1. Academic Misconduct Regulations
Briefing Session

2. Outline of Session Rationale behind the new approach
Highlight changes to Process
Natural justice/procedural fairness

3. Definitions Poor academic practice Academic Misconduct
lack of familiarity with academic conventions
referencing
Academic Misconduct
Attempt to gain unfair advantage
Passing off as own
Repeated poor academic practice

4. Procedure Alert course leader & forward to HoS
HoS (or nominee) considers against criteria at 6.1.1
Whether reasonable expectation student should have learned
Any previous recorded instance
Magnitude and proportion of work
Professional code/requirement
HoS decides:
Academic practice review or
Academic Misconduct panel

5. Academic Practice Review
Interview with HoS
Educational opportunity
Instruction on how to avoid problems
Outcome:
Report on file or
Case dismissed or
Escalate to Academic Misconduct Panel

6. Academic Misconduct Panel
Precedent letters
Innocent until proven
Panel not previously involved
Natural justice
Knowing case against you: copy of work in question
Time to prepare
Representation by SU
Full note of hearing
The last word/statement in mitigation

7. New right of appeal New right of appeal against panel decision
Registrar and Secretary within 10 working days
Usual filter – simple rehearsal of original arguments not enough
If allowed, will be sent back to new panel for re- hearing.
No further right of appeal.

8. It’s on the rise How Universities can help
Dr Katie Piatt (elearning manager here) reports:
Academics are not clear about what to do when they find plagiarism. From our experience cases are dealt with inconsistently. They don't know how much to penalise, or how much to take forward. This is not an area we advise on.
Schools need workshops on marking and how to deal with plagiarism (it is not just about the technology). They don't understand what an originality check is. For example, we are asked "What's a good percentage to get?" 
Those that do understand use Tii as a formative teaching tool - and we are aware of some impressive, pedagogically sound usage, but this isn't everywhere.

9. What more could/should we do?
Changing attitudes with students – an ethical dilemma
Changing attitudes with staff
- “I won’t bother if it’s minor”
- “It’s really not my job”
- “It’s stressful and too time-consuming”
- “if a student really wants to cheat they will”

10. Academic misconduct workshop
Can we reduce cheating?
Should our attitudes change?
Alison Bone

11. It’s on the rise How Universities can help
Dr Katie Piatt (elearning manager here) reports:
1. Academics are not clear about what to do when they find plagiarism. From our experience cases are dealt with inconsistently. They don't know how much to penalise, or how much to take forward. This is not an area we advise on.
2. Schools need workshops on marking and how to deal with plagiarism (it is not just about the technology). They don't understand what an originality check is. For example, we are asked "What's a good percentage to get?" 
3. Those that do understand use Tii as a formative teaching tool - and we are aware of some impressive, pedagogically sound usage, but this isn't everywhere.

12. What more could/should we do?
Changing attitudes with students – an ethical dilemma
Changing attitudes with staff
- “I won’t bother if it’s minor”
- “It’s really not my job”
- “It’s stressful and too time-consuming”
- “if a student really wants to cheat they will”