# data[].attributes.headline
Marking assessment with suspected to contain academic misconduct: question to Assessment Forum 

# data[].attributes.subject
Marking assessment with suspected to contain academic misconduct: question to Assessment Forum 

# data[].attributes.body
•At present the university procedures require that academics continue to mark work as if there is no academic misconduct, marking down poor academic practice (e.g. inadequate referencing) as required by the assessment criteria. This unratified mark can be then released to the student in the normal fashion. Board of Examiners should not ratify such marks, but rather confirm that the Chair is empowered to take Chair’s Action to ratify the mark depending on the outcome of the AMP process; either the original mark or the mark following imposition of an academic sanction. There have been some instances where this process has not been followed and marks in assessments subject to AMP consideration have been ratified. We have also been informed that some academic colleagues would prefer that if there is a suspected case the work is ‘not marked’, and that others are not clear on the distinction between marking down for poor academic practice and informal marking down for suspected academic misconduct.

•The AM Forum proposed that the University review this aspect of the procedure, and that a position that where there is suspected academic misconduct the work is not marked until the decision with regard to the suspected academic misconduct is completed be adopted.

•A brief survey of other HEIs, including a question to colleagues at other Greater Manchester universities reveals mixed practice. Where work is marked a hold is put on the record system to stop marks being confirmed by BoX.

•It was noted that where there is suspected academic misconduct academic tutors do not find marking particularly straightforward, nor purposeful. In addition to lack of confidence in the imposition of reduced marks for poor academic practice, other concerns included where there was large sections of directly copied work, the markable content may only consist of a few sections of the submitted work, in other cases, such as where there has been some attempt to disguise the original, tutors can be knowingly marking a third persons work which is frustrating.

•Cases where allegations of misconduct arise after a mark/award has been confirmed will continue to be considered as currently set out in the procedure, and marks/awards revoked where required.

# data[].attributes.headline
guidance for students in relation to academic good practice & academic misconduct (course work) email 20 Dec 2018

# data[].attributes.subject
guidance for students in relation to academic good practice & academic misconduct (course work) email 20 Dec 2018

# data[].attributes.body
OIA raised the importance of ensuring students were informed about consequences of misconduct not just as part of any induction, but also at key points throughout their time at the university. In terms of academic misconduct it was emphasised that in addition to induction this should (as a minimum) be in good time prior to their first assessment, prior to their first examinations, and at the start of any dissertation.

Can we be sure that students are provided with this sort of information prior to their first assessments? Is this something that comes from the programme teams, if so do we have mechanisms in place to ensure that it occurs for all students?

# data[].attributes.headline
guidance for students in relation to academic good practice & academic misconduct (examinations) - from Brun Garton

# data[].attributes.subject
guidance for students in relation to academic good practice & academic misconduct (examinations) - from Brun Garton

# data[].attributes.body
We have a section on Exams Rules and Regulations on the website which references academic misconduct, what can/can’t be brought into the venue and what would be reported under academic misconduct in an examination setting.  The exam timetable sent to student includes a link to the Exam Rules and Regulations and a note to students saying they must read these prior to the examination period.  We also include this on the Exams FAQs on the website.

At the beginning of each exam the invigilator reads out the instructions and rules which reiterates the details from the Exam Rules and Regulations and that any misuse will be reported under academic misconduct.  This is read out in all exam venues (main exam venues plus individual/separate rooms) so all students receive the same information.  We also ask for an invigilator summary sheet post each exam and they have to sign to say they read out the information on the card within the exam pack (which has all the above info on) before the exam started.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Disciplinary procedures

This section of the Good Practice Framework gives good practice guidance for providers in designing disciplinary procedures and in handling individual cases. It was prepared by the OIA in consultation with the Good Practice Framework Steering Group.

The draft guidance was published for consultation in June 2018 and submissions were received from providers, student representative bodies, and other higher education bodies, stakeholders and interest groups. The final version incorporates many of the very helpful suggestions we received.

