Equality impact assessment
School/Directorate: Offices of the Vice-Chancellor
Name of person completing the equality impact assessment: Amanda Hughes
Date of completion: 19th May 2011
What is the name of policy / function / practice / criteria you are equality
impact assessing? Breaches of assessment regulations during the period
January - December 2010
Is the policy:
New
Existing
Screening
What is the aim of this policy / function / practice / criteria? What is it intended
to achieve?
To consider possible inequities between students in key equality and diversity
categories.
Who are the main stakeholders?
Staff
Students
Community
In light of the data and evidence you have collected for this equality impact
assessment, does this policy / function / practice / criteria have any relevance
to, or impact on, equality and diversity in the two areas below?
Possibility for discrimination / adverse impact
Opportunities to promote equal opportunities / good
relations
Evidence and data
Please use the space below to discuss the evidence and data you have
collected for this equality impact assessment. This evidence may include
statistics, results of consultations, feedback, external reports etc. There is no set
format for this section; please include any information that is relevant or that you
have collected which you have considered as part of this equality impact assessment.
Discuss how it has enabled you to make your conclusions about any impacts on
equality of what you are assessing.
Please ensure you include feedback where appropriate on the policy / function /
practice / criteria from the three staff forums: Race Equality, Respect Sexual
Orientation, and N-Able Disabled Staff Group. You can obtain further guidance and
details on the staff forums from the Equality Unit.
1.
University Overview
There was a rise in the number of cases of academic misconduct from 392 in 2009
to 436 in 2010 representing an increase of 11.2% relative to the 4.2% rise in the
student population.
There have been significantly more repeat cases and cases of multiple plagiarisms
(55 in 2010 as opposed to 38 in 2009) representing a 45% increase. These cases
have occurred mainly in the second and third years of courses, two of which have
resulted in consideration by an Investigating Committee where one student was
excluded. The number of Investigating Committees has decreased however, from
38 in 2009 to 22 in 2010 which indicates a reduction in cases involving final year
Projects and Dissertations. In 2009, 10 cases were dismissed by Investigating
Committees; none have been dismissed during 2010. Deans Hearings are also
down from 28 in 2009 to 23 in 2010 and only 4 of these appeals where dismissed by
Deans, as opposed to 8 in 2009. This demonstrates a greater consistency in overall
decision making and in the application of penalties within the earlier stages of the
process.
Relative to the number of allegations made against students, less cases overall were
dismissed in 2010 (21%) than in 2009 (23%). This indicates a slight improvement in
the analysis of allegations made at School level prior to submission to Investigating
Deans. The number of cases proven remains constant at around 77%.
2.
Academic Misconduct by level of study
This is the first year in which cases involving first and foundation year students have
been dealt with at School level. Allegations against foundation year students were
down, relative to the student population, from 12% in 2009 to 9% in 2010. Of the
allegations made, 28% were dismissed (5% up on 2009) and 68% proven (9% down
on 2009).
Cases against first and second year students remained static at around 1.8% and
4.1% of the student population respectively. The number of cases proven against
first year students was up by 1% to 87% and the number proven against second
year students was down by 1% to 85%. With the exception of the foundation year,
the highest proportion of allegations relative to student population made in 2010 was
in relation to second year students who also had the second highest percentage of
cases proven at 86%. This may reflect the need for increased emphasis on
referencing conventions and study skills at the beginning of the second year of study,
prior to the first round of assessment.
Third year student allegations remained consistent at around 3.1% of the student
population; the percentage dismissed dropped by around 8% to 22% and the
proportion of allegations proven rose by 6% to 77%.
The most significant rise in numbers of allegations relative to the student population
was in relation to postgraduate students; 2.7% in 2010 as opposed to 1.8% in 2009.
Of these cases 27% were dismissed (down by 5% on 2009 figures) and 70% were
proven (up by 5% on 2009 figures). An increase in the proportion of cases made
and the percentage of cases proven against postgraduate students is cause for
concern. As many postgraduate students at Bradford are from overseas, this may
reflect the need to provide enhanced induction in this area and to ensure intensive
support for overseas students at key assessment points. It would also be useful to
know how many of those students are late arrivals who have missed induction
activities and briefings related to referencing and academic writing.
3.
Gender:
The male/female ratio remains largely unchanged from 2009 in terms of proportion of
allegations made, 2.7% of the female student population and 3.2% of the male
student population. The percentage proven against female students was up from
2009 figures by around 4% to 81% whilst the percentage proven against male
students remained unchanged at 77%.
In EDT and SCIM male students were identified as over represented; however, this
reflects the fact that the student profile for each school is predominantly male. In Life
Sciences there was an equal split between male and female students, and the two
groups had the same probability of having an allegation proven. SLED experienced
a significantly larger number of breaches by male students in relation to the overall
male student population. The ratio between male and female cases in SSIS and
Health Studies was broadly equal. Female students, both undergraduate and
postgraduate, were more likely to breach regulations than male students in the
School of Management.
