25/29) roles as important to essential. Males scored themselves as having medium to high competency in the researcher (26), assessor (24), facilitator ( 22) and knowledge expert (22) roles.

Females scored themselves as having medium to high competence in the knowledge expert (23), researcher (23), facilitator (21) and adviser/counsellor (21) roles. These were all roles they had scored as important to essential. Ten female respondents scored themselves as having low competency in the designer role, eight as having low competency in the e-tutor role and seven as having low competency in the technologist role. The responses indicate not only differences and ambiguities between genders but within genders. To identify statistical significance and examine the hypothesis of similar levels of responses between genders, Mann-Whitney tests for importance and competency (on a 10-point scale) were undertaken. The results, illustrated in Table 3, show that male scores are significantly lower at 5 per cent significance level for adviser/counsellor in both importance and competency. Additionally, male scores are significantly lower at 5 per cent significance level for facilitator with respect to competency and male scores are significantly lower at 10 per cent significance level for mentor with respect to importance. This suggests that males and females do not respond in equal proportion to each of the roles. Lastly, respondents were asked to identify the main differences between roles and competencies in the traditional and online environments.

B R I G G S : C H A N G I N G R O L E S A N D C O M P E T E N C I E S O F A C A D E M I C S 261
Responses indicated that it is the ongoing demands on the online academic which differentiate the online environment. Difficulties in managing time online were a recurrent theme and 54 per cent were concerned that online work could place the tutor on a '24/7 treadmill'. Respondents (69%) indicated that training provision for online work was inadequate. Others suggested that lack of proper resource allocation led to 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'. Some respondents (40%) noted that the online environment was adding 'more stress to an already stressed environment '. In terms of competencies, respondents suggested the online academic must be expert and comfortable in the 'desk top' environment; competent in translating the spoken word into electronic form without loss of sense and meaning; able to energize discourse without the benefit of the 'heard' expression, tone or body language. Notwithstanding respondents (67%) suggested that 10 of the 11 roles (technologist excepting) were common in both the traditional and online environments. This suggested that any review of roles should take account of roles in both environments. This study thus moved to identify a generic role model for use in both environments.

A B R I G G S : C H A N G I N G R O L E S A N D C O M P E T E N C I E S O F A C A D E M I C S 263

Discussion

The responses indicate potential challenges with role overload, role ambiguity and role balance (e.g. time spent on each role) as well as differences between and within genders on the importance of individual roles. Differences can be expected given the broad range of student-teacher interactions online. The gender differences for both roles and competencies may in part relate to innate gender differences, but the differences between and within responses in the first two questions suggest a lack of clarity and some ambiguity regarding roles and their importance. The literature itself is confusing on the importance of individual roles. Ryan et al. ( 2000) suggest that the facilitator role is crucial, whilst Tammelin (2000) argues the manager role is critical. The high scoring for the range of roles, by both groups, suggests a perceived lack of role differentiation and potential role overload. Online learning represents discontinuity with previous practice, and this has the potential to cause role crisis. Without proper supports or interventions, role overload and role ambiguity can create the environment for a multitude of organizational and personnel problems. Clarity in roles gives a sense of belonging and a sense of continuity which should reduce some of the stress from role overload that online academics appear to be experiencing.

A C T I V E L E A R N I N G I N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 6(
There were more significant differences between roles and perceived competencies in these roles. Academics rated some roles highly in terms of importance and then indicated their perceived low competencies in these roles (e.g. 10 females and 12 males scored themselves as having low competency in the designer role, whilst 26/29 males and 20/23 females scored this role of medium to high importance). All the role categorizations in the literature suggest that the online academic has a large range of roles to fulfil, each with the need to develop a wide range of different types of competencies. This alone can cause lack of clarity and ambiguity, especially in those new to the online environment with few existing skills in online learning. The use of competencies can, however, assist appropriate deployment of skills throughout learning and teaching provision. This might be achieved by using competencies to underpin the deployment of the academic resource to those areas of learning activity to which individuals can be best suited. In short, it has the potential to provide the basis for more effective resource deployment and a more motivated and challenged academic workforce.

With regard to the limitations of this study it should be noted that this was a restricted population of business school academics, although the small convenience sample was representative of the academic population in this section of the institution more generally. Whilst it is not possible to transfer the findings across the university or indeed across other universities, nonetheless this article seeks to raise awareness of the impact of role change on academics and universities and to consider whether universities should continue to allow roles and competencies to evolve or whether it is now appropriate to intervene to define roles and develop competency frameworks. Technology-enhanced learning has been a catalyst in accelerating learner-centred education. The change required by technology is demanding 'new' competencies. Information and communication technology requires a continuous process of development of online competencies, lifelong professional preparation and appropriate pedagogical training. Staff development programmes have to reflect the competencies required by individual academics, otherwise academics will 'do what they have always done' and neither they nor their students will benefit from the new media. This suggests a very personalized approach to staff development which would, in turn, be reflected in resource deployment and reduced staff development costs through greater focus on individual competency and performance related to institutional need.

The finding in the open question that academics undertake very similar roles in both environments is not that surprising given the broad nature of the concept of roles and moves to learner-centred education, with the result that certain roles (adviser/counsellor and facilitator) are becoming more prevalent in the traditional environment. Of course, the balance of roles will vary between and within universities, but in broad terms, as the generic model in Figure 1 suggests, most of the core roles will be common across universities and academics whatever the learning environment. This model can be used to provide a useful starting point for debate in this area.

Conclusion

Role is at the heart of many organizational problems and lack of clarity of role can lead to role ambiguity, role conflict and role overload. It is suggested that clarity of role(s) is essential for optimal performance in role(s) and for addressing wider issues of employee dissatisfaction, performance and retention. The results from the study reported in the article indicate that the multiple roles of online learning are placing more stress on already distressed academics at the institution used in the study. Future research is envisaged which will explore whether this is the case in other universities. The study also identifies differences between online roles and perceived competencies in these roles and suggests that there is confusion over the importance of roles. To this point the research is merely reiterating other research both on role theory and roles in online learning. However, it differs from other research in three ways, and this reinforces the need to qualify the findings from what is recognized as a small sample size.