It covers:

academic disciplinary procedures, for dealing with academic misconduct such as plagiarism, contract cheating, cheating in examinations or formal assessments, falsifying data, breaching research or ethics policies, and collusion; and

non-academic disciplinary procedures, for dealing with misconduct such as antisocial, abusive or threatening behaviour, sexual misconduct, violence, harassment, hate crimes, behaviour likely to bring the provider into disrepute, damage to property or abuse of facilities, causing a health or safety concern, and other behaviour that might also be a criminal offence.

The guidance will inform the way that the OIA considers complaints relating to disciplinary matters from the 2019/20 academic year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
OIA - Office of the Independent Adjudicator

# data[].attributes.headline
Using images to disguise text in Turnitin

# data[].attributes.subject
Using images to disguise text in Turnitin

# data[].attributes.body
To note: using images to disguise text from non referenced sources.

Its technically possible to do this but it is risky from the students perspective. Any image would affect the word count and if markers are adding comments to the document it would be easy to see that it is an image not text.

# data[].attributes.headline
Support & guidance for 'front line' staff

# data[].attributes.subject
Support & guidance for 'front line' staff

# data[].attributes.body
are staff getting information they need?

Induction, training, guidance?

# data[].attributes.body
Is there an argument for anonymising case paperwork?
How would this work?

# data[].attributes.headline
Bots Strike Back At College Cheating - It's of zero value once it's graded and submitting it to a file sharing site is ... because schools will pay to clamp down on this cheat sharing business.

# data[].attributes.subject
Bots Strike Back At College Cheating - It's of zero value once it's graded and submitting it to a file sharing site is ... because schools will pay to clamp down on this cheat sharing business.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's been campus legend for generations that some fraternities, sororities and other social organizations kept file cabinets of work done by previous members. So, if you're in Professor Smith's Colonial American History class, for example, you could just go pull out past tests, essays and other assignments that, more likely than not, Professor Smith had not updated since colonial history was contemporary.

But, as work became digital and file sharing became easier, the locked file cabinet approach probably died out and was replaced by social media groups where students can freely post or download previously completed coursework. And while that tactic is absolutely still in use and quite common, it too has been updated by large, international websites through which students can upload their course work for credits or points they can use to download work from other students. Or, in some cases, students can upload their work for straight out cash. These sites are big--millions of users big. And prolific. Dr. Douglas Harrison, associate dean at The Graduate School at the University of Maryland, University College, said they'd identified "more than 600 offender sites" facilitating the sharing of academic work.

From the contributing student's perspective, there's little downside. The work is already done. It's of zero value once it's graded and submitting it to a file sharing site is easy to rationalize as maybe giving some future struggling student a hand. It's a little more murky if you're a student who's downloading a paper or past test or assignment, depending on what you do with it. Either way, from the school's perspective, sharing coursework that may, and likely does, lead to a student skimping on actual work and learning is cheating. Like academic fraud cheating.

And while many schools have chosen to look away from this and other types of technology-boosted cheating, or throw their hands up in futility, a recent task force on cheating led by Dr. Harrison at UMUC has suggested a new way to at least dent these work sharing sites. Harrison and others at UMUC have discussed "deploying a bot crawler to identify UMUC proprietary materials and routinely issuing takedown notices at scale..." In other words, UMUC may launch an autonomous program to scour the web for their classroom materials" the questions or assignments produced by UMUC professors. When the bot finds UMUC material on one of these sharing sites, it would automatically dispatch a takedown notice based on copyright or other legal protections.

The UMUC task force reported that their bot may also be able to track "user identifications associated with unauthorized uploads" and, as such, root out some of the students doing the sharing. It's not clear what could be done with those uploaders since they aren't actually giving work to another student. It's possible, of course, that no one bothers to download any specific paper they share. Nonetheless, knowing that there's a chance that uploading your final exam answers may trigger a phone call from the Dean, would likely dampen the sharing supply. Further, there's no assurance that bot-generated take down notices will do much, since many of the sharing sites aren't based in places that care much about U.S. copyright laws. To get real action, UMUC or others may have to actually sue and win a judgement or two.

