Student Integrity and Misconduct

Training and support for decision makers and Academic Integrity Officers

Student Integrity and MisconductTraining and support for decision makers and Academic Integrity Officers

OverviewPolicy 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.

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 misconductPenalties available for general misconduct

Through the application of the policy further areas for improvement may emerge.

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

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

Choosing an appropriate decision makerThere 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 BoardWhere the misconduct is identified as general and not

academic the Integrity Officer should refer the matter to the Academic Registrar.

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

CRICOS Provider No 00025B

CRICOS Provider No 00025B

CRICOS Provider No 00025B

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

The appeal body and/or ombudsman will scrutinise all information to confirm there has been procedural fairness

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

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?

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?

Questions

CRICOS Provider No 00025B