First, whilst this survey specifically looked at online roles and competencies, nonetheless responses to the open question on differences between the online and traditional learning environments suggested that respondents perceived online and traditional roles to be similar in both environments and competencies to be the real differentiator between the online and traditional environments. Given the broad nature of the concept of roles and the move to learner-centred education, this is not surprising. Nonetheless, further research to validate this finding is required. Second, it identifies a generic role model for use in both environments and suggests the need to differentiate between core and peripheral roles. This makes sense given the multiple roles identified in most classifications and the confusion these cause. This model needs to be tested across the higher education sector but nonetheless provides a reasonable reference for future research.

Finally, the research suggests that plans for training and development can only be established after clear definition of roles and competencies. This challenges the accepted evolutionary nature of academic roles and involves clearly defining roles and competencies rather than allowing them simply to evolve over time. Although the roles of the online academic will continue to change as online learning environments become more prevalent and better understood, by clearly defining roles and competencies universities can perhaps control the impact of change and indeed shape change. Certainly, recent change in higher education would suggest that the resilience of academic institutions and roles may be insufficient in the face of radical and/or rapid change. Indeed, one might consider the potential for role clarity and disaggregation of academic roles to contribute to improved academic resource allocation modelling. In particular, it offers the potential to better align role and competency to need. This goes beyond the legitimate conclusions of this study but indicates the potential added value of role definition and competency development.

Table 1a Males -frequency of importance of online roles

 1a

	Role			Scale 1-10 (1 = Not important 10 = Essential)
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
	Technologist	2	0	4	4	2	5	1	6	3	2
	Manager	3	0	2	2	0	6	4	8	3	1
	Co-learner	0	2	2	0	3	2	5	8	5	2
	Designer	0	0	1	2	6	2	5	5	2	6
	e-tutor	0	0	3	4	4	3	6	3	3	3
	Knowledge expert	0	0	0	2	3	5	6	4	3	6
	Researcher	0	0	2	1	5	4	3	6	6	2
	Facilitator	0	0	0	0	1	2	5	7	7	7
	Assessor	1	0	0	0	3	2	6	6	5	6
	Adviser/counsellor	0	0	0	1	3	7	6	5	2	5
	Mentor	0	0	0	1	3	5	5	6	4	5
	(n = 29)

Table 1b Females -frequency of importance of online roles

 1b

	Role			Scale 1-10 (1 = Not important 10 = Essential)
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
	Technologist	2	0	3	3	1	4	2	3	3	2
	Manager	2	1	1	1	1	0	4	7	3	3
	Co-learner	0	2	0	1	1	2	6	6	4	1
	Designer	0	0	1	2	3	4	6	4	2	1
	e-tutor	0	0	2	3	2	6	4	3	2	1
	Knowledge expert	0	0	0	2	1	2	6	5	3	4
	Researcher	0	0	0	1	4	4	6	3	2	3
	Facilitator	0	0	0	0	1	1	4	5	4	8
	Assessor	0	0	0	0	1	2	5	4	6	5
	Adviser/counsellor	0	0	0	0	1	1	5	4	6	6
	Mentor	0	0	0	0	2	1	3	4	7	6
	(n = 23)

Table 2a Males -frequency of competency in online roles

 2a

	Role		Score 1-10 (1 = Very poor competency 10 = Expert)
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
	Technologist	3	0	3	5	6	5	5	1	1	0
	Manager	0	3	2	3	4	6	5	5	1	0
	Co-learner	0	3	3	2	6	5	5	3	0	2
	Designer	2	2	4	5	4	5	4	2	1	0
	e-tutor	2	2	4	5	4	5	4	2	1	0
	Knowledge expert	3	0	1	3	4	3	7	4	3	1
	Researcher	0	3	0	0	5	6	5	5	5	0
	Facilitator	0	3	2	2	3	5	8	3	2	1
	Assessor	0	2	1	2	6	4	5	3	4	2
	Adviser/counsellor	3	3	2	2	1	6	5	5	2	0
	Mentor	2	3	2	1	3	2	6	7	2	1
	(n = 29)

Table 2b Females -frequency of competency in online roles

 2b

	Role		Score 1 -10 (1 = Very poor competency 10 = Expert)
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
	Technologist	3	2	2	0	4	5	4	2	0	1
	Manager	2	1	1	2	3	8	4	1	1	0
	Co-learner	2	0	2	0	7	6	4	2	0	0
	Designer	0	2	4	4	2	5	4	1	0	1
	e-tutor	0	4	2	2	4	1	4	5	0	1
	Knowledge expert	0	0	0	0	6	6	3	2	6	0
	Researcher	0	0	0	0	6	1	6	5	5	0
	Facilitator	0	0	0	2	3	1	6	7	4	0
	Assessor	0	0	0	3	0	5	6	5	3	1
	Adviser/counsellor	1	1	0	0	3	4	4	4	5	1
	Mentor	2	0	0	3	2	3	4	5	3	1
	(n = 23)

Table 3 Comparison of gender responses by Mann-Whitney test

 3

	Role	Importance	Competence
	Technologist	0.941 ML	0.689 ML
	Manager	0.249 ML	0.587 MH
	Co-learner	0.955 MH	0.829 MH
	Designer	0.391 MH	0.737 ML
	e-tutor	0.802 MH	0.343 ML
	Knowledge expert	0.660 ML	0.322 ML
	Researcher	0.970 MH	0.353 ML
	Facilitator	0.616 ML	0.039 ML**
	Assessor	0.487 ML	0.271 ML
	Adviser/counsellor	0.023 ML**	0.051 ML**
	Mentor	0.080 ML*	0.551 M

(Cells contain Significance

Level and 'Male Mean Rank Higher', MH, or 'Lower', ML)

discussion group of 12 academics (experienced in both environments) was established, using a range of criteria including age, experience, gender and status. Discussions identified eight core roles (Figure

1

, inner circle) that all academics undertake and eight peripheral roles (Figure

1

, outer circle) which have a greater or lesser significance for individual academics. The eight core roles are all different, but interconnected and closely related, as some of the peripheral roles demonstrate.

