Download pdf - Academic Good Practice

1

UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD STUDENTS’ UNION

Training for Academic Good Practice:

Students‟ experiences and levels of confidence in good academic practice

May 2012

www.salfordstudents.com

2

Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

Key findings and recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 3

Foreword .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Methodology .................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Limitations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Findings ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Observations from School Results .............................................................................................................................. 5

Statistics on Academic Misconduct ............................................................................................................................. 6

Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7

1Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Appendix 1: Collective Responses from School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work ................................... 9

Appendix 2: Collective Responses from School of Computing, Science and Engineering .............................. 10

Appendix 3: Collective Responses from School of Environment and Life Sciences ......................................... 11

Appendix 4: Collective Responses from School of Health Sciences ................................................................... 12

Appendix 5: Collective Responses from School of Business ................................................................................ 13

Appendix 6: Collective Responses from School of Media, Music and Performance ......................................... 14

Appendix 7: Collective Responses from School of Art and Design ...................................................................... 15

Appendix 8: Collective Responses from School of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences ................. 16

Appendix 9: Collective Responses from School of Built Environment ................................................................. 17

Appendix 10: Collective Responses from School of Law....................................................................................... 18

Appendix 11: School response: Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work ................................................................ 19

Appendix 12: School response: Health Sciences .................................................................................................. 20

Appendix 13: School response: Media Music and Performance ......................................................................... 21

Appendix 14: School response: Environment and Life Sciences ........................................................................ 22

Appendix 15: School response: Business ............................................................................................................... 23

Appendix 16: School response: Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences ................................................ 24

Appendix 17: AMP Statistics ..................................................................................................................................... 25

Appendix 18: AMP penalties ...................................................................................................................................... 26

3

1. Executive Summary

1.1 In the academic year 2010/11 the Students‟ Union published a campaign document entitled „The Salford Bill of Students‟ Rights‟. The document outlined recommendations in areas related to teaching and learning, and formed the basis of an ongoing campaign to lobby for the adoption of these recommendations.

1.2 One of the seven areas was that of academic good practice, and the need to improve both the quality and frequency of training for students in this area. The Bill‟s recommendations were:

I. Every course at both undergraduate and postgraduate level should incorporate compulsory

teaching on academic good practice, academic misconduct and the on-line submission tool Turnitin. This should constitute an important part of term time teaching and not just part of an induction week.

II. All students should be given feedback on their style of referencing as well as the content of assessments, and where possible they should be assessed on their knowledge of academic good practice.

III. All staff should have a clear and consistent message of what constitutes academic good practice. 1.3 In order to determine how far the University‟s schools have attempted to meet these recommendations,

a „temperature check‟ of student opinion was required. This report summarises the findings of a Students‟ Union survey conducted between December 2011 and March 2012. The survey was designed to determine student knowledge and confidence of academic good practice, and specifically to investigate the levels of support and training received by students in all ten of the University‟s schools.

1.4 Recommendations listed below are as a result of this survey and are designed to complement rather that supersede the recommendations of „The Salford Bill of Students‟ Rights‟, which remains the Union‟s core campaign document.

2. Key findings and recommendations 2.1 Students at the University of Salford are fairly well aware of academic good practice and the penalties

for academic misconduct. Schools have clearly worked towards a healthy policy of deterrence rather than punishment and this is beginning to show in the number of cases coming to AMP hearings.

2.2 Awareness training of academic good conduct needs to be a constant activity. It should not be left at one point in the academic year. Students are even more likely to commit academic misconduct in their second or third years (rather than their first) as the pressure intensifies and work becomes more difficult. Schools should consider changes to their current provision to ensure an integrated, ongoing approach, including reminders before key submission dates/exams.

2.3 The written guidelines for academic misconduct are up to date and appear easy to understand.

However, there is scope for improvement in the explanations of “collusion” and “falsifying experimental or investigative results” and it would be worth including examples of acceptable and unacceptable practices and behaviours in these areas. The definition of plagiarism could also include a sentence about self-plagiarism.

2.4 Schools need to vary the ways and format through which students are trained and are made

aware of academic good practice. Relying on one or two written mediums is unlikely to be sufficient. The short online tutorials/quizzes/anti-plagiarism games available on Blackboard and through the Library website rely on self tuition. As such, a more integrated approach whereby quizzes, etc. are written into scheduled tutorials or workshops would be more effective. In addition it would help if these aids were drawn to students’ attention as a fun way to encourage good practice.

2.5 Schools with relatively large intakes of international students – both at undergraduate and postgraduate

level – should look at more effective ways of ensuring such students understand what academic good conduct involves and are given the support to develop these good practices. Simple language and worked examples will help to get the message across.