Those questions aside, UMUC deserve a ton of credit for at least doing something about the brazen, ubiquitous cheating of assignment sharing. Or at least acknowledging the problem and talking about doing something. Most schools aren't even doing that much. If they do get their crawler takedown bot up and running, it may force other schools to do the same. Frankly, it's a good business opportunity for some capable entrepreneur, because schools will pay to clamp down on this cheat sharing business. Once one school starts, they'll all have to. Not just because failing to do will look bad, but because leaving these sites out there, unchecked and unacknowledged is an existential threat to the very business of schooling. As Dr. Harrison put it, this kind of cheating is, "a growing and increasingly urgent threat to the quality of our credential." And he's right. It absolutely is.

I write about education including education technology (edtech) and higher education. I've written about these topics and others in a variety of outlets including The Atlantic, Quartz and The Huffington Post. I served as vice-president at The Century Foundation, a public pol...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's been campus legend for generations that some fraternities, sororities and other social organizations kept file cabinets of work done by previous members. So, if you're in Professor Smith's Colonial American History class, for example, you could just go pull out past tests, essays and other assignments that, more likely than not, Professor Smith had not updated since colonial history was contemporary.

# data[].attributes.headline
PhD rescinded, supervisor suspended (China)

# data[].attributes.subject
PhD rescinded, supervisor suspended (China)

# data[].attributes.body
Over many Chinese news services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(ECNS) - Tsinghua University has withdrawn a student's title of doctor and suspended his supervisor's ability to enroll graduate students following serious academic misconduct.

A group of materials scientists at the prestigious university's graduate school in Shenzhen earned 11 retractions and three corrections for image manipulation, duplication, deceptive authorship and other misconduct, according to Retraction Watch. The papers, usually authored by Tang Guoyi and Ye Xiaoxin, appeared in a variety of materials journals dating back to 2014. The most recent publications were in 2016.

The graduate school at Shenzhen said Ye pursued a PhD in materials science and engineering and graduated in July 2015 under Tang's supervision. After receiving reports of academic fraud in March 2016, Tang organized a thorough review of Ye's 16 papers and discovered widespread problems, so he requested the articles be retracted.

In January 2017, the university's academic committee determined after an investigation that Ye was guilty of serious academic misconduct and that his supervisor Tang also needed to be held responsible. Then in April, the university decided to cancel Ye's doctoral degree, while Tang was suspended from his position as the deputy director of the New Materials Research Institute.

Professor Tang, who has retired from the university, declined to comment, Beijing Youth Daily reported.

Tsinghua University also vowed to maintain a zero-tolerance attitude toward academic misconduct.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tsinghua University student stripped of PhD after academic misconduct

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(ECNS) - Tsinghua University has withdrawn a student's title of doctor and suspended his supervisor's ability to enroll graduate students following serious academic misconduct. A group of materials scientists at the prestigious university's graduate school in Shenzhen earned 11 retractions and three corrections for image manipulation, duplication, deceptive authorship and other misconduct, according to Retraction Watch.

# data[].attributes.body
Padlet https://padlet.com/r_clemens/tec6a9x9ll77.

Brief note seeking to capture some key points raised.

Those attending included SU Advice Centre, AMOs, ADAs, secretaries to hearings, and QEO.

Feedback on new procedures for hearing cases in Schools

·         Working, saves time and easier to organise.

·         It was strange at first then smoother and easier.

·         Less daunting for the students, although some school reportedly had larger numbers of staff present that expected, which was stressful for the students.

·         The experience for the student varies, but confident the outcomes are consistent.

·         ELS found it positive and the flexibility to manage this in a less stressful way for the student.

·         Query – papers are sent out 10 days in advance to reduce stress rather than earlier, would it be possible to send out later? Confirmed it is not possible to send out less than 10 working days in advance, also good practice is considered that students are given as much notice (with the evidence) as is practical without delaying the hearings. QEO notify the student as soon as possible, with all available evidence, so that they can prepare.