Biographical note

S E N G A B R I G G S is a Lecturer in Aberdeen Business School of the Robert Gordon University. She has been involved in online learning for four years and this has led to a research interest in the impact that changes in the use and practice of IT are having in higher education. Address: Aberdeen Business School, The Robert Gordon University, Garthdee Road, Aberdeen AB10 7QE, UK. [email: s.briggs@rgu.ac.uk]


active learning in higher education

Editorial

LY N N E P. B A L DW I N Brunel University, UK

As educators, we are participants in higher education in one way or another. However,'participate' has various meanings, some of which do not necessarily suggest that we do so either actively or positively, or with a sense of engagement. The UK is currently embarked on widening participation, that is, encouraging those from underrepresented sectors of society to undertake studies at university level. We hope that this means more than merely join, have something to do with or be associated with (three of the meanings of participate, as listed in the Oxford Thesaurus) university-level studies. We would hope that, whether as learners or educators, we do more than merely appear, in body, but instead that we participate in the sense that we engage, get involved, contribute to, share in and play a part/role in higher education more fully, that is, in mind and spirit too, as these five other meanings of participate suggest. How much or how little our learners engage in the experience is to some extent shaped by the learning environment that we help to create in our classrooms. This issue takes as its theme how both we and our learners participate, or not, in various activities.

The supervisory process at doctoral level is the focus of the first article, entitled 'Superqual: A tool to explore the initial expectations of PhD students and supervisors'. In this, Mario Hair says that although we have put much effort into improving the teaching of generic research skills, how researchers participate, or not, in the supervisory process is dependent to a great extent on the expectations that both supervisor and supervisee have. If this relationship -long and for many reasons particularly complex -is to thrive (or survive), then the success or otherwise of these supervisory meetings hinges on appropriate participation. The simple-to-use instrument described in this article has been developed in order that each may better understand the expectations not only of the other, but of themselves. In the second article, entitled 'The "Millionaire" method for encouraging participation', Wendy Beekes paints the all too familiar picture of the classroom in which many learners, for a variety of reasons, are reluctant to participate in discussion. For those of us who teach large classes (by this I mean 300 or more students), it is truly heartening to read of something which in addition to increasing participation has also proved 'very effective for breaking up the sessions and maintaining student interest'. The author comments that the Personal Response System (PRS) designed for such participation is not widely used in UK universities; if the experiences described in the article are mirrored elsewhere, this looks set to change. I, for one, feel enthused enough to try it out.

We, as educators, 'play a pivotal role as scholars and leaders in teaching and learning, and [need to provide] a flourishing and safe classroom environment to encourage and nurture creativity and innovation', says Adela McMurray, author of the third article. Entitled 'Teaching action research: The role of demographics', she says that action research 'may be viewed as "teaching thinking"'. Her comprehensive yet accessible overview covers scientific methods and thinking and how we hold and share meanings ('information') and how creativity might be hindered by our 'mental ruts'. Whilst no one could disagree that our role is pivotal, providing the environment needed is, like so much, easier said than done. There is usually little in the way of learner participation when it comes to assessing the work that we have set them. As educators, we normally mark their work and then provide written (or perhaps oral) feedback to them on how well (or not) they performed the task. Too rarely, in higher education in the UK at least, do we ask learners themselves to mark their own work and/or those of their peers. How they do so, when marking essays, is the subject of the fourth article, entitled 'Self-, peer-and teacher-assessment of student essays' by Sari Lindblom-Ylänne et al. In the study reported, it seems that there are many challenges that our learners face which impact on whether we are to consider its adoption in our own classrooms. Participation in continuous professional development (CPD) for us, as educators, is high on the agenda in today's higher education climate and so the fifth article, entitled 'Collaborative and reflective professional development: A pilot' is timely. In this, John Cowan and Jenny Westwood describe the use of journalling in order to reflect on what they did or did not do in their professional development as educators. Whilst appreciating that any journal writer, as part of an assessed course, might be tempted to write what their assessors want to hear, as the authors readily admit, it is argued that they made 'a range of detailed and persuasive claims in respect of significant achievements in their CPD'. The theme of personal development planning (PDP) is continued in the sixth article, 'Integrating personal development and career planning: The outcomes for first year undergraduate learning', by Kathy Monks et al. Described here is how learners are aided in developing self-efficacy, self-awareness and resourcefulness by way of activities and assessment in a module on a degree programme.

Whilst the articles detailed above concern activities that our learners participate in, and we encourage them to do so, the reverse is the case for the seventh and final article, 'Evaluating an electronic plagiarism detection service: The importance of trust and the difficulty of proving students don't cheat', by Robert Evans. With incidences of plagiarism said to be on the increase, we face what is termed a 'new plagiarism', perhaps in part attributable to the ease with which data can be accessed from electronic sources and the rise in the number of online service providers which offer, for a very small price indeed, to write any piece of coursework for any student, regardless of level, discipline or language. This is indeed a problem that we need to address. Whilst it is pleasing to read that the JISC system is useful, and that it does very well with regard to 'major or blatant plagiarism', the study revealed a noteworthy issue, that is, the difficulties not in identifying plagiarism but in the time and effort needed to prove its absence. If we are to use such electronic systems more widely, particularly when marking high volumes of coursework, the author suggests that we shall need to look carefully at how we use it, practically speaking, if we are not to spend an inordinate amount of time on marking and checking our learners' work. As the collecting of coursework electronically is becoming more widespread, and may indeed become the norm in the sector in the UK, this article provides essential reading for those of us who must, one way or another, decide how we are to grapple with the issues and tasks involved.