4

3. Foreword

3.1 The survey‟s aims were to determine answers to the following questions:

I. Were Schools doing enough to develop students‟ understanding of plagiarism through subject

based exercises and discussion? II. Was this being done on an on-going basis or only at induction? III. Did students feel they had sufficient guidance on referencing in written work? IV. How accessible are the materials/literature on academic good practice?

An online questionnaire was developed to which students were invited to answer.

4. Methodology

4.1 A pilot study phase was undertaken in November 2011. No changes to the survey were made as a

result of the pilot. In line with other Students‟ Union surveys, a prize draw of £50 voucher was offered to improve response rate.

4.2 In order to ensure a representative spread of responses, the survey link was emailed to all Student Reps known to the Students‟ Union (approx. 700). Reps were asked to complete the survey themselves and forward to others in their classes. Responses to this round of invitations were insufficient. A second invitation was sent out in January 2012 to increase the sample size. See appendices for the full list of questions and responses.

4.3 All Schools were included in the survey despite the Law School and parts of Humanities, Languages

and Social Sciences (English and History)1 using different forms of referencing.

4.4 In addition to student responses, School Operations Managers were asked to comment on the types of training offered (to students) on academic good practice. Statistics from the Governance Services Unit on the number of academic misconduct panels held between August 2011 – March 2012 was also collected and analysed.

5. Limitations

5.1 Using the Student Rep system as a sample base was deemed the most effective way of gathering

representative responses. This is because there are Student Reps on the majority of the University‟s programmes at each level, and the Students‟ Union‟s annual demographic analysis demonstrated that Reps also provide an appropriate representation of the student body as a whole. Only 272 students completed the survey however, and the spread of schools was not representative of the University‟s structure. E.g. only 9% of respondents came from the Business school.

5.2 Recommendations have taken low response rate into account, and full statistics can be found in appendix.

6. Findings

6.1 Two hundred and seventy two students (272) responded to the Survey. Despite the small number,

students from all schools were represented. The following findings therefore represent the average for all Schools. These mask wide variations as shown in the analysis at Appendices which give results by School.

1 The Law School uses OSCOLA (Oxford University Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities). English

students continue to use MLA (Modern Language Association), History students continue to use Short-Author referencing

5

6.2 Eighty two percent (82%) of the respondents were undergraduates with 56% being in their first year of study. Eighteen (18.5%) percent were pursuing postgraduate studies.

Fifty two percent (52%) stated they had received training on Turnitin and 52% also stated they had received training on academic good practice/academic misconduct.

Most respondents (71%) were made aware of the University‟s policy on academic misconduct/unfair means at welcome/induction week. This was closely followed by the School‟s module handbook (55%) and during lectures (41%). Students also ticked “in a library training session” (24%) and “via blackboard” (35%). Only a tiny minority ticked “at a study skills lab” (6%) or subject based exercises (2%).

6.3 Many students were confident that they knew how academic misconduct could occur. What they were

not confident about was the term “collusion”. Only 39% indicated confidence in this aspect.

Fifty four percent (54%) of the respondents were confident in referencing their work. When added to the number who were “very confident” (of referencing their work), this figure rises to 70%. Conversely 30% of the respondents stated that they were not very confident or not confident at all about referencing their work.

6.4 Just under two thirds (64%) of the students indicated that their School had developed their

understanding of academic good practice through subject based exercises and discussion; over a third (36%) ticked “no” to this statement.

6.5 The survey also showed that 81% of the students were aware of the penalties for academic misconduct

and 82% stated that that their lecturers reminded them of academic good practice. However 19% were unaware of the penalties of academic misconduct. A little more than half (51%) wanted more training on academic good practice.

7. Observations from School Results

7.1 Definition and awareness of academic misconduct

Six types of academic misconduct were listed of which plagiarism was best understood (91%), followed by copying from or communicating with another student during an exam (88%)and taking unauthorised material into an exam ( 87%). The term “collusion” was least well understood (only 39%) “Falsifying experimental or investigative results” also received a fairly low score (62%) but did not seem to trouble respondents as much as the word “collusion”. Schools varied in their approach to developing students‟ awareness of the subject. Students from Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences, Law and Built Environment were made aware of the University‟s policy through a wide variety of sources. In contrast the School of Media, Music and Performance relied heavily on one source - the Student/module handbook.

The remaining Schools relied on a two fold approach; either a combination of at induction and module handbook or at induction and during lectures. Students were least likely to be made aware of the subject through subject based exercises or at study skills laboratories.

7.2 Detection

Except for the school of Media, Music and Performance many of the other schools have introduced and are providing training on Turnitin (online text matching tool). The School of Computing, Science and Engineering appear to be further behind in this process as 72% of the respondents stated they had not received any training. Other Schools are in various stages of this practice/training.

