Volume Two - Academic Conferences

Abel Nyamapfene
Office hours were also set up to allow students to visit the lecturer to discuss difficult concepts they
came across during their research. Students could also get in touch with the lecturer through email
contact. In addition, students could also get in contact with security experts in industry as well as with
security researchers in other academic institutions. Collaborative working between the students was
also encouraged to enable them to learn from each other as well as to support each other during the
assignment. However, each student had to submit an independent individual piece of work, and this
was checked for plagiarism using Turnitin (iParadigms), an academic plagiarism detection software.
Turnitin compares each submission with other pieces of work already stored in its database. This
stored work includes assignments submitted by students at other institutions worldwide, as well as
with content that is already on the Internet. Prior to submission, students experimented with Turnitin
so that they could get a feel of its capabilities. As a consequence of Turnitin, students were forced to
produce original pieces of work, thereby contributing to the wider understanding of computer network
security.
4. Results and discussion
Students generally submitted high quality work for both TMA1 and the project. Of the 21 students
registered on the course, 12 students in TMA1 and 8 students in the project achieved a mark greater
or equal to 70%. An academic colleague who reviewed the marked work was also impressed with the
quality, even going to the extent of suggesting that at least four of the TMA1 assignments were of
journal quality. This is a remarkable achievement, given that none of the students had formal
experience of computer and networking security prior to the course.
4.1 Analysis of plagiarism
With regard to originality, for TMA1 only one student had a similarity index in the red category, with a
value of 81%. The class comprised 5 international students, with the rest being European Union or
home students. In contrast, the highest similarity index for a home or European student was 26%,
which was less than the lowest similarity index for an international student (28%). This assignment
therefore highlighted the problems of plagiarism amongst international students as highlighted by
Bamford and Sergiou (2005). However, similarity indices improved in the project coursework, with the
highest similarity index falling to 52%. In addition, international students no longer had outlier
similarity indices out of proportion with those achieved by home and European Union students. This
therefore suggests that like any assessment tasks, issues to do with plagiarism can be resolved with
sufficient feedback and tuition.
4.2 Analysis of student anonymous course evaluation
Students perception of the coursework were also analysed through the University of Exeter module
and coursework evaluation (MACE) online feedback forms that students fill in anonymously at the end
of each course. The MACE feedback form comprises 12 five-point Likert questionnaire items with a
scale ranging from 1 for the “Strongly disagree” category through to 5 for the “Strongly Agree”
category. In addition there are also separate spaces for students to write positive, negative and any
other comments they may wish to make about the course content, method of delivery and
assessment. Of the 21 students on the course, 8 students completed the MACE feedback form. Such
a low response rate is typical across the university.
The list of Likert questionnaire items used on the MACE evaluation form is as follows:
1. The module was interesting and intellectually stimulating
2. The amount of material was suitable
3. The material was at the right level of difficulty
4. The module was well structured and had clear objectives
5. The staff teaching the module were enthusiastic about the subject
6. The staff teaching the module explained things clearly
7. Good use was made of appropriate media (e.g., boards, handouts, visual aids).
589