As is customary, this issue concludes with reviews of books.


E Va N S

Keywords: plagiarism detection service, plagiarism, trust

Evaluating an electronic plagiarism detection service

The importance of trust and the difficulty of proving students don't cheat RO B E RT

Introduction

The threat posed to the integrity of academic awards by internet essay banks and other web resources is seen as an increasingly serious one for higher education. The ease with which text, numbers and computer codes can be moved between students and institutions has the potential to undermine traditional forms of learning and assessment. Evidence from students and staff suggests that these dangers are not merely hypothetical, with stories about the rising incidence of plagiarism occurring in both the professional and popular media (e. g. Adenekan, 2003;Das, 2003;Diekhoff et al., 1996;Gibelman et al., 1999). The emergent scenario is of a 'new plagiarism' in which learning suffers as students 'wield an Electronic Shovel . . . to find and save huge chunks of information with little reading, effort or originality' (McKenzie, 1998).

Tackling this problem is a serious challenge. Teaching, assessment and marking practices are all implicated in preventing plagiarism but credible attempts to detect it and, if necessary, impose sanctions are also important (Braumoeller and Gaines, 2001;Woessner, 2003). In this context, the internet may not be all bad. Just as it provides new opportunities for cheating so it also provides new opportunities for detecting plagiarism. Indeed, the irony of the on-line source is that if students can find it, there is a fair chance that those assessing their work can as well (Auer and Krupar, 2001;Smith, 2003). Electronic plagiarism detection systems have the potential to extend and automate this work but their use is largely unreported in the academic literature. This article begins to fill this gap by reporting the experiences of the Cardiff School of Social Sciences in implementing an electronic plagiarism detection service as part of a wider strategy to prevent plagiarism and improve standards of scholarship amongst its students.

Literature review

McLafferty and Foust neatly capture the importance of plagiarism as a breach of trust when they say that 'Words are academics' currency and bond ' (2004: 186). If we cannot trust that academics' words are really their own, then traditions of teaching, peer review and authorship are undermined in the same way that economic activity is undermined if we are unable to trust the purchasing power given to bits of paper, metal and plastic (cf. Giddens, 1990: 26). In trying to address plagiarism by students, research has mainly focussed on three main areas: estimating its prevalence; identifying its causes; and developing strategies to prevent and/or detect it. This last element is the one that is typically assumed to be most troubled by the availability of internet sources, though the potential of the same technology to detect plagiarism may mean that the situation is more finely balanced than the hyperbolic rhetoric of the 'cut and paste' culture suggests.

In estimating the prevalence of plagiarism, it is important to recognize that the term itself conceals a variety of misdemeanours, ranging from poor referencing and paraphrasing, to deliberate attempts to cheat by copying whole paragraphs or even essays. In addition, the source of the plagiarized material can vary: it may be the student's own work, where assignments are 'recycled' for different modules; other students, through deliberate or accidental collusion; as well as the more widely discussed academic or commercial sources (Park, 2003: 475-6). In distinguishing between different types of plagiarism, some authors (e. g. Braumoeller and Gaines, 2001: 837) thus distinguish between 'casual' and 'blatant' plagiarism, with the former denoting poor scholarship and the latter a more deliberate attempt to cheat. Taking a fairly broad definition of plagiarism, research generally suggests that a large proportion of students are willing to admit to either having engaged in some form of plagiarism or being able to imagine circumstances in which they would. For example, Underwood and Szabo (2003) report that about 1 in 2 students said they would engage in plagiarism to avoid failing a module, while a more recent article by the same authors suggests a wider range of reasons might legitimate plagiarism (Szabo and Underwood, 2004). Other studies give different estimates, but the general picture is of a significant, though perhaps not yet rampant, problem. For example, Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead (1995) put the proportion of students who engage in plagiarism at between one-third and one-half, while a number of other studies put the proportion of students who are prepared to admit having engaged in some form of plagiarism or cheating (broadly defined) at over 50 per cent. Examples of these studies, which are all cited in Park (2003), include Haines et al. (1986), Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce (1996), Brown (1995), and Stern and Havlicek (1986). Finally, it should be noted that although some studies appear to replicate the finding of very high rates of plagiarism others report lower rates. Thus, for example, Jensen et al. (2002) report that up to 90 per cent of US students have engaged in some form of malpractice or cheating while Scanlan andNeumann (2002, cited in Kellogg, 2002) report lower rates of around 25 to 30 per cent.

There appears, therefore, to be little doubt amongst the research community that plagiarism, at least in its minor forms, is fairly widespread. But what is the reason for this? Although ready access to pre-prepared information is clearly a factor in making plagiarism easier and arguably more prevalent (Baty, 2000) it would be wrong to think that it is the only one. Research on the causes of plagiarism paints a much more complex picture. A simple typology, based on Park (2003), includes psychological determinants such as hidden memory (e.g. Macrae et al., 1999) and personality (e. g. Raffetto, 1985;Buckley et al., 1998); demographic factors such as age (e.g. Haines et al., 1986;Straw, 2002), gender (Calabrese and Cochran, 1990), country (Diekhoff et al., 1999;Lupton et al., 2000), ethnicity and culture (Burnett, 2002;Deckert, 1993), and student lifestyles (Straw, 2002); as well as factors related to the course of study (Meade, 1992), the style of teaching (Burnett, 2002;Gerdeman, 2000), lack of training in how to reference (Roig, 2001), the perceived chance of being caught and the consequences of this (Braumoeller and Gaines, 2001;Davis and Ludvigson, 1995;McCabe andTrevino, 1993, 1997;Woessner, 2003) and the changing nature of higher education from elite to mass participation (Ashworth and Bannister, 1997).