6

7.3 Referencing Respondents from the Schools of Media, Music and Performance and Law stated that they had not developed their understanding of plagiarism through subject based discussions/exercises. To a lesser extent this was true for the respondents from the School of Computing, Science and Engineering.

Within the schools of Law, Built Environment, Art and Design, Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences and Computing, Science and Engineering, students indicated they are very confident/confident about referencing their work. All other Schools showed mixed degrees of confidence.

7.4 Academic Misconduct and Penalties

A high proportion of students (43%) from Art and Design stated they were not aware of the penalties for academic misconduct. Respondents from the School of Media, Music and performance, Computing, Science and Engineering and Business were equally unaware - 25%, 29% and 32% respectively. Lecturers within all schools reminded students of academic good practice although within the School of Law only 50% of the respondents stated their lecturers did this.

7.5 Further Training

Students from Environment Life Sciences, Law and the Business Schools are clear in their desire for more training in academic good practice. Students from the School of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences and Art and Design are equally clear that no more training is required.

8. Statistics on Academic Misconduct

8.1 Statistics derived from Governance Service Unit (GSU) indicate that between 1st August 2011 and 30th

March 2012, seventy two (72) cases came before the Academic Misconduct Panel (AMP). Of this figure, 15 or 20% were not upheld. The majority of cases brought to AMP (35%) were committed by students in their second year of study. This was followed by students pursuing a Masters degree (30.5%), those in their third year of study (19%) and finally by those in their first year (15%).

The majority of academic misconduct cases were for plagiarism (63%); collusion accounted for 29% followed by unfair means in an exam (7%).

The Schools of Business and Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work accounted for 37.5% and 28% of the cases respectively. Built Environment accounted for the third highest with 11%. Within the Business School, 44% occurred at level 5 (year 2) and 26% at the Masters level. Likewise within the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, 40% came from level 5 and 30% at levels 6 and Masters level. The School of Built Environment deviates from this pattern in that 62.5% of its cases were recorded at level 6 (year 3). The Business School also recorded 18.5% of the cases at year 1 (level 4).

BME students represented two thirds of the total number of cases and 21% were committed by international students. It should be noted that research on this issue is currently being undertaken by the Governance Services Unit.

9. Training on Academic good practice 9.1 The information in appendix outlines the various ways Schools (6) provide awareness of academic

good practice and make known the penalties for academic misconduct. Six schools responded to the Union‟s request for information in this area.

7

10. Discussion

10.1 This section combines the findings from the online survey, statistics from the Governance Services

Unit and the responses from Schools on the types of training offered to students on academic good practice. The information indicates:

10.2 The vast majority of students are made aware of the University‟s policy on academic misconduct during welcome/induction week. This is followed by the student/module handbook and thirdly, during lectures. This indicates that students are receiving most of their information about the subject either orally or in printed format. Only a tiny minority become aware of the subject through subject based exercises or practice (study skills lab).

If students have received training on Turnitin, then it is very likely that they will state they have received training on academic good practice and academic misconduct.

Whilst students may feel confident they know the various ways academic misconduct can occur, this does not translate to being confident about referencing their work. They seem aware of plagiarism but are uncertain what they must do to avoid it. In some instances, students have reused their own work in different modules. Whilst they take care to reference published sources they seem less aware that reusing their own work can lead to self-plagiarism.

Students are less confident about the term collusion and this is perhaps reflected in the fact that over a quarter (29%) of the cases coming to AMP hearings are under this category.

Academic misconduct is more prevalent amongst students in year 2 and those at Masters level. There is a high representation of students from BME backgrounds (66.7%) within which there is a high percentage (21%) who are international.

10.3 The schools of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work and Business accounted for sixty five (65%)

percent of the academic misconduct cases during the last 8 months. In contrast the Schools of Art and Design, Environment and Life Sciences and Health Sciences recorded very low levels.

10.4 Students in the Business School were more likely to ask for more training on academic good

practice. This is to be welcomed as the statistics indicate that academic misconduct is occurring at all levels within this School. It is interesting to note that students state that their awareness of academic misconduct/unfair means comes primarily through the student/module handbook and during welcome/induction week. The onus is therefore on the student to read and understand the University‟s policy and put it into practice. Although students may sign a declaration on their assignments that the work is their own etc. it is troubling that within this School, international students and those from BME backgrounds are the principal groups falling foul of the University‟s regulations. This suggests that there is an issue surrounding how plagiarism is communicated and how to ensure that the message is understood. The fact that 18.5% of the cases brought to AMP hearings were not upheld shows that further work is needed by both the School and the student to avoid poor practice. Or it could be that there are inconsistencies in the ways that the academics define and identify plagiarism in student work. The Students‟ Union urges the School to investigate this as a matter of urgency.