4.
Age:
Young students were more likely to be found accountable for academic misconduct;
79% of the allegations made against them were found. The proportion of allegations
made against mature students was up by 1% at around 2%; the allegations against
young students remained static at 4.5%. The percentage of cases proven against
mature students was down by around 3% to 77%.
Young students featured heavily in SLED, Health Studies, Life Sciences, SSIS and
EDT plagiarism figures, reflecting a lack of referencing experience. In both
Management and SCIM, the higher proportion of mature students within the student
body was reflected in the percentage of cases of academic misconduct by students
over the age of 21. This indicates that students entering the University directly from
School take longer to become familiar with higher education referencing techniques
and suggests that induction in this area would benefit from development.
5.
Disability:
Less than 1% of both undergraduate and postgraduate disabled students where
subject to allegations with only 9 cases made overall, 5 being proven. The low
numbers of cases within each School means that analysis of this group would not be
statistically significant.
6.
Ethnicity:
The highest proportion of allegations made relative to the student population was
against Black/Black British African students at 6.4% of which around 84% were
proven. Asian/Asian British Bangladeshi students were the subject of 5.6% of
allegations relative to student population, of which 82% were proven. 4.8% of Asian/
Asian British Pakistani students were the subject of allegations of which 78% were
proven. This latter group of students had the third highest percentage of allegations,
but in terms of number of allegations they accounted for 37% of total cases
(excluding repeat cases).
In the case of the Asian/Asian British Pakistani students the percentage of cases
proved increased by around 2% to 78% during 2010. In all other cases, however,
the proportion of allegations made was down on the 2009 figures
The figures show that students from BME backgrounds had a significantly higher
percentage of allegations made, cases dismissed and cases proven against them.
Asian/Asian British Bangladeshi and Black/Black British African were the highest
with 81.82% and 84.21% proven respectively.
Asian/Asian British Indians had 77.5% of cases proven and Asian/Asian British
Pakistanis 78%. 0.8% allegations relative to the student population were made
against white students (including EU countries) of which 74% were proven.
This trend is also reflected and identified at School level in SCIM, where 48.8% of all
allegations were made against Asian or Asian British Pakistani students which,
when considered in the context of the student ethnicity profile, requires further
investigation. In SSIS, the School identified the fact that a disproportionately high
number of BME students were found to have breached regulations in comparison
with students who had categorised themselves as White. Likewise, the School of
Management identified an issue in relation to academic misconduct in respect of
Chinese students which was felt to be cultural in origin. EDT identified an issue in
relation to South European and Chinese students in relation to their understanding of
collaboration and collusion. In SLED, BME students of Asian Pakistani and
Bangladeshi origin formed the highest percentage of students found accountable for
a breach.
Cases involving international students have continued to cause concern. In 2010,
202 of the 436 allegations made involved international students (that is students
originating from outside the United Kingdom). Feedback from both the Learner
Development Unit and the School of Management indicates that the strategy of
simply telling students about referencing and plagiarism does not seem to be
particularly effective. There is an argument for either reviewing how international
students are treated within the process and/or committing significantly more effort
and resource into ensuring that they are conversant with UK referencing conventions
and the issues surrounding intellectual properly before they are permitted to submit a
summative assignment. This matter has been addressed in a paper to the March
Learning and Teaching Committee and awaits resolution pending discussion lead by
Professor Archibong at the Internationalisation Sub-Committee.
7.
Categories of Academic Misconduct Proven:
The most common form of academic misconduct was plagiarism (240 cases) closely
followed by unauthorised collaboration (114 cases) and then examination
misconduct (82 cases). Of the exam related cases, over 50% involved disruption
within exams, e.g. talking or mobile phones ringing. In addition there were a
significant number of cases, (around 40%) of unauthorised material being brought
into the examination room; this year the most popular involved notes written on
hands or arms. In all the cases involving mobile phones it appears that the phones
had not been properly turned off and that alarms or task alerts programmed into the
phones continued to go off. Some Universities do not allow electronic devices,
including mobile phones to be taken into examinations. It is recommended that the
University of Bradford investigate this as a possible means of eliminating this
problem, and addressing a wider problem of cheating via electronic recording
devices.
All Schools, except EDT, had significantly higher instances of plagiarism than any
other form of academic misconduct; this may reflect the fact that assessment via
examination is a more common method of assessment in EDT in comparison with
other schools. Unauthorised collaboration or collusion was an issue in SSIS and
Health Studies in particular.
8.
Penalties Applied:
The most commonly imposed penalty was that of a capped module mark (273
instances), normally zero or 35, with the requirement for the assignment to be
repeated to achieve the module credit.13 students were excluded from the University
during 2010 after their cases were considered by Investigating Committees. Two
cases were brought against PhD students; one student was excluded and one was
permitted a resubmission for credit due to extenuating circumstances in relation to a
registered disability.
