| 1. |
Background and Context Statement |
| |
1.1 |
The following procedures are predicated on the assumption that students will be familiar with the Academic Integrity Statement for Students (available in the Calendar and the QA Handbook) which sets out the meaning of academic integrity and practices to avoid, that Schools will be reinforcing its use through learning exercises as well as placing it in Student Handbooks, and that there will be evidence of students' understanding of it.
The mechanisms by which they will become familiar and demonstrate their understanding are a matter for individual schools or disciplines to arrange. It is also assumed that members of staff will take all reasonable steps, in setting assignments and other learning tasks, to do so in ways which encourage students to demonstrably submit their own work and act with academic integrity (see further information in the 'Academic Integrity : Guidance for Schools' document available in the QA Handbook). The intention of these procedures is to provide a framework within which Schools can develop their own consistent processes. |
| |
1.2 |
Each School will identify a senior member or members of academic staff (for example, the Deputy Head of School [Education], Heads of Teaching Programmes) to take overall responsibility for the management of academic integrity issues within the School, particularly the investigation of possible breaches of the Academic Integrity Statement. For the purpose of this document, this member of staff is known as the academic integrity officer although schools may not wish to use this or any specific title. |
| |
1.3 |
Possible breaches of academic integrity will usually be discovered by members of academic staff involved in assessing work. However, there are also others who may do so including examination invigilators, practice placement assessors, library and computer support staff and fellow students. Any person not directly involved in assessing work who discovers or suspects a breach should inform an appropriate person such as the relevant module leader, the student's tutor, the School academic integrity officer or the Head of School who will follow up the matter in accordance with the procedures below. Where a student is aware of a breach committed by a fellow student, he/she may wish to report the matter in confidence; in such instances the reporting student's confidentiality will be maintained as far as possible but may need to be revealed in certain circumstances. |
| |
1.4 |
If a person directly involved in assessing a student's work, a colleague notified of a suspected breach under 1.3 above, or the external examiner considers that a student or group of students is not working within the scope of the Academic Integrity Statement for Students and may have used one or more of the practices outlined in Appendix 1 of the Statement, the student's file shall be reviewed in order to determine whether the student previously received feedback about a breach of academic integrity. Whether or not the student has received such a warning will be instrumental in determining how to proceed with the case. |
| |
1.5 |
Minor breaches of academic integrity may be committed through inexperience, lack of full understanding or carelessness. Such breaches may be handled through the normal academic feedback process according to the procedures in section 2 below. Where there is evidence of more significant or extensive infringement or repeat offences, the procedures under sections 3 or 4 below should be followed. See also the flowchart, Appendix 2. |
| |
1.6 |
The decision as to whether a case should be handled under the procedures set out in sections 2, 3 or 4 below should take into account the amount of training and formative assessment in academic integrity that the student has received up to the point the potential breach has been identified. |
| |
1.7 |
Decisions on individual cases will be taken, following investigation, on the basis of the 'balance of probabilities'. In the case of possible plagiarism, reasonable effort should be made to identify the original source material; however, failure to identify the source does not mean that action cannot be taken as such action may also be based on a reasoned academic judgement that the work submitted is not that of the student. |
| |
|
|
| 2. |
Stage 1 : Minor Breaches of Academic Integrity |
| |
2.1 |
Minor breaches of academic integrity may be committed through inexperience, lack of full understanding or carelessness. If there is no evidence of previous concerns on file, and the breach is very limited in scope, this should be handled through the normal academic feedback process. Work will be marked excluding credit for any suspicious material, and feedback will be provided to the student as to how and why this has been done and what steps should be taken to avoid it happening again in the future. In giving such feedback, particular attention should be paid to issues which may arise from differences in cultural approaches.
The student will be advised in writing that this has been done and warned about the consequences of any recurrence. A copy of the note will be placed on the student file and will also be given to the academic integrity officer from whom advice may be sought as necessary, particularly to ensure consistency of approach. |
| |
2.2 |
Procedures under Stage 1 will usually be undertaken by the School responsible for the assessment item concerned, with information about training received and any earlier incidents being sought from the School in which the student is registered (if different) and all correspondence being copied to that School. |
| |
|
|
| 3. |
Stage 2 : More significant breaches of Academic Integrity : Consideration by Academic Integrity Officer |
| |
3.1 |
When a suspected breach is more significant, or there is evidence that a student has previously been given feedback under paragraph 2.1 above, or it can clearly be demonstrated that the student has participated in a learning activity prior to completing the assignment in question, to reinforce the principles of the academic integrity statement, the marker should refer the case to the academic integrity officer of the School in which the student is registered. All subsequent procedures will be carried out and records maintained by that School. |
| |
3.2 |
In reviewing the evidence, the academic integrity officer may, if appropriate, also review other assessments undertaken by the student in the same or earlier years, and take into account any breaches of academic integrity which may be suspected in these cases. |
| |
3.3 |
Major Incidents: If on initial consideration the academic integrity officer believes the case to be so serious that, if a breach is confirmed, the appropriate penalty from the list at paragraph 4.10 below would have effects beyond the specific piece of work concerned, or if for any other reason he/she feels the nature of the case requires additional input, he/she should refer the matter to a Panel and take forward the case in line with section 4 below. |
| |
3.4 |
Intermediate Incidents: In cases where paragraph 3.3 does not apply, the academic integrity officer should arrange a meeting with the student. The student may be accompanied by a member of the University (eg: a personal friend, personal tutor, a member of the Students' Union Advice and Information Centre [SUAIC]) if he/she wishes. Students invited to attend such a meeting should be encouraged to seek the advice of the SUAIC. A notetaker should also be present. The student should have access to the assessment material which is to be the subject of the discussion and copies of any previous feedback which has been given to them about appropriate academic practices. |
| |
3.5 |
The academic integrity officer should discuss the matter with the student drawing attention to the Academic Integrity Statement and any declaration signed by the student. |
| |
3.6 |
If the academic integrity officer determines that no breach has taken place no further action should be taken, the work will be marked according to the usual marking criteria and no records will be kept. |
| |
3.7 |
If the academic integrity officer is satisfied that a breach of academic integrity has taken place which is more than the result of poor understanding of academic practice, he/she may impose a penalty in the range for intermediate incidents (see Appendix 1). The level of penalty will take into account the strength of the evidence presented. |
| |
3.8 |
Should the student not accept that they have worked beyond the bounds of the Academic Integrity Statement or dispute the penalty imposed under section 3.7 above, a Panel meeting should be called (see section 4 below). |
| |
|
|
| 4. |
Stage 3 : Major Breaches of Academic Integrity: Consideration by Academic Integrity Panel |
| |
4.1 |
Where the academic integrity officer considers the breach to fall within paragraph 3.3, or a student wishes to exercise their right under paragraph 3.8, a Panel will be established to investigate the case. |
| |
Panel Membership |
| |
4.2 |
The Panel will normally comprise:
- Three members of academic staff including the Chair of the relevant Examination Board, or nominee, who will Chair the meeting. If the student is enrolled on a Joint Honours or Major/Minor combination programme, the membership should be chosen to involve representatives from both disciplinary areas concerned. This is especially important where the incident has been identified by staff in the School to which the student is not formally attached. Ideally at least one Panel member will be of the same gender as the student.
- If the academic integrity officer considers it likely that a penalty which would directly affect the student's continued registration or degree class may be applicable, the Panel should also include the Associate Dean [Education] or nominee.
- If the case may raise cultural or other sensitivities, the Chair may co-opt an appropriate additional member or otherwise seek advice as he/she sees fit.
|
| |
|
| NB: |
(i) |
The Panel must not include the member of staff identifying the suspected breach of integrity. |
| |
(ii) |
The academic integrity officer may not be a member of the Panel if they are nominated to present the case that a breach has taken place (see 4.3 below). |
| |
(iii) |
Where a student is following a programme offered jointly with another institution, an exchange programme or similar, reference should be made to the memorandum of agreement to confirm the regulations under which the student's case should be pursued and Panel members may need to vary accordingly. |
|
| |
|
A notetaker will be present but will not take part in the decision-making process. |
| |
Panel Procedures |
| |
Background |
| |
4.3 |
The School will identify a person (for example, the academic integrity officer) to present the case to the Panel. This should not be the person initially identifying the breach of academic integrity. This person may not be a member of the Panel. |
| |
4.4 |
The student must be advised in writing that a meeting is to be held and that he/she will be asked to offer an explanation to the Panel. The procedures to be followed within the meeting will be made clear to the student. The student should be given adequate notice of the meeting (normally at least 5 working days), and should be advised of the potential seriousness of the matter. The student will be invited to attend the meeting and may be accompanied by a member of the University if he/she wishes who may speak on their behalf. Students invited to attend