8

11. Conclusions

11.1 The fact that the number of AMP cases as of 30th March were lower than in 2010/11 could suggest

that deterrence procedures are already being improved within Schools. It is also fair to say that not all students welcomed additional tuition; forty nine percent (49%) were reluctant to engage in further training. However, the responses to other questions suggest students would be more enthusiastic if there was a more practical/interactive form of training. Students will then improve their understanding and confidence by practice and feedback in the context of their own discipline. Whilst it is important to raise students‟ awareness of academic good practice, it is equally important that they are given the support to develop these skills.

11.2 Consistency is clearly a large issue for the University in this regard. The differences in method and delivery of training in academic practice may partly account for the differences in attitude and confidence among students. Students across all schools indicated their need for further information and training on academic good practice and it is imperative that schools work to provide this, while building students‟ confidence in referencing.

11.3 Timing appears to be another key aspect in avoiding academic misconduct. Both the survey and

GSU statistics indicate that relying on induction and self-tuition methods is not effective in assisting students to understand and avoid pitfalls. The fact that the majority of cases do not occur in first year suggests that schools are not repeating or reminding students of academic good practice, and this lack of ongoing support can have serious consequences for students. An integrated, ongoing approach is essential, and the Students‟ Union urges schools to consider changes to their current provision to match this finding.

11.4 Detection: It is worrying that one fifth of the cases brought to academic misconduct hearings

during the time analysed were not upheld as it is both wasteful of scarce resources (staff time) and stressful for students. The Students‟ Union recommends that schools work with GSU and each other to ensure that cases of poor referencing are dealt with by the school where possible, and that only cases of genuine misconduct are referred to an AMP.

11.5 Promotion of existing resources could vastly improve their take up. While there are short

exercises/tests online (accessed through Library services and Blackboard) which students can access and thereby test their competence, they are not immediately obvious. In order to both advertise these tools, and ensure a more integrated approach schools should consider signposting the exercises more clearly or including them in a scheduled seminar, lesson or assessment.

11.6 Practising referencing, and having more opportunities for students to evaluate their own

competence is likely to be more effective that lecture-style sessions. Examples of good and poor practice, as well as an opportunity to discuss these with peers and academics would be ideal. Such sessions should be embedded in the curriculum and not offered as an optional extra.

11.7 The fact that thirty percent (30%) of academic misconduct cases occur at level 7 (masters) and that

21% of these are by international students indicates there is a greater need for all Schools to ensure that this group of students understand what academic integrity means in a UK institution. It may be that this group of students need more practical support to develop the necessary skills appropriate to their work. An international student may be struggling with their course due to language barriers or different learning and teaching styles. The pressure to do well having paid high fees can place additional stresses to succeed at any cost. These challenges can all trigger academic misconduct.

11.8 Improved understanding of the PMC procedure is likely to assist students who are at risk of

academic misconduct. Personal mitigating circumstances are not considered as legitimate explanation for misconduct, and it is therefore vital that students in such circumstances are informed and encouraged to use the PMC procedure.

9

Appendix 1: Collective Responses from School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work Questions Responses and Comments

Q2. Are you an undergraduate or postgraduate?

Undergraduates -95% Postgraduate – 5%

Q3.Year of study? Year 1 - 51%; year 2 – 32% ; year 3 – 17%

Q4.How were you made aware of the University‟s policy on academic misconduct/unfair means?

During welcome week/induction week – 83% In a library training session – 39% Student/ module handbook – 69% During lectures – 52% At a study skills lab – 3% Subject based exercises – 3.% Via Blackboard – 47%

Q5.Did you receive any training on academic good practice and academic misconduct?

Yes- 68% No- 32%

Q6.Have you received any training on the use of the online submission tool, TURNITIN?

Yes – 66% No- 34% But not a lot… Have been offered if we need to use it. Our cohort is in the old system; not applicable

Q7.Please indicate which of the below you are confident you understand well.

Plagiarism -93% Collusion – 47% Taking unauthorised material into an exam – 88% Falsifying experimental or investigative results – 58% Copying from or communicating with another student during an exam – 88% Contracting another to produce a piece of work/writing a piece of work for another – 77%

Q8.Do you feel confident in referencing your work correctly?

Very confident – 5% Confident – 64% Not very confident – 24% Not confident at all – 7%

Q9.Has your School developed your understanding of plagiarism through subject based exercises and discussion?

Yes – 71% No – 29%

Q10.Are you aware of the penalties of academic misconduct?

Yes – 90% No- 10%

Q11.Do your lecturers remind you of academic good practice?

