Academic Integrity & Dealing with Academic Misconduct at UEL

Academic Integrity at UEL The AI Policy ensures consistency of treatment and equality of experience for all students at UEL Our responsibility to protect the credibility of the qualifications The AI Policy is supported by policies on standard referencing and use of Turnitin + Academic Misconduct Regulations Turnitin utilised as a text matching tool not a plagiarism detector Identifying plagiarism is an issue of academic judgement, not a Turnitin percentage – no percentage is acceptable

Cite Them Right. UEL’s Standard Referencing System is Cite Them Right (Harvard) or APA for students studying programmes in the School of Psychology Newer version of Cite them right to be available online shortly. Designed to be more student friendly to support accurate referencing

Defining Academic Misconduct We define academic misconduct as any behaviour: “likely to confer an unfair advantage in assessment, whether by advantaging the alleged offender or disadvantaging (deliberately or unconsciously) another or others” (UEL Manual of General Regulations, 2010, Part 8 Academic Misconduct, 8.2.1)

Most common types of Academic Misconduct: Plagiarism and Collusion. Plagiarism: 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 … includes incorporation of significant extracts or elements taken from the work of (an)other(s) or oneself, without acknowledgement or reference Collusion: The submission of work produced in collaboration for an assignment based on the assessment of individual work.

The Process for first instances of plagiarism/collusion STAGE OF PROCESS WHAT IS NEEDED FROM WHOM Misconduct Suspected Academic informs administrator of: Student number Module Component Type of misconduct suspected (if known) Decision is made to set up a meeting Date; Time; and Room number for School Meeting Type of BoR to be answered for or that the allegation is withdrawn Meeting letter sent Administrator sends a letter to the student informing them of suspected misconduct and requesting a meeting with the given details. Administrator gives academic; Copies of letter to student Misconduct form for meeting Leaflets on academic integrity for student Meeting held Academic staff hold meeting ; 2 members of staff (ideally, academic staff who are familiar with the assessment in question, but any staff with experience of a School Meeting/School Responsible Officer may accompany the academic who has alleged academic misconduct) Form to be completed in student’s presence and decision agreed upon Meeting outcome Academic passes completed School Meeting Form and, if the allegation is withdrawn, the mark for the work, to administer Outcome letter is sent Administrator sends letter to student informing him/her of the outcome of the meeting and makes a note of this on the student’s SPR screen Administrator notifies APLE of the resolution

School Meetings School Meetings: Central to how we deal with all (but the most serious) first breaches of Academic Misconduct Regulations Conducted by Module Leaders supported by School Responsible Officer (or trained academic colleague). Locates first instances within a pedagogic as well as disciplinary context More serious and subsequent instances are dealt with by APLE

Conduct of a School Meeting During the meeting: Define and demonstrate the academic misconduct Clarify that a School Meeting can only issue an Academic Misconduct Warning (AMW), meaning that the assessment in question is awarded 0% Explain that any subsequent instance of academic misconduct will lead to a higher penalty (explain the tariff of penalties) Direct students to support for academic integrity Always Use the Academic Misconduct Regulations – ensures consistency and equality

What happens next? The student is asked to sign the School Meeting Report Form to confirm: their understanding of how they have breached the regulations that they will ensure that it does not recur that they understand that any further instance of academic misconduct is likely to lead to a higher penalty The School Registrar is responsible for notifying the student formally of the outcome and retaining the record of the School Meeting.   Where the student denies academic misconduct, or declines to accept an Academic Misconduct Warning, the School will refer the matter to APLE.

Academic Misconduct Warning Applies where a student plagiarises, or colludes for the first time or a mobile telephone sounds during an examination Provided that there is no evidence that the student has behaved in an obviously dishonest way the work concerned or the examination in question will be awarded a mark of 0% Is not a penalty and it is not reported to a professional body. Students who receive academic misconduct warnings do not have their bursaries frozen

Examples of Serious Academic Misconduct – Referrals to APLE Work that has been purchased, or otherwise obtained from a “cheat site” Exam misconduct including the importation

Academic Misconduct Panels. Panel Members: Chair, member of UELSU sabbatical officer; and 2 academic colleagues Cases are referred to panels by APLE if students refuse to accept the allegation or the proposed penalty Module Leaders should accompany their School Responsible Officer to a panel to present the case and answer questions, possibly including assessment design

Advice, Information & Guidance Resources: Flow chart explaining misconduct process Student Guide to Viva Voce Interviews Student Guide to Academic Misconduct Panels http://www.uel.ac.uk/aple/academic/support/

Policies and Regulations Academic Integrity Use of Turnitin Standard Referencing http://www.uel.ac.uk/qa/policies/policies/ Academic Misconduct Regulations http://www.uel.ac.uk/qa/policies/manual/

Your Responsible Officer (s) ADI Dr Abel Ugba ACE Caroline David Cass Debbie Brearley HSB Deidre O’Kelly LSS Hilary Lim & Ian Porton Psychology Ian Wells & Susy Ajith RDBS Carol Luckett

Academic Practice & Learning Enhancement Any Questions? Dee Bozacigubruz Dallas Alexandrou Academic Practice & Learning Enhancement academicmisconduct@uel.ac.uk