Role of AMO

·         There is no guidance on the role of the AMO.

·         There is a risk in the process of having too few points of failure, for instance only one AMO in a school.

·         In SoBE there is one AMO and at one point there were 28 cases which resulted in stressful delays for the students concerned.

·         Numerous cases in SoBE due to PSRB requirements.

·         It would be helpful if there was a system for transferring cases between officers to avoid delays and overburdened AMOs.

·         SU noted that their view was that the AMOs are doing a good job.

·         It was noted that it is the responsibility of the reporting member of staff to provide all the information, Turnitin report on its own is not sufficient – there is narrative/explanation of information needed and a report form to be filled in. AMOs will not have the necessary subject knowledge, or knowledge of the specific assessment to do this, nor would they necessarily have time for multiple cases.

·         Impact on an academic’s workload is there appropriate allowance for this.

·         Not clear in all schools staff do not have an understanding of that is not the AMO’s role to investigate and ‘make’ the case.

Poor academic practice

·         Students say that they do not understand Poor academic practice letters, what is expected of them and what the outcome is.

Action: Richard Clemens to revisit the template.

·         It is not clear what academic staff should do with regard to mark where there is suspected poor academic misconduct which it is decided is poor academic practice. The current position is all work should be marked, and where there is poor referencing/lack of referencing, this should be marked down according to the approved marking criteria, prior to consideration through the AMP. Where it is reported back that there is poor academic practice as part of the AMP case, this means there is no decision that academic misconduct has occurred, so the existing mark stands, but the student will be directed to get further support and guidance.

·         A way of recording that a student is repeating mistakes is needed as if it never goes to a hearing there is no central record (it may be necessary to check who owns the information), there is currently no central system for recording this information nor systematic mechanisms in schools.

·         Reported that at other institutions when an academic suspects plagiarism they are instructed to stop marking the work – if this was done a UoS it would clarify the situation as to what to mark, and also prevent marks going to Boards of Examiners in error prior to a decision on possible academic misconduct.

·         Proposal that once academic is misconduct is suspected the work is not mark until the case is concluded.  General support and no objections to this in the room. If a student understood that the work would not be marked until the case was resolved it would send a clear message to them.

Action: Alison Jones to take to the Assessment Forum

Privacy

·         Reminder of importance of checking for personal & third party data not required in documentation and redacting (e.g. via Adobe).

·         Ensure good data management, don’t share with people who do not need the information, keep secure.

·         Report data breaches in 72 hours https://www.salford.ac.uk/privacy.

Induction, guidance & support

·         Students are told about academic misconduct at induction (at whatever level and at whatever point in the academic cycle they join a programme).

·         All students are encouraged to take the SU/Skills for Learning online quiz. The quiz should be link to in all programme sites on Blackboard; it is not clear whether this is monitored.

·         Students ticking ‘it is my own work’ is not sufficient, all students need to be given clear guidance/signposting to academic good practice and academic misconduct support. Build into assessment briefs.

·         Is good practice in schools, need to share between programmes.

·         Ensure recorded properly on Notification Forms.

Guidance for staff

·         “When you are concerned that a student may have committed academic misconduct” https://www.salford.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/1637486/When-you-are-concerned-that-a-student-may-have-committed-academic-misconduct.pdf

·         Any member of staff can attend AMP Training, though it is aimed at those with a specific role.

·         Is it built in to the early career training academic staff receive?

Terminology

·         Looking at forms of wording which explain why the University is taking action, not just what action it is taking with reference to the procedure. Early days on this.

·         Is there need to explore terminology for different categories of academic misconduct, for example students and staff sometimes do not understand ‘collusion’ can mean ‘allowing another to access your work’? At present if concept is not clear then it is not felt the alternative terminology used elsewhere would help. Need to confirm that ‘helping’ has a limits, and allowing someone to copy of you in an exam is wrong, and it is also wrong is course work. More an issue of guidance and training?