Yes – 90% No – 10%

Q12.Would you like more training in academic good practice?

Yes – 44% No- 56%

Q13.What could your School do to improve your awareness/understanding of academic misconduct/unfair means?

School has made an effort to ensure that students are aware of penalties of academic misconduct and have continued to remind us of the consequence throughout the year. Send a generic e-mail to each student to make them aware each year to act as a reminder … Seminar/group discussion once in a session to remind and emphasize these to students. Provide more literature Easily accessible via blackboard Make documents/areas in handbook easier to understand ie simplify language rather than copying policy document Show more examples (x2) Share more cases and their implications Organise more training sessions/seminars Explain more rather than rely on what‟s written in handbook. Simplify; long time since I studies at all!

10

Appendix 2: Collective Responses from School of Computing, Science and Engineering Questions Responses and Comments

Q2.Are you an undergraduate or postgraduate?

Undergraduate - 78% Postgraduate – 22%

Q3.Year of study? Year 1- 60%; year 2 – 19%; year 3 – 8.5% Year 4, yr 5 and other – 12%


During welcome wee/induction week – 66% In a library training session – 11% Student/ module handbook – 54.5% During lectures – 29.5% At a study skills lab – 9% Subject based exercises – 2% Via Blackboard – 25%


Yes- 41% No- 59%


Yes – 28% No- 72%






Yes – 55% No – 45%


Yes – 68% No- 32%


Yes – 79% No – 21%


Yes – 45% No- 55%


Students sign various contracts regarding academic conduct; it is their responsibility… Study math doesn‟t really apply Provide a leaflet Short lecture/tutorial on referencing and avoiding plagiarism Information on blackboard and seminars Exercises Use posters around campus Lecturers should attach greater importance and explain Incorporate it into lectures; maybe as part of tutorial time Have workshop during welcome week. It is OK on Blackboard but it would be nice to have someone explain them. More explanation about collusion on marked assessments To provide handouts with all definitions and some exercises about good academic practice/misconduct.

11

Appendix 3: Collective Responses from School of Environment and Life Sciences Questions Responses and Comments



Q3.Year of study? Year 1- 57%; year 2 – 14%; year 3 – 7% Year 4 and other – 21%


During welcome week/induction week – 71% In a library training session – 14% Student/ module handbook – 57% During lectures – 21% At a study skills lab – 21% Subject based exercises – 0% Via Blackboard – 7%


Yes- 43% No- 57%


Yes – 64% No- 36% But has been offered


Plagiarism -93% Collusion – 28.5% Taking unauthorised material into an exam – 86% Falsifying experimental or investigative results – 43% Copying from or communicating with another student during an exam – 86% Contracting another to produce a piece of work/writing a piece of work for another – 71%


Very confident – 14% Confident – 50% Not very confident – 28.5% Not confident at all – 7%


Yes – 64% No – 36%


Yes – 86% No- 14%


Yes – 93% No – 7%


Yes – 79% No- 21%


School should put it on all course work to remind all students to be aware of academic misconduct. Included in research methods – very helpful Training sessions only academic misconduct and explain plagiarism and referencing. Reiteration of academic misconduct after every assignment Give examples of every possibility of a misconduct. Provide info on Blackboard Training on how to develop essays and report writing Examples of collusion/falsifying experimental results

12

Appendix 4: Collective Responses from School of Health Sciences Questions Responses and Comments



Q3.Year of study? Year 1- 55%; year 2 – 23%; year 3 – 20% Year 4 -3 %


During welcome week/induction week – 78% In a library training session – 28% Student/ module handbook – 42% During lectures – 39% At a study skills lab – 3% Subject based exercises – 1.6% Via Blackboard – 36%


Yes- 62% No- 38% At undergraduate level


Yes – 57% No- 43%






Yes – 67% No – 33%


Yes – 82% No- 18%


Yes – 78% No – 21%


Yes – 49% No- 51%


Examples of good academic practice in lectures. Send info prior to registration therefore retain info rather than with everything else. Lecture/tutorial session on TURNITIN More workshops on referencing or timetabled slots rather than options. A summarised handout None required Make us more aware of it and not just read it in handbook. Help students to rephrase original authors in order to avoid plagiarism TURNITIN training would help Provide exercises and examples of what is considered plagiarism Introduce earlier preferably during induction week.

