1. Student Integrity and Misconduct Training and support for decision makers and Academic Integrity Officers

2. Student Integrity and Misconduct Training and support for decision makers and Academic Integrity Officers  Overview  Policy and Guidelines PPL 3.60.04 is the University’s policy for the management and handling of student misconduct matters. Staff involved in student misconduct matters are required to familiarise themselves with the content of both the policy and guidelines to ensure that the University’s commitment to excellence of learning experiences and outcomes for its students is achieved.

3. Implementation CRICOS Provider No 00025B Since the implementation of PPL 3.60.04 on 1 September 2011 a number of issues in the practical application of the policy have been identified. Some that are currently under review are:  Decision-makers for the various levels of misconduct  Penalties available for general misconduct Through the application of the policy further areas for improvement may emerge.

4. The role of the Integrity Officer  Provide guidance on the conduct of preliminary investigations into cases of suspected academic misconduct.  At the completion of the preliminary investigation either counsel the student or refer to an appropriate decision maker giving consideration to the nature of the allegation and the student record.  Provide support to decision makers

5. Important tips  Preliminary investigations must be conducted in a timely manner  If the decision is to counsel the student under this section it does not form part of the student’s disciplinary record  If an allegation is being referred to a decision maker it must be done within 5 business days of the completion of the preliminary investigation

6. Choosing an appropriate decision maker There are three levels of decision maker empowered with varying penalties that may be imposed. the relevant Head of School, the Deputy Head of School; and the relevant Executive Dean or the Dean of the Graduate School; and the Disciplinary Board Where the misconduct is identified as general and not academic the Integrity Officer should refer the matter to the Academic Registrar.

7.  The student’s academic experience  The nature and extent of the misconduct  The student’s history of academic misconduct  Intentionality  The size/weighting of an assessment piece  Significant mitigating circumstances Factors to consider

8. CRICOS Provider No 00025B

11. From alleged misconduct to allegation  Once an appropriate decision maker has been identified the preliminary report is forwarded for issue of an allegation notice  Allegation Notice The allegation notice has a number of features that must be present. A detailed description of the alleged misconduct Date, time and location of the hearing Information on attendance Advice regarding policy, guidelines and support

12. Important tips  The policy requires an allegation letter to be issued within 14 business days of receiving a preliminary report  The hearing must be conducted within 20 business days of the allegation letter  The scheduling of the hearing should not interfere with the student’s academic activities

13. The role of the decision maker  The role of the decision maker is to fairly, impartially and independently form a decision on an allegation of misconduct  Bases the decision on facts that are established on sound reasoning and relevant evidence  In the case of a guilty finding determine an a proportionate and appropriate penalty  Clearly articulate their reasons for making a particular decision

14. Conducting a hearing  Hearings should follow an inquisitorial model where the decision maker clarifies facts  Students should be afforded an opportunity to be heard and submit any additional information for consideration  Students should have access to all substantive material evidence (ideally these should be supplied to the student ahead of the hearing)  The decision maker is responsible for the general conduct in a hearing and upholding order  The decision should be made independently based on the standard of proof

15. Determining an appropriate penalty - Academic Misconduct  Facts to consider are similar to those used by the Integrity Officer in determining a decision maker  The student’s academic experience  The nature and extent of the misconduct  The student’s history of academic misconduct  Intentionality or evidence of a deliberate and premeditated decision to engage in misconduct  Significant mitigating circumstances

16. Determining an appropriate penalty - General Misconduct  Facts to consider  The seriousness of the action  The potential impact on others  The student’s history of misconduct  Intentionality or evidence of a deliberate and premeditated decision to engage in misconduct  Significant mitigating circumstances Decision-makers should consult the policy on penalties available to them.

17. Notice of decision  The student should be advised of the decision as soon as practicable after the decision maker has made their decision  Written notice of the decision, the reasons for the decision and the penalty should be given to the student along with information on any appeal rights  A copy of the notice and all relevant documents pertaining to the matter should be sent to the Academic Registrar.

18. Evidence and Record Keeping  It is important to document all procedural steps and associated evidence including relevant emails, written statements, assignments, memos, etc.  A checklist and resources are available on the SASD Student Integrity and Misconduct webpage http://www.uq.edu.au/sasd/index.html?page=164352&pid=0 http://www.uq.edu.au/sasd/index.html?page=164352&pid=0  The appeal body and/or ombudsman will scrutinise all information to confirm there has been procedural fairness

19. The role of the Academic Registrar and Student Complaints and Grievance Resolution Unit  The role of the Academic Registrar and the Student Complaints and Grievance Resolution Unit is to:  Administer the misconduct database, student appeals and monitor the consistent application of misconduct processes across the University  Provide training and support for all staff involved in the misconduct process  Maintain the Academic Integrity and Misconduct website containing information and resources for staff  Provide an interface with the Queensland Ombudsman Office  Be a decision-makers for general misconduct

20. Case Study for discussion:  Case 1: Pablo is a second year student with no prior record of misconduct. He has submitted an assignment which is largely his own work recycled from an earlier semester. The assessment is worth 5%. Pablo has explained that due to work commitments he ran out of time to do the assignment and admits he has resubmitted earlier work.  Decision maker?  Decision?  Penalty?

21. Case Study for discussion:  Case 2: Matilda is a post-graduate student undertaking a research project. Matilda’s assessment has returned a match to the work of another student studying the same course the previous year. Matilda has a record of misconduct from her undergraduate program. Matilda admits to borrowing a friend’s assessment piece to use as a guide and must have inadvertently uploaded the wrong file when submitting her assessment.  Decision maker?  Decision?  Penalty?

22. Questions CRICOS Provider No 00025B