It is also worth noting that the expectations of academics, the so-called 'hidden curriculum' (Snyder, 1971), will also influence the ways students approach their assessments. Whilst some studies suggest that student use of information and communications technologies (ICT) is tacitly discouraged by assessment strategies (Marriott et al., 1999;Selwyn, 2002;Selwyn et al., 1999), the rhetoric surrounding internet plagiarism suggests an alternative scenario in which the use of at least one form of ICT is rampant (e. g. Laird, 2001). In this context, the moral nature of assessment as an activity through which academic standards are reproduced (Knight, 1995) becomes central. The signals that academics send to students about the relevance of the courses they are taking (Gerdeman, 2000), the care with which they will be marked (Burnett, 2002) and what counts as acceptable use of the internet and other electronic resources (Boud, 1995;Macfarlane, 1998) are all important influences on students. In other words, although students are rightly encouraged to take advantage of the internet as a source of information, academics must ensure, through their own actions, that students realize 'learning requires more than high-speed connections and a good search engine' (Carnie 2001, quoted in Park, 2003: 481).

Despite this complexity, however, it would be wrong to say that academics are helpless. There is, in fact, a great deal that we can do, including maintaining good relations with students, designing assessments so that they are difficult to plagiarize in the first place and providing clear and consistent advice to students (Harris, 2001;Lathrop and Foss, 2000;Pearson, 1999). Nevertheless, just as it would be wrong to despair, so too it would be wrong to be complacent. Carefully worded policy statements (Brown andHowell, 2001), consistent training (Auer andKrupar, 2001;Wilhoit, 1994) and developing credible means of detecting plagiarism (Maramark and Maline, 1993) are also necessary. Intriguingly, it now seems that the very same internet that threatened to be the scourge of education could now be its saviour. Where it might once have taken many hours to document and prove suspected plagiarism search engines and dedicated electronic plagiarism detection services can do this work automatically and in minutes. Detecting electronic plagiarism now appears to be almost as easy as committing it.

The use of such systems is still largely unreported in the literature, however (though Braumoeller and Gaines (2001) provide an exception). Whilst using such a system is not a panacea, it may provide a useful resource for an important part of the academic job -the grading of coursework and the awarding of degrees to students. In using these services, however, markers are introducing a new element into the assessment process that has the potential to change the relationship between staff and students from one of trust to one of distrust and surveillance. The relative balance between these different elements is crucial to the successful use of plagiarism detection services and the evaluation described in this article thus considers student and staff experiences of the system as well as the usefulness of the data produced.

Evaluating the plagiarism detection system

The plagiarism detection service used in this evaluation was developed by iParadigms and made available via the UK Joint Information Services Committee (JISC). In order to use the system, coursework must be prepared electronically and submitted via a web interface. Each assignment is then checked against a series of databases and an 'originality report' produced for the marker(s). The originality reports indicate the proportion of the text in the assessment that has been found to match text available elsewhere as well as highlighting this 'matching text' and indicating where the 'original' text is to be found. It is important to note that the originality reports do not identify plagiarism per se. All they do is identify text that matches other text. Markers must decide for themselves whether the text represents plagiarism, a properly referenced quotation or something in between.

The JISC electronic plagiarism detection service was piloted on year two undergraduate students and the evaluation was run in parallel with the normal paper-based assessment process. Students were thus required to submit paper copies of their assessed coursework as normal and then asked to submit the same work electronically. Although not ideal in terms of response rate and self-selection bias this approach did ensure that students were protected from any disadvantage if the system did not work as expected or hoped. The first part of the trial involved training the students to use the system. The training was organized in groups of 20-25, with students receiving a brief introduction to the service and a more detailed guide to enrolling on the system, signing up for classes and submitting coursework. During this training session students were also given a copy of the JISC Student User Guide and a feedback questionnaire to record their first impressions of the system and their level of IT use. When the students returned to university after the Christmas vacation approximately 85 per cent of those who had registered before Christmas continued to participate in the trial, submitting a total of 513 pieces of coursework.

Results

Student co-operation was generally good. Of a possible 240 students, 170 turned up during the last teaching week of the semester and registered on the system. As shown in Table 1, the feedback questionnaires revealed that students' assessments were largely positive, with the median response for most items being 'agree'. The only exceptions were the statement that 'plagiarism was a problem' and that the student would 'prefer to submit coursework electronically'. In both these cases, the median response was the more neutral 'neither agree nor disagree'.

These two items are particularly significant, not least because they fit uneasily with the literature cited earlier. For example, although students tended to agree that perceptions of plagiarism were a problem they did not share this view themselves. This may be because they genuinely believed, correctly as it turned out, that there was not a significant amount of plagiarism going on and/or that they viewed the plagiarism they did know about as minor and therefore 'unproblematic'. In any case, they, again

A C T I V E L E A R N I N G I N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 7(1)
92 correctly, rated their own ability to avoid plagiarsim quite highly, something that is also somewhat at odds with the literature, which typically suggest that students are uncertain about how to reference work. These feelings and beliefs no doubt feed into the responses to the final question, which asked whether or not they would prefer to submit their coursework electronically.

Although about one-third agreed they would prefer to submit coursework in this way, and thus change from the current practice, another third disagreed so that, depending how or where you count from, the survey provided equal evidence of support for the new system and for maintaining the status quo.

Given that the students generally found the system easy to use, and had the basic IT skills and access needed to use it, explanations for this opposition are to be found in students' perceptions of the system and, in particular, its effect on the way they experience assessments. At an individual level, submitting coursework electronically requires trusting computers, and the absent others who program and maintain them, to do a task that is currently done physically and visibly by students and staff. Some evidence of the role this face-to-face interaction, and the trust it engenders, plays in the handing in of assignments was given by one of the students, who wrote on the back of the feedback form that submitting coursework electronically was: Not a nice experience if computers scare you!! Wouldn't feel I could rely on it. Not same feeling of relief as physically handing it in.

No doubt other students are less concerned with the embodied performance of handing in coursework but this is not the only way in which submitting coursework via an electronic plagiarism detection service raises issues of trust and distrust. Changing the way coursework is submitted changes the way students interact with the School as the new technology reconfigures student identities and their position with respect to the university (cf. Bijker et al., 1987;Woolgar, 1991). Making the detection of plagiarism routine also makes distrust the norm and, although many students seemed happy to accept the increased convenience of submitting coursework electronically, it would not be surprising if a minority resented the implication that they needed to have their honesty demonstrated.

Submitting coursework is only part of the problem. A more significant part of the evaluation related to the way the plagiarism detection service changes marking practices and, in particular, the extra work that is created by the originality reports, which now have to be examined as well as the essays. At its most basic, the originality report is an electronic version of the student's essay with the words that match text that can be found elsewhere highlighted in different colours. The total number of matching words is used to generate a score through which the originality reports are themselves colour-coded into bands that represent different degrees of potential plagiarism. Blue thus represents assignments in which five words or fewer match the data base, whereas red denotes an originality report in which over 75 per cent of the assignment text matches text found elsewhere. These ranges, together with the number of scripts that were detected in each category for our sample, are illustrated in Table 2: In addition to the overall proportion of matching text, the originality report also provides information about where the matching text is to be found. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given that participation was voluntary, we found that very few of the essays submitted (11 out of 513 or 2 per cent) contained more than 25 per cent of matching text, supporting our students' belief that plagiarism was not a problem. In fact, closer inspection showed that it was even less of a problem than the table suggests, as all three 'red' essays were attributable to students mistakenly submitting the same essay twice. Of the others in this more serious category, that is, the orange and yellow rated essays, examining the originality reports revealed a variety of practices ranging from plagiarism to poor scholarship and referencing and including one instance of submitting very similar essays for two separate modules. Significantly all of these essays would have justified some disciplinary or remedial action had they been detected as part of the normal assessment cycle.

This outcome clearly indicates the success of the system in identifying plagiarism that had been missed by markers and provides a positive argument for using the system. Nevertheless, there is also a downside. Because the system cannot tell plagiarized text from properly attributed quotations it is possible that the simple quantitative score will not provide an accurate guide to the amount of plagiarized text, particularly in cases where the plagiarism is minor. This is because a well-written essay, which starts with a restatement of the question, contains some properly referenced quotations, and ends with a comprehensive bibliography will also contain text flagged by the system as potential plagiarism. As a result, the system has the potential to undermine itself by generating so much data that, if every originality report is checked, marking will become an even more time-consuming and cumbersome process than it already is. In our experience, however, this outcome is unlikely. As shown in the table, the green category includes over 90 per cent of all the scripts submitted and to check each report would require a significant amount of work. To see if this would actually be necessary, we picked a sample of approximately 50 essays coded as green and examined what text was being matched and whether or not it constituted malpractice or plagiarism of the kind that was evident in the other essays. In general, we found that essays coded as green contained relatively low proportions of matching text and were clustered around the lower end of the band (average = 8%). What is more, within these essays, the vast majority of matching text came from things like the essay title, references in the bibliography and attributed quotations. In another module, where the assignment consisted of a report on practical work, commonly matched text included things like experimental instructions, protocols and the data. In other words, in most cases, there was very little cause for concern about the work presented and little that would count as even 'casual' plagiarism. Of course, there were some exceptions to this pattern. Some essays coded as green were towards the upper end of the band and displayed weakness that one would want to address. These included poor paraphrasing and referencing of sources and, in one case, a close reliance on another student's interpretation of statistics, though whether this was uncertainty about the material or a deliberate attempt to cheat is unclear.

The result was thus somewhat paradoxical. Although we found that the JISC system clearly does have a useful role to play in identifying plagiarism, its wholesale use is problematic. Whereas much of the literature addresses the problem of identifying cheats, our biggest problem was proving their absence. The small number of cases coded as yellow or worse meant that it would be relatively simple for markers to check all originality reports where a match of 25 per cent or greater was found. Instead, the problem arises in the case of those students -the vast majority in our sample -who did not attempt to cheat. Checking all reports coded as green does not seem a viable strategy so that demanding proof of honesty -trying to prove the negative of 'no plagiarism' -has the potential to overwhelm the marking process. In other words, some way of reinserting 'trust' back into the marking process is needed as, to put it bluntly, the cost of the false negatives that are allowed to slip through by not checking for minor plagiarism is not enough to justify the effort it would take to prevent them.

Discussion

This article has examined how the electronic plagiarism detection service offered in the UK by JISC worked in the context of an interdisciplinary school of social sciences. We found that student views on the system were evenly distributed between support, opposition and something in-between. Perhaps surprisingly, given the voluntary nature of the trial, which offered nothing except the chance of being caught cheating, we achieved a response rate of about 85 per cent from those who registered for modules, with this figure itself representing about two-thirds of the possible students.

Based on these experiences we found that the vast majority of those who did take part were quite capable of using the system properly and that many of the problems experienced could have been avoided if better instructions had been provided earlier. Against this positive experience, it was also noted that issues of trust and distrust -both in computer systems and studentswere also implicated in their responses and some further research to address these issues would be useful.

From a marking perspective, the service appeared to perform effectively with regard to major or blatant plagiarism. Originality reports were generated quickly and appeared to show that the vast majority of students did not engage in activities that could be classed as plagiarism. In addition, we were also able to identify eight pieces of work where standards of scholarship were unacceptably low and where remedial or disciplinary action would have been appropriate. This is important as acting on these cases, which were missed in the normal marking process, would show the honest majority that those students who do cheat get caught and thus also have a deterrent effect in future years. For minor plagiarism, however, the findings are more ambivalent. Although, in principle, it would be possible to check every originality report, and identify even the most casual or minor plagiarism, this is not practical. Instead, there has to be a cut-off point below which originality reports are themselves simply taken 'on trust' and are not checked further. As a result, and despite the appearance of total surveillance created by the rhetoric of text matching, the practical implementation of the system on any substantial scale requires a degree of trust and tolerance within which minor or casual plagiarism may go unsanctioned, if not undetected.