13

Appendix 5: Collective Responses from School of Business Questions Responses and Comments


Undergraduate – 56.5% Postgraduate – 43.5%

Q3.Year of study? Year 1- 50%; year 2 – 29%; year 3 – 12.5% Other- 8 %


During welcome week/induction week – 58% In a library training session – 12.5% Student/ module handbook – 67% During lectures – 12.5% At a study skills lab – 4% Subject based exercises – 4% Via Blackboard – 21%


Yes- 52% No- 48%


Yes – 42% No- 58%






Yes –79 % No – 21%


Yes – 71% No- 29%


Yes – 79% No – 21%


Yes – 83% No- 17%


Post more on Blackboard Regular (bimonthly) update Keep training; send e-mails and flyers Sharing examples of students who misconduct and consequences of this action might help the rest of students understand… Constant lectures/training on it x 3 Explain more in detail; not just say it all in the handbook and have a look at it. Specific sessions that aim at international students to make them aware of educ. referencing system here…

14

Appendix 6: Collective Responses from School of Media, Music and Performance Questions Responses and Comments



Q3.Year of study? Year 1- 70%; year 2 – 10%; year 3 – 20%


During welcome week/induction week – 25% In a library training session – 25% Student/ module handbook – 62.5% During lectures – 0% At a study skills lab – 12.5% Subject based exercises – 0% Via Blackboard – 12.5%


Yes- 11% No- 89%


Yes – 11% No- 89%






Yes –22 % No – 78%


Yes – 75% No- 25%


Yes – 62.5% No – 37.5%


Yes – 50% No- 50%


Freshers Week Handout of assignment… Explain more thoroughly misconduct. Some confusion on Wikipedia web-links.

15

Appendix 7: Collective Responses from School of Art and Design Questions Responses and Comments



Q3.Year of study? Year 1- 71%; year 2 – 29%;




Yes- 14% No- 86%


Yes – 57% No- 43%






Yes –83 % No – 17% We had a course on referencing at the beginning of the course…established where our books/journals in the library…


Yes – 57% No- 43%


Yes – 86% No – 14%


Yes – 29% No- 71%


Teaching in copyright Should be included before start of course-what you should not be doing while academically studying and what are circumstances if you choose to do so. Specific courses could be tailored/delivered to further understand this subject. It is fine. Talk more in lectures and meetings with course members.

16

Appendix 8: Collective Responses from School of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences Questions Responses and Comments



Q3.Year of study? Year 1- 72%; year 2 – 5.6%; year 3 – 5.6% Other – 17%


During welcome week/induction week – 71% In a library training session – 35% Student/ module handbook – 53% During lectures – 76.5% At a study skills lab – 12% Subject based exercises – 0% Via Blackboard – 47%


Yes- 71% No- 29%


Yes – 82% No- 18%






Yes –71 % No – 29%


Yes – 100% No- 0%


Yes – 94% No – 6%


Yes – 23.5% No- 76.5%


Organising sessions that everyone has to attend. Putting down academic misconduct in a booklet is not enough. Programme leaders should go through this booklet with every student so that everyone understands… Make it clear and obvious Hold more training sessions Give more real examples that happened over the last few years… X 2 Fine as it is

17

Appendix 9: Collective Responses from School of Built Environment Questions Responses and Comments



Q3.Year of study? Year 1- 56%; year 2 – 17%; year 3 – 22% Other – 5.5%




Yes- 31% No- 69%


Yes – 65% No- 35%




Very confident – 19% Confident – 62.5% Not very confident – 12.5% Not confident at all – 6%


Yes –56 % No – 44%


Yes – 94% No- 6%


Yes – 87.5% No – 12.5%


Yes – 56% No- 44%


Dedicate 1 lecture or part of a lecture of a core lecture towards this awareness… Organise school based seminars/presentations/workshops and make them mandatory Doing an excellent job Lengthy guidance notes are not easy to read…simple layman‟s terms Showing more examples of plagiarism, testing them by some simple quizzes Remind us as much as they can.

18

Appendix 10: Collective Responses from School of Law Questions Responses and Comments



Q3.Year of study? Year 1- 50%; year 2 – 33%; year 3 – 16.7%




Yes- 33% No- 67%


Yes – 33% No- 67%






Yes –33 % No – 67%


Yes – 83% No- 17%


Yes – 50% No – 50%


Yes – 67% No- 33%


Lectures/handouts Make it relevant to post-graduate More notice of referencing; been on a course but it didn‟t really help; it affects essay results.

19

Appendix 11: School response: Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work

1. What information does your School provide to ensure students are aware of academic good

practice? When is this information provided? a) Within the “Learning to Learn “week or within the first few weeks of the first module Dawn

Gawthorpe delivers a session where academic good practice is included. Examples also included for them to complete.

b) Pod cast also available with regards to Exams and Assessment issues c) Neil Donohue also covers this in first module when referencing exercises included. d) Information within the Exams and Assessment handbook which is at programme level on

Blackboard for all students. e) Individual modules also cover referencing, academic good practice f) Personal tutors also raise this in personal tutor sessions. g) Sessions on study skills and exam and essay technique over each year. h) Module leaders explain the requirements of each assignment with reference to the assignment brief

and the grade descriptors raising awareness of academic good practice i) Support is offered from academic supervisors and on line support is available via Blackboard

(PLATO). Opportunity to raise issues with this when discussing PDP. j) Each student completes an Unfair Means declaration form with each submission (paper or online).

