* Refer to lecture slides and audio/ learning guide.
Evaluate – Examine validity or plausibility of an argument or proposition against a stated objective or findings and offer an objective and authoritative appraisal of your judgment. You should also outline the advantages and disadvantages of the matter under discussion.
* Evaluate – outline both the advantages and disadvantages of an argument whilst providing an opinion to state the validity of the argument.
* Tutor – Cecilia Hilder
P.A – Adrian Kamal
Workshop Activity 1: Academic Misconduct
What is Plagiarism?
Plagiarism occurs when a person submits work where words and ideas are taken from a source and presented as if they are his or hers own without the acknowledgement of the original author.
What is Cheating?
Cheating is when a person does any of the following
Communicating in an exam or test with other candidates or bringing into the exam room and written material or electronic device that has not been authorised by the supervisor. Writing an answer or consulting any person or material outside the examination room. Attempting to read an individuals work
Where individual work is required, making available notes, paper or answers related to the content without teachers permission Where individual work is required, receiving answers from any source. Not following the directions of the exam supervisor in charge including seating location.
What is Collusion?
Collusion is when two or more students, or a student and any other person(s), act together to cheat, plagiarise or engage in academic misconduct, or incite others to do so.
How does minor misconduct differ from substantial misconduct?
Minor misconduct' is behavior that is judged by the University to be a minimal threat to the integrity of assessment processes in the unit of study or to be the result of the student's lack of understanding of appropriate referencing or other academic conventions required by the relevant school for the field of study, or both.
Substantial misconduct' is behavior that is judged by the University to be either a significant threat to the integrity of the University's assessment processes or behavior where the student's level of experience might reasonably be interpreted as evidence that the student was aware that the behavior was not in keeping with standards or practices related to ethical scholarship, or both.
Workshop Discussion 2: Review
Penalties include the following courses of action
Arrange for appropriate academic counseling of the student;
Reprimand the student;
Require the student to meet with and apologise formally to any relevant party (ies); Require the student to re-submit an item of work in which misconduct has been detected, after he or she has edited or totally re-written it, as appropriate, so that it meets the required academic referencing and other conventions and standards (the Dean may specify a maximum mark or grade that can be awarded for this re-submitted work - for example, 50% or 'Satisfactory' or 'Unsatisfactory'); this mark may be zero; Require the student to submit a replacement for any relevant assessment task, with a requirement that the student must satisfactorily achieve the outcomes for the assessment task. The Dean may specify a maximum mark or grade that can be awarded for this replacement task (for example, 50% or 'Satisfactory' or Unsatisfactory'); this mark may be zero; Downgrade the mark for a relevant assessment task, in consultation with the Unit Coordinator; this mark may be zero; Where misconduct has been detected in an examination, require the student to sit for a relevant replacement examination (to be organised by the school). The Dean may specify a maximum mark or grade that can be awarded for this replacement task; this mark may be set at zero; Downgrade a final grade or impose a grade of fail in a relevant unit; or If the Dean decides...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document