Presentation on theme: "Collaborative Partners Conference 2011 Academic Integrity plus.... Our New Referencing Policy Jules Cassidy: Chair of UEL’s Academic Integrity Sub-Committee."— Presentation transcript:
Collaborative Partners Conference 2011 Academic Integrity plus.... Our New Referencing Policy Jules Cassidy: Chair of UEL’s Academic Integrity Sub-Committee and the Investigating Panel
UEL’s Academic Integrity Policy Rationale As a learning community, we recognise that the principles of truth, honesty and mutual respect are central to the pursuit of knowledge. Behaviour that undermines those principles diminishes us, both individually and collectively, and devalues our work. We are therefore committed to ensuring that every member of our University is made aware of the responsibilities s/he bears in maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and of the steps we take to protect those standards.
Academic Integrity Policy Our Academic Integrity Policy sets out 9 principles and commitments Our Academic Integrity Policy frames our Academic Misconduct Regulations Our Academic Integrity Policy aims to ensure consistency of treatment across the university and in all our Collaborative Partner institutions essential to ensure equality of experience for all students
Academic Misconduct Regulations 2010 Changes Academic Misconduct Regulations – - Replace our Assessment Offences Regulations New Tariff of Penalties -Levels A&B&C now abolished -Academic Misconduct Warning introduced -Progressive, more transparent tariff. Levels 1-3 Right of Appeal Extended -Students could only appeal against expulsion before Student Friendly Language -The words ‘assessment offence’ replaced with Academic Misconduct -‘Offender’ replaced with student
UEL’s Academic Integrity Approach Our approach has 3 key strands 1. Effective regulation and procedures 2. Supportive, accessible information for students and staff 3. Assessment design –(Stefani & Carroll, 2001) Intention: student-centred, consistent, accessible, fair and robust
Our approach supports our students and staff Strand 1 - Effective regulation AI policy (2007) Academic Misconduct Regulations (revised 2010): - School Meeting locating AI breaches in their pedagogic context - Academic Warning Strand 3 – Assessment Continuing work with academics to improve assessment design Harvard referencing: Cite Them Right
Our approach supports our students and staff: Strand 2 - Information Winner: Academic Integrity Poster Competition
Our approach supports our students and staff Strand 2 – Information AI Week: student facing information, using the student voice. All Partners should hold an AIW at least once a year AI Web Pages: AI UEL Plus sites: available for all who have access to UEL Plus Skills Curriculum: includes AI skills in Learning Outcomes AI Quiz: on UEL Plus - all 1 st years to do in Level 1 Skills Module Turnitin: available to all students including partners from 2011/12 Library Web Pages: + Info Skills student facing information tool
School Meetings: School Meetings are central to how we deal with all (but the most serious) FIRST breaches of our Academic Misconduct Regulations This locates first offences within a pedagogic as well as disciplinary context School Meetings are conducted by Module Leaders supported by the School Responsible Officer (or a trained academic colleague) Partner institutions should all have suitable procedures, that are compliant with UEL Academic Misconduct Regs, in place to facilitate school meetings More serious and subsequent Academic Integrity breaches MUST be referred to Toby Grainger, the Head of Student Compliance & Responsibilities.
Examples of Serious Academic Misconduct Coursework Submitted for Assessment (c) The submission of work that is not one’s own (e.g. work that has been purchased, or otherwise obtained from a “cheat site”. (d) Offering an inducement to staff and/or other persons connected with assessment. Examinations (e) Importation into an examination room of materials other than those which are specifically permitted under the regulations applying to the examination in question. (g) Refusing, when asked, to surrender any materials requested by an invigilator.
School Meetings: School Meetings may include a viva: to help establish whether a student is familiar with a piece of work that s/he claims s/he wrote) School Meetings can issue an Academic Misconduct Warning (AMW): if the student agrees AMWs apply to: plagiarism, collusion, mobiles ringing in exams School Meeting Report Form: - defines the structure of all School Meetings - provides a handy check list to follow - ensures consistency of treatment across UEL
School Meeting Procedure: The School Meeting Report Form To be completed by the Module Leader, Responsible Officer, or the Head of Student Compliance and Responsibilities – please complete all sections. At the end of this session you will all be trained to conduct and/or support a School Meeting Report of School Meeting/ Meeting with the Head of Student Compliance and Responsibilities*(please delete as appropriate)
Explain two things here: 1. Define academic misconduct to the student 2. Define the nature of the breach of regulations - collusion, plagiarism Use: Part 8 of UEL’s Manual of General Regulations Definition of Academic Misconduct 2.1 For the purposes of these Regulations, academic misconduct is defined as any action(s) or behaviour likely to confer an unfair advantage in assessment, Academic Misconduct Regulations (with particular reference to plagiarism/collusion, or behaviour in examinations, as appropriate) explained to student YesNo School Meeting Procedure
School Meeting Procedure: Define Plagiarism and Collusion 2.1 (a) The submission of material (written, visual or oral), originally produced by another person or persons or oneself, without due acknowledgement*, so that the work could be assumed to be the student's own. For the purposes of these Regulations, this includes incorporation of significant extracts or elements taken from the work of (an)other(s) or oneself, without acknowledgement or reference*, and the submission of work produced in collaboration for an assignment based on the assessment of individual work. (Such misconduct is typically described as plagiarism and collusion.)
Explain that: -A School Meeting only deals with Academic Misconduct Warnings (AMW) -AMW = 0% for the assessment in question -No verdict or penalty can be imposed on a student at a School Meeting -Any subsequent breach of Academic Integrity will invoke the Tariff of penalties Use: Part 8 (Section 10) of UEL’s Manual of General Regulations Academic Misconduct Warning (Section 10 of the Academic Misconduct Regulations) explained to student YesNo School Meeting Procedure Academic Misconduct Warning
A student who, plagiarises, or colludes for the first time, will be issued with an Academic Misconduct Warning, provided that there is no evidence that s/he has behaved in an obviously dishonest way. The work concerned will be awarded a mark of 0% A student whose mobile telephone sounds during an examination, will be issued with an Academic Misconduct Warning, provided that there is no evidence that s/he has behaved in an obviously dishonest way. S/he will be awarded a mark of 0% for the examination in question. An Academic Misconduct Warning is not a penalty and it is neither recorded on a transcript, nor reported to a professional body.
New Referencing Policy UEL adopts a standardised Harvard referencing system based on Cite them right.: -near unanimous approval at Academic Board 02-June-10 -Implementation at UEL = current academic year 2010/11 -Our collaborative partners = the academic year 2011/12. -Applies to all programmes except in the Field of Psychology
Why standardise? A.1 student concern, dissatisfaction & confusion with inconsistent guidance re referencing & citation + their worries about plagiarism A.2 External Examiners’ reports concern about poor referencing skills of some of our students A.3 Sector moves towards standardisation as best practice – improve student experience..apparently [X School] use the Harvard referencing system but each lecturer has their own version - a little confusing when you are doing more than one coursework at a time!! (29.April.2010)
Harvard Referencing: Adoption of Cite them right Resources –CTR widely available in bookshops –Electronic version online for all in UEL Plus –Referencing guidelines on the new Library web pages –‘Info Skills’ tool online –EndNote = a CTR template now available
Cite them rite is wired! Good News! - CTR is now online*all the time* - at home, in a local library, internet cafe, Starbucks etc - if you’re on the net & UEL + you have it Q. Where do I find it? A.In the Campus Bookmarks in UEL Plus
Bibliography Neville, C. (2009) Student Perceptions of Referencing. University of Bradford, Learnhigher. Available at: esourcesforstaff.htm [Accessed 29 August 2010]. Pears, R. and Shields, G. (2010) Cite Them Right: The essential referencing guide. 8th edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Stefani, L. and Carroll, J. (2001) A Briefing on Plagiarism. York: LTSN.
More information For further information regarding operation of the Academic Integrity Policy please contact Toby Grainger: or Jules Cassidy: The AI policy is at: The Academic Misconduct Regulations at: