A/Professor Anna Stewart

1. Understanding, Preventing and Managing Academic Misconduct in Higher Education Institutions: The Griffith Trial A/Professor Anna Stewart

2. AcademicMisconduct Issues • Wide range of behaviours • Culturally constructed construct • Pervasive • Difficult/time consuming to detect and manage • Questions of ‘intent’ and ‘ignorance’ • Institutional reputation and credibility

3. Academic Misconduct Issues • Wide range of behaviours • Culturally constructed construct • Pervasive • Difficult/time consuming to detect • Questions of ‘intent’ and ‘ignorance’ • Institutional reputation and credibility “Griffith is a joke....you can cheat as much as you want....if you get caught (highly unlikely) you can cry your way out of it (special circumstances) This is especially true of the GC campus”

4. Importance for student learning • Students who cheat fail to learn • Students who do not cheat feel frustrated • Students are terrified • Academic misconduct is a very unwise decision and you will almost always be caught out. Even if you don't get caught out you are still cheating yourself out of great opportunities to learn. • Whats worse most of the kids that did enact such behaviour receive higher marks than they would otherwise. Its really disheartening to those who try. • I have not participated in academic misconduct, but since undertaking my first semester earlier this year I have been petrified that i would commit plagiarism or academic misconduct without realising

5. Staff Survey Semester 1 2007

6. FoI Figures provided to Courier Mail late 2006

7. A holistic institutional response • Promote academic integrity • Promotion of supportive culture that values ethical conduct • Consistency, transparency and fairness • Prevent academic misconduct • Proactive rather than reactive • education and deterrence • assessment practices • Management of allegations of misconduct • Tracking across Groups/Faculties and of multiple offenders • Improved detection (including ‘text matching’ software) • Proportional responses

8. Framework for Promoting Academic Integrity Promotion Prevention Management

9. Framework for Promoting Academic Integrity Promotion Education Prevention Management

10. Framework for Promoting Academic Integrity Promotion Education Prevention Management Deterrence

11. Framework for Promoting Academic Integrity Promotion Education Awareness Prevention Management Deterrence

12. Framework for Promoting Academic Integrity Promotion Education Awareness Centralised management system Prevention Management Deterrence

13. The Framework • Two stage management process (monitored centrally) • School / Department level response • Institutional level response (Formal response managed by relevant Chair of Assessment Board) • Principles • Protect student’s rights • Proportional and escalating interventions • Recognise and support the central role of Course Convenors • Focus on prevention and developmental responses

14. Central Management System • Necessary to ensure • Concerns tracked across the institution • Institutionally consistent responses • Academic Integrity Management System database (AIMS) • Academic Integrity Manager • Committee of Chairs of the Assessment Board

15. Central role of Course Convenor • Designing courses/assessment to minimise opportunities • Modelling/promoting appropriate behaviour • Detecting concerns • reporting to central management system • serious/repeat concerns escalated to Chair of Assessment Board • School/Department based response • course convenor investigates • responds to ‘minor’ and ‘unintentional’ concerns • educational/developmental responses • If necessary supported by Program Convenor/HoS/FYA

16. Course Convenor flow process • Course convenor identifies concern • Completes Concern form and sends to AI manager • AI manager • Checks students academic record • Enters details into the AIMS • Provides CC with • partial filled Closure form • Draft letter/email to student • Also sent to HoS • Course convenor • Sends email to student • Student response within 14 days • Cc conducts investigation and evaluates case (14 days • CC contacts AI for previous beaches (AIM sends reminder email at 21 days) • CC finalises concern, completes closure form and sends to AI manager • AI Manager • Records decision on AIMS • Prepares draft finalisation letter for course convenor

17. Chair of Assessment Board • Serious and repeat concerns escalated to the Chair • Similar process to the Course Convenor flow process • Have the right to exclude students from the university • Committee of the Chairs of the Assessment Board • Facilitate consistency of responses • Monitor the processes • Provide support for the Academic Integrity Manager

18. Trialled in three elements/groups • Approved University Council October 2007 • Faculty of Arts • Faculty of Education • Science, Environment, Engineering and Technology • end of Semester 2, 2007 (three weeks) • Semester 1, 2008

19. 2007 Semester 2 trial

20. Effective and efficient in • recording & identifying multiple incidences • providing information about a students’ academic performance and relevant correspondence • Greater clarity about the role of the Academic Integrity Manager. • Greater clarity about what constitutes a Level I, II or III breach • Professional development required for academic staff

21. Testimonial Been at Griffith for a long time (decades) and in that time there has been three main phases. • Everything left to the staff, however, problematic because not consistent as handled differently by each individual staff member. • Second process – Uni took over – very bureaucratic and very unpopular – most staff steered clear of the process. • New trial procedure – leaves decision in the hands of the Course convenor while recording in central database – this is preferred because back in the hands of academics while process lends itself to achieving consistent outcomes.

22. Seriousness matrix • Curtin University framework to promote common understandings (Yeo & Chien, 2007) • Focus not on definition of plagiarism • But on degree of seriousness • and extent to which it constitutes misconduct • Four criteria for determining the seriousness • Experience of the student • Nature of the act of plagiarism • Extent of the plagiarism • Intention of the student plagiarise (only for seriousness)

23. Two first year students, B and C, handed in substantial assignments (worth 30%) that were practically identical. On questions the students, I found that B, who completed the assignment first, allowed C to have it for a few days “just to get a few ideas to get started”. C then basically copied the assignment and submitted it without B’s knowledge. Both admitted their respective roles. B appeared genuinely dismayed at C’s actions.

25. Where to from here? • University trial approved for Semester 2 2008 • Trial will be continuously evaluated • External audit on completion • Back to Council for consideration for full roll out in 2009 • Academic Integrity Change Management Group • Communication strategy • Developing website • Staff resources • Student resources

26. Contact details • Academic Integrity Manager • Jenny Martin • Jennifer.Martin@griffith.edu.au • (07) 373 54275 • Anna Stewart • A.Stewart@griffith.edu.au • (07) 373 55784