This form lists the definitions of unfair means and students sign the declaration that the work is their own, that they have acknowledged the work of others, no results have been falsified and that they have received read and understood the University Policy on the conduct of assessed work (Academic Good Conduct).

k) Links to study skills support from Student Life on BB l) University College referencing guide available on BB for all students

2. Does the School use subject-based discussions through which students learn about

academic good practice?

Yes – but potentially different in modules and may not be in every module. Learning to Learn weeks are at the beginning of each year / level and will cover this aspect.

3. Does the School use subject-based exercises through which students can learn about academic good practice?

Yes – but potentially different in modules and may not be in every module. Learning to Learn weeks are at the beginning of each year / level and will cover this aspect.

4 Are students required to submit their work through TURNITIN? If so, which years does this

apply to?

The majority will use Turnitin for assignments. Social Work and Counselling students – all years Nursing and Midwifery – Pre September 10 pre –registration students – paper, Pre –registration students from September 10 onwards Turnitin Level 7 dissertations - paper

5. What does your School do to ensure students are aware of the University’s policy on

academic misconduct and its penalties?

It‟s in the Exams and Assessment handbook on BB at programme level A precise is in the module handbooks also.

20

Appendix 12: School response: Health Sciences


practice? When is this information provided?

Direct links to the University‟s Policies and Procedures within the AQA Handbook are provided for all students on Blackboard and in all Programme/Module handbooks. The links provided on Blackboard under Study Skills in relation to referencing are also promoted constantly and included within assessment briefs. In addition sessions specifically relating to academic good practice are timetabled during induction and reminders are regularly made during teaching assessments, especially when assessments are being set and discussed.

2. Does the School use subject-based discussions through which students learn about academic

good practice?

Yes, whenever feasible in teaching sessions, workshops, seminar groups etc. 3. Does the School use subject-based exercises through which students can learn about academic

good practice?

See point 2 above. 4. Are students required to submit their work through TURNITIN? If so, which years does this

apply to?

Yes. Levels 4, 5 and 7 of our Psychology and Public Health programmes submit via Turnitin and receive their annotated work and feedback in return the same way. For all other programmes, currently all students simply submit their second copy of any feasible assessment through Turnitin, so that they get the experience and benefit of Turnitin. A number of small pilots continue to be undertaken across the School, with a view to all students submitting and receiving their feedback via Turnitin in 2012/13.

5. What does your School do to ensure students are aware of the University’s policy on academic

misconduct and its penalties?

Direct links to the University‟s Policies and Procedures within the AQA Handbook are provided for all students on Blackboard and in all Programme/Module handbooks. In addition, along with academic good practice, reference is made to academic misconduct during teaching sessions, when assessments are set and discussed and during personal tutor sessions as and when appropriate.

21

Appendix 13: School response: Media Music and Performance 1. What information does your School provide to ensure students are aware of academic good


Each student has access to their Programme handbook on Blackboard (in most cases, some still given out hard copy) . This has a section on Academic Misconduct which includes links to advice and training on good practices via the Careers study skills pages and links to plagiarism guidance on Blackboard.


good practice?

These discussions would be carried out by tutors. I am not aware of the detail of what may be involved. Practice will vary.

3. Does the School use subject-based exercises through which students can learn about academic

good practice?

Again these would be carried out by tutors as part of a module or study skill session. The School has this year been working closely with Careers in Student Life to ensure study skills are integrated into the curriculum for students.

4. Are students required to submit their work through TURNITIN? If so, which years does this

apply to?

In MMP a large number of assignments unfortunately can‟t be submitted through TurnitIn due to the nature of the submission (e.g. large media files etc). Where submissions can be submitted via TurnItin students are informed to do so. These are usually level 4, 7 and 5 but some level 6 are also submitted this way ahead of the requirement to do so.



We ensure all Programme handbooks clearly state this information, giving links back to the Policy. All students must sign a declaration relating to their work on submission of coursework. This also states what forms Academic Misconduct takes e.g. plagiarism, collusion etc.

22

Appendix 14: School response: Environment and Life Sciences


practice? When is this information provided? - Induction - Imbedded into programmes within modules e.g. Study Skills - School Handbook - Links provided in Programme Handbook 2. Does the School use subject-based discussions through which students learn about academic

good practice? - See second bullet point to question 1 3. Does the School use subject-based exercises through which students can learn about academic

good practice? - See second bullet point to question 1 4. Are students required to submit their work through TURNITIN? If so, which years does this

apply to?

Yes, in L4, 5 and 7 (as per University standard) with a view to implementing at L6 from Sep 2012. There are of course exceptions to this where there is reasonable justification.


misconduct and its penalties? - Through assessment design - Through reinforcement of referencing and sourcing e.g. library inductions.

23

Appendix 15: School response: Business 1. What information does your School provide to ensure students are aware of academic good


There are a number of points whereby we inform students about academic good practice these include:

Induction – students have sessions on good practice, poor practice and the potential implications of poor practice. Verbal Assessment briefing session – before each assessment students are informed of good practice, poor practice and the potential implications of poor practice. Grading Criteria on Assessment Briefs – students are advised to read data on misconduct relating to assessed work Additional sessions – many tutors provide additional sessions on good practice as part of the itnroduciton to their modules


good practice? They are included as part of briefing sessions during assessment handouts where students are asked questions and interaction is encouraged. There is no formal sessions based specifically on a group discussion.

3. Does the School use subject-based exercises through which students can learn about academic

good practice?

These are part of the induction discussions where students are shown examples of poor ractice and good practice.

4. Are students required to submit their work through TURNITIN? If so, which years does this

apply to?

All students are required to use turnitin – the only exception being modules which included maths based work. Students are encouraged to use all the tools on turnitin.



Again induction, assessment briefings and the assessment outline highlights the webpage fro students to access the University policy on academic misconduct and penalties.

24

Appendix 16: School response: Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences

1. The Harvard/MLA guide to referencing is available on all blackboard module sites, standard text is

supplied in module and programme handbooks which would be supplemented by individual lecturers when introducing their assignments. There is specific training re: how to reference in level 4 of all programmes. In most cases, this involves someone from Student Life coming to a core lecture and explaining what academic misconduct is and how to avoid it by referencing properly. This actually happens at UG and PG level;

2. As tutors discuss good practice when discussing assignment briefs these discussions will always be subject based. Early discipline-specific assignments at level 4 allow students to practice these skills after formal training;

3. In terms of subject based exercises, I know this certainly happens in English, Sociology and PCH and

am just awaiting confirmation that this also happens in Languages; 4. Currently levels 4, 5 and 7 with level 6 as hard-copy submission but all levels from September 2012; 5. The policy should be included in module handbooks. It is discussed during Induction. Tutors remind

students when going through assignment briefs and students are asked to sign a declaration form when submitting work.

25

Appendix 17: AMP Statistics

Source: GSU

1 August 2011 - 30 March 2012 Nature of offence

Residency Plagiarism Collusion Unfair Means in Exam UK/ EU 35 18 4 International 11 3 1 Total 46 21 5 72

BREAKDOWN OF CASES OF ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT

1 August 2011 to 30 March 2012

School Not BME BME Unknown Total

Art and Design

0

Built Environment 2 5 1 8

Business 3 17 7 27

Computing Science and Engineering

2

2

Environment and Life Sciences

0

Health, Sport and Rehabilitation Sc

3

0

HuLSS

6

6

Learning Development Unit

0

Law

2

2

Media, Music and Performance 3 1

4

Nursing and Midwifery 8 12

20

Soc Work, Psych and Public Health

0

Total 16 48 8 72

BME represents 66.7% of total

1 August 2011 - 30 March 2012

Penalty/Level Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Total

0% for compondent of assessment

5 7 4 4 20

0% for module

1 12 6 9 28

Maximum Academic Penalty

1 1 1 6 9

Not Guilty

4 5 3 3 15

Total 0 11 25 14 22 72

26

Appendix 18: AMP penalties

Penalty 0% for component 0% for module Max Academic Penalty Not Guilty Total

Level 3 4 5 6 7 3 4 5 6 7 3 4 5 6 7 3 4 5 6 7

Art and Design

0

Built Env

1 1 4

1 1 8

Business 3 7 2 1

2

3

1 3 2 3

27

Comp Sc and Eng

2

2

Env and Life Sci

0

HuLSS

1

2

1 1

1

6

Health Sciences 1

2

3

Law

1

1

2

MMP 1

1

2

4

Nursing and Mid

2 1

6 2 2

1

1 2 3 20

SW Psy and PH

0

Total 0 5 7 4 4 0 1 12 6 9 0 1 1 1 6 0 4 5 3 3 72

27

This survey report has been coordinated by University of Salford Students’ Union Advice Centre. For further information, please contact Rhiannon Cruse, Student Engagement Manager on [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]