In summary, therefore, the technology of electronic plagiarism detection software does not undermine trust in the way that it might appear. Although the routine checking of all assignments appears to signal an institutional distrust, this strategy is unsustainable on a large scale. Checking every report for originality has the same effect as checking every coin or cheque for authenticity -the system simply grinds to a halt. Instead, only major cases can be fully investigated, so that, if the system is to work, and if academics are to have time to teach, then the integrity of students remains essential.

Table 1 Summary of feedback responses

 1

		Strongly	Agree	Neither Disagree Strongly
		agree		agree		disagree
				nor
				disagree
		Count	Count	Count	Count	Count
	User guide was clear	46	101	14	1
	Enrolling on the JISC
	system was easy	64	81	14	5
	Enrolling on modules was
	easy	68	80	10	3
	Submitting coursework
	was easy	32	80	27	7	1
	Plagiarism by students is
	a problem	13	45	85	19
	Perceptions of plagiarism
	are a problem	10	74	64	5
	I know how to avoid
	plagiarism	25	109	19	7
	I know how to cite sources
	correctly	24	118	12	8
	I would prefer to submit
	c/w electronically	18	36	58	39	12

Table 2 Originality reports by colour code

 2

	Colour	Blue	Green	Yellow	Orange	Red
	% matching text	<5 words 0-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-100%
	No. of scripts detected	31	471	7	1

Biographical note

RO B E RT E VA N S is a Senior Lecturer in Sociology in the Cardiff School of Social Sciences. His research interests focus on Science and Technology Studies (STS) and, in particular, around the relationships between expert knowledge and public participation. Address: Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3WT, UK. [email: EvansRJ1@Cardiff.ac.uk]


active learning in higher education

Book reviews

Enhancing Teaching in Higher Education. New Approaches for Improving Student Learning by Peter Hartley, Amanda Woods and Martin Pill (eds). Oxford: Routledge, 2005. ISBN 0-4153-3529-9. 196 pp. £24.99 (pbk).

All tutors have the opportunity to influence their students' learning, but knowing how to enhance their students' ability to learn how to learn is far more complex. This book clearly sets out to unravel the complexity of the processes and will be a very useful guide for both new and experienced lecturers in higher education.

The editors focus upon the operational level exploring what teachers and lecturers do to influence student learning. They have selected contributions from practitioners who are actively involved in the enhancement of student learning. The common theme of each chapter is the exploration of learning techniques that have encouraged and supported groups of students in their development towards becoming self-directed learners.

The chapters have overlapping themes and are structured into four parts. Part One (Approaches to Learning) consists of three chapters inviting the reader to consider and evaluate their approach and perspective on three very different learning and teaching issues. The learning 'combination lock' approach examines and represents the main components of the learning processes. The four case studies are helpful and can be readily adapted to any curriculum and subject area. David Major argues that Work Based Learning (WBL) requires students to assume a greater degree of responsibility for their own learning than conventional methods. He compares research from his own students with empirical research from Alverno College, USA, and concludes that this greater responsibility together with critical reflection is key to success in WBL. Annie Huntington explores approaches to interactive learning by reflecting on her own substantial teaching experience, which she shares with her students. The tasks and practice examples are very helpful and could be adapted and used in many different teaching contexts.

The chapters in Part Two (Working With Students) include pedagogic research on students' reactions to different methods used to support learning and teaching. The methods range from using concept maps to facilitating tutorials in Problem Based Learning (PBL) and how group and teamwork skills can encourage critical reflection. The final three chapters address the issues around the use of learning technologies, starting with learning to learn online, using blended learning and finally facilitating students towards self-directed learning. All the authors advise the reader to adopt a stage by stage approach (scaffolding) in using these methods and emphasise the importance of feedback.

The chapters in Part Three (Enhancing Student Progression) address reflective practices and how they can influence a student's progression in HE. Jenny Moon explores learning as represented in level descriptors, Jenny Phillips describes the development of the Keynote Guide to PDP, and Kathryn McFarlane's chapter on Learning about Employability completes the set of three topics that are a priority for many tutors in HE. All the authors offer excellent advice to readers wishing to incorporate the strategies discussed in the chapters into their courses or research projects.

The chapters in Part Four (Supporting and Developing Staff) shift the focus from students to the support and development of staff. John Shaw claims that it is important for those who support learning to understand how they learn in order to improve their teaching. He challenges the reader to instigate an action research project addressing an educational hypothesis, engaging in reflection and acting on the findings. Vivien Sieber's chapter on Learning to Teach with Technology is excellent, highlighting the important skills required and some strategies that promote the development of these skills. Each section ends with key questions and challenges for the tutor, to aid the development of their teaching with technology. The final two chapters address the impact of new legislation and policy changes on inclusive learning and equality of opportunity. Both authors make it very clear that the new legislation involves everyone in HE and offer excellent guidance for implementation.

This book does what it sets out to do in that it considers at the operational level a range of new approaches for improving students' learning and will be useful and challenging for a wide range of tutors in HE. In particular, the examples of pedagogic research will be extremely helpful to tutors who are participating in Higher Education Academy Accredited Postgraduate Certificate courses and will complement the core texts that already exist. This book is concerned with many aspects of retention and student success in higher education systems, covering: retention and student success from a public policy perspective; the theoretical approaches and enhancement measures for retention.

All ten chapters of the book have been written in a professional manner, with its presentation, analysis and discussion based upon a wide range of sources of information. A welcome feature is the international perspective, particularly from the UK, Australia, South Africa and the United States.

  D E R RY C O R E Y College of St Mark & St John, Plymouth Retention and Student Success in Higher Education by Mantz Yorke and Bernard Longden. London: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, 2004. ISBN 0-3352-1274-3. 171 pp. £23.99 (pbk).


active learning in higher education

Editorial

LY N N E P. B A L DW I N Brunel University, UK Standards in higher education, whether in the UK or elsewhere, concern us all. Whether we are talking about our standards of teaching or facilities in the classroom, in the institution itself or at national level, we are keen to maintain and, indeed, improve these where we can. At a more 'local' level, our students make their voices heard through, for example, their feedback on modules and courses, both formally and informally. As they are a key group of 'stakeholders' in the education system, feedback from students allows us to find out what we are doing well and, naturally enough, where there is room for improvement. Given the impact both locally, in our own countries, and more widely (in the global economy, we wish to keep our reputation for excellence in our quality of provision of education at HE level), governments are keen to ensure that the stakeholders, current and potential, can be assured that standards are not only being maintained but, indeed, enhanced.

In the first article, entitled 'What is the impact of subject benchmarking?', Steve Pidcock points us to a report into Higher Education in the Learning Society. Although written for the UK context, it is doubtless applicable more widely. There are four main purposes of higher education: one, to help individuals to realize their potential; two, to foster knowledge and understanding; three, to serve local, regional and national needs; and four, to shape a democratic, civilized, inclusive society. Leaving aside the immensely difficult task of measuring, or even defining, what an 'inclusive' or a 'civilized' society might mean, it would seem that if we are to (better) understand what we are doing in order to make the continuous improvements that we wish to make, we need to consider these 'goals' which comprise the purpose of HE. This first article explains that the introduction of subject benchmarking in HE in the UK in 2000 was in part due to a perception, right or wrong, that the rapid and enormous increase in student numbers, the so-called 'massification' of HE, may in some way have led (or will lead) to 'lower standards'. Whether the standards are the same, lower or higher, it is no easy task. After all, the same as what, and when? The standards last year, or five years ago? And what, precisely, are these standards? Benchmarking of subjects (English, Law, Mathematics, etc.) is, according to the article, but one tool at our disposal in order to help in quality assurance.

As in industry, we need to carefully monitor and reflect on what we do, and make continuous improvements in all aspects of our provision. We are all doing the best that we can, but how do we know how our standards compare to those of our peers elsewhere? Whilst necessarily limited in terms of respondents, the study shows that the principles of quality assurance and the need for public accountability (we are, after all, funded through taxpayers) are accepted. In the early days, fears were expressed that having teams of 'inspectors' (although comprising colleagues working within, not outside of HE) would in some way diminish our autonomy, be overly bureaucratic and indeed not be able to deliver what it promised. Readers will be pleased to find out that, despite agreement that it has indeed introduced further bureaucracy and an increase in workload, standards are perceived as being no worse. Or better. Indeed, as one respondent remarked, like HE itself, it is just that things are different. Different is not 'bad', fortunately. After sifting through 2904 Subject Review Reports, it seems that 'HE provision . . . was generally found to be of very high quality'.

Quality assurance, but at the level of the individual educator, department and institution is the subject of the second article, by Steve Love and Rosa Scoble, entitled 'Developing a quality assurance metric: a panoptic view'. The authors describe the use of a matrix as the analytical tool which allows for an effective and 'tidy' collection of the views of the stakeholders, the drivers and the areas of interest. Their study suggests that, amongst other benefits, this tool allows for an easy switch between detail and summarya common difficulty when wading through masses of data, not to mention paperwork, electronic or otherwise. Stakeholders extend beyond the boundaries of the classroom in the third article, by Thomas Bordelon and Iris Philips of Indiana in the USA, entitled 'Service-learning: what students have to say'. Service-learning, that is, doing voluntary work to help improve the lives of those in the local community, was perceived as valuable in many ways, although few had actually undertaken any such non-compulsory learning experience. How students allocate/spend their time is one of the themes in the fourth article, entitled 'The relation between self-regulated strategies and individual study time, prepared participation and achievement in a problem-based curriculum', by Marianne van den Hurk of the Netherlands. The study revealed that those who were better at planning their time and who had better self-monitoring skills worked/studied more efficiently.

Skills and abilities such as time management and self-regulation are but two factors impacting what students do or do not do at university. The experience of being a student involves development and change of one kind or another, which Amanda Baker, the author of the fourth article, entitled 'What else do students need? A psychodynamic reflection on students' need for support from staff at university', calls 'studenthood'. In this must-read article, readers will learn of the psychodynamic background which sheds light on our understanding of the role that our students assign to us, and the connections between mechanisms for social learning about self/identity and the identity-establishing responses which our students need at this stage of their personal development. The understanding of these will explain some of the difficulties that our 'troubled' students face and explores the issues surrounding 'help' and 'problems' before ending with some practical guidelines for us all.

Facing problems and needing help are as much issues for new academic members of staff as they are for students, particularly new ones. Whilst practices vary, we run induction programmes of one sort or another for our new students. Induction for new staff is, however, not without its difficulties, according to David Staniforth and Tony Harland, authors of the sixth and final article, entitled 'Contrasting views of induction: the experiences of new academic staff and their heads of department'. They suggest that there is much that we might be concerned about; new academic members of staff had low expectations for induction and heads of department saw induction as a brief event that began when the new academic member of staff started work. As the authors of this last article rightly say, induction should not be a short, sharp set of activities of one sort or another but should instead 'be the responsibility of everyone'. It was sobering to read that, in the study,'human contact and everyday conversation were rare'. I cannot but concur with their view that, whilst we are naturally busy, 'we might do well to re-evaluate how we engage with others'. The induction that many arrange for their students, like that for staff described in this article, usually comprises a few days of activities as part of a brief event, with an assumption that they are on the road to becoming the autonomous, independent, self-directed learners that we wish them to be. In my view, we would do well to re-evaluate how we engage with new students, too.