Equality impact
Based on your findings presented in the section above, please tick the
appropriate boxes below and summarise your reasons where appropriate:
Positive impact/
opportunities
Negative /
adverse
impact
No impact
Unknown
Reasons
and
evidence
stated
above
Race
Gender
Disability
Sexual
orientation
Religion or
belief
stated
above
Age
If you have identified any negative or adverse impact, can this be justified?
Yes
No
If you have answered yes, please explain how:
Young students were more likely to be found accountable for academic misconduct;
79% of the allegations made against them were found. This is likely to be due to
school leavers bringing unacceptable writing practices with them into the first year of
their study. More work needs to be done to point out to them, in clear direct
language, that copying work from the web does not demonstrate knowledge of a
subject.
A higher proportion of BME and overseas students are subject to investigation. The
highest proportion of allegations made relative to the student population was against
Black/Black British African students at 6.4% of which around 84% were proven.
Asian/Asian British Bangladeshi students were the subject of 5.6% of allegations
relative to student population, of which 82% were proven. 4.8% of Asian/ Asian
British Pakistani students were the subject of allegations of which 78% were proven.
This latter group of students had the third highest percentage of allegations, but in
terms of number of allegations they accounted for 37% of total cases (excluding
repeat cases). Why are significant numbers of students in these categories cheating
and what can the University do to try and understand this and prevent this situation;
these issues need to be discussed at LTC and in ADLT meetings.
A significant number of overseas postgraduate students are breaching; 2.7% in 2010
as opposed to 1.8% in 2009. Of these cases 27% were dismissed (down by 5% on
2009 figures) and 70% were proven (up by 5% on 2009 figures).
It is not currently known how many of these students hold a UK first degree therefore
the University is unaware of whether they entered the University familiar with UK
referencing conventions or whether, like school leavers, the issue of referencing and
the concept of plagiarism is unfamiliar to them. This may reflect the need to provide
enhanced induction in for this group of students and to ensure intensive support for
them at key assessment points.
It would also be useful to know how many of those students arrived late and missed
induction activities and briefings related to referencing and academic writing. This
may be an issue that can be taken into account in Schools before an allegation is
sent for University level consideration.
Clearly, telling students about UK referencing conventions and the concept and
consequences of plagiarism is not proving effective in respect of young students
entering directly from School and for some international and overseas students.
What action will you take to reduce the negative or adverse impacts?
Changes to the policy / function / practice / criteria
Changes to the method of implementation
Replacing the policy / function / practice / criteria
Please discuss further:
It is anticipated that the introduction of the penalty tariff will make the penalties of
engaging in academic misconduct more transparent and apparent and will act as a
further deterrent.
1. New students admitted to any level of study will be required to complete an on-line
plagiarism awareness and referencing programme within their first semester of study,
prior to the submission of their first assignment. The results of this programme will be
provided to the home School so that those who do not achieve an acceptable
minimum standard can discuss their development needs with their personal
academic tutor. This programme may be embedded within a suitable core module in
semester one.
Further guidance will continue to be provided to students by Subject Librarians
during induction week and reading weeks.
Referencing instruction will be embedded within suitable core modules for all first
year undergraduate and postgraduate students.
Schools which do not already do so will embed an element of formative assessment
relating specifically to referencing and academic writing skills into an appropriate
module during the first semester. Feedback, in a form appropriate to the School's
teaching and learning strategy, will be provided to the student, prior to the first
element of summative assessment being submitted.
2. Commencing January 2012 the University will endeavour to record whether a
postgraduate student who has breached regulations holds an undergraduate UK
award and to record how many of the students who breached arrived late and
missed induction activities relating to referencing and plagiarism.
Action planning:
Action required
By whom
Date for completion
Point 1
Head of Library Services
and ADLTs to make online PAP available for use
within a suitable core
module
September 2011
ADLTs to implement
reporting process to PATs
for new students
August 2011
ADLTs to ensure guidance
embeded into core
modules and formative
assessment procedures
developed
August 2011
Complaints & Appeals
Manager to implement
recording of information
Comencing January 2012
Point 2
Publicising and reporting
The Equality Unit will work with you to ensure this equality impact assessment is
adapted for publication on the University website.
Please use the space below to discuss how else you want to make the results
of this equality impact assessment more widely known. This might include
presenting it at School or Directorate forums, committee meetings etc, or sending it
to those who were consulted; you may have your own internal channels of
communication you want to use.
LTC approval required in the first instance
Policy disseminated via the Vice-Chancellor's Office
Monitoring and review
When will you review this equality impact assessment?
May 2012
Who will be responsible for the review?
Associate Deans Learning and Teaching, Director of Learning and Teaching,
Complaints and Appeals Manager
How will you monitor the policy / function / practice / criteria in the meantime?
This might include collecting periodic feedback, checking statistics periodically etc.
There is no requirement for another full equality impact assessment at this stage.
Continuous monitoring during the process by the Complaints and Appeals Manager.
ADLTs will monitor in Schools
Approval
Dean / Director of School / Director signature:
Date:
Date sent to Equality Unit: