Brief note seeking to capture some key points raised.

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

·         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.

·         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.

·         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 

·         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.

·         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.

·         “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?

·         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?

 

 

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.

 

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? 

•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.