THE PERSONAL LENS IN ACADEMIC EVALUATION: A CRITIQUE OF EDUCATOR BIAS

Authors

  • Hassan Rasheed Siddiqui LLM Scholar International Commercial Law University of Bedfordshire UK

Keywords:

Plagiarism policies, academic integrity, procedural fairness, institutional coordination, transparency, student support, academic consequences, higher education.

Abstract

Employing a case study, this paper takes a critical perspective toward concerns over plagiarism policies in institutions of higher education, demonstrating how these policies are potentially subject to misinterpretation, disproportionate enforcement, and administrative inefficacy. In the investigated case, a student was suspected of having plagiarized work for a corporate governance course, which was punishable by academic sanctions based on vague institutional guidelines, leaving room for subjective interpretation by faculty. The paper identifies four central issues: 1) the guidelines for plagiarism lack precision, which promotes heterogeneous policing of the rules; 2) procedural fairness is absent in the management of the cases, as personal prejudices affect judgments; 3) responsibility and definition of the boundaries of institutional bodies has broken down and induces a great delay and confusion; and 4) students undergoing investigations are left with psychological and emotional damages. The case highlights the urgent need for clarity, consistency and transparency in plagiarism policies, independent review processes, and improved communications pathways between departs and support systems for students accused of plagiarism. “Plagiarism policies must be rational, proportional and, above all, fair,” said the study, calling for “an urgent need for overhaul” of how academic institutions punish students over plagiarism. In conclusion, the paper highlights the need for promoting a fair and transparent academic environment that upholds academic integrity while also considering the well-being, and professional growth of students.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Atkinson, A., Burgess, S., Croxson, B., Gregg, P., Propper, C., Slater, H., & Wilson, D. (2009). Evaluating the impact of performance-related pay for teachers in England. Labour Economics, 16(3), 251–261.

Attinello, J., Lare, D., & Waters, F. (2006). The value of teacher portfolios for evaluation and professional growth. NASSP Bulletin, 90(2), 132–152.

Blasé, J., & Kirby, P. (2009). Bringing out the best in teachers: What effective principals do. Corwin.

Boudett, K. P., & Cohen, D. K. (2009). Data-wise: A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Harvard Education Press.

Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency. University of Chicago Press.

Cizek, G. J., & Bunch, M. B. (2010). Standard setting: A guide to establishing and evaluating performance standards on tests. Sage Publications.

Danielson, C. (2009). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). ASCD.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2009). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. Jossey-Bass.

Garet, M. S., & Delany, M. (1988). Students, courses, and stratification. Sociology of Education, 61(2), 61–77.

Goe, L., Bell, C., & Little, O. (2009). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

Gough, D. (2007). Weight of evidence: A framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Applied and Practice-based Research, 22(2), 213–228.

Harlen, W. (2010). Teacher professional judgment in assessing pupils’ work. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22(2), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-010-9092-1

Ingersoll, R. M., & Merrill, L. (2010). The status of teaching as a profession: The changing role of teachers in education. National Center for Education Statistics.

Korthagen, F. A. J., & Kessels, J. W. M. (2009). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Lawrence Erlbaum.

McNamara, G., & O’Hara, M. (2010). Bias in evaluation of teacher quality: The role of race and gender. Journal of Education and Social Policy, 7(3), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.5430/jesp.v7n3p167

Tyack, D. B. (1974). One best system. Harvard University Press.

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.

Walberg, H. (2011). Improving student learning: Action principles for families, classrooms, schools, districts, and states. Information Age.

Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.

Siddiqui, H. R..,& Leghari, A..(2007). FAITH, FREEDOM,AND THE FUTURE: RECLAIMING INCLUSIVE DEMOCRATIC VALUES IN SOUTH ASIA. The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 13(1), 107–116. Retrieved from https://cibgp.com/au/index.php/1323-6903/article/view/2868

H. R. ., & Leghari, A. . (2008). LIBERALISM IN SOUTH ASIA, A CASE STUDY OF CIVIC LEADERSHIP AND INTERFAITH HARMONY. The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 14(2), 90–97. Retrieved from https://cibgp.com/au/index.php/1323-6903/article/view/2870

H. R..,& Muniza, M..(2009). SOWING ILLUSIONS, REAPING DISARRAY: MEDIA INFLUENCE, URBAN MIGRATION, AND THE DISMANTLING OF SOCIETAL NORMS IN SOUTH ASIA. The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 15(2), 126–139. Retrieved from https://cibgp.com/au/index.php/1323-6903/article/view/2871

Siddiqui, H. R. . (2011). IN THE COURT OF KNOWLEDGE, JUDGING THE JUDGES OF LEARNING. The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 17(1), 83–91. Retrieved from https://cibgp.com/au/index.php/1323-6903/article/view/2872

Downloads

Published

2013-10-30

How to Cite

Siddiqui, H. R. . (2013). THE PERSONAL LENS IN ACADEMIC EVALUATION: A CRITIQUE OF EDUCATOR BIAS. The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 19(1), 93–101. Retrieved from https://cibgp.com/au/index.php/1323-6903/article/view/2873

Issue

Vol. 19 No. 1 (2013): The journal of contemporary issues in business and government

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2013 Hassan Rasheed Siddiqui

You are free to:

  1. Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
  2. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
  3. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:

  1. Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  2. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Notices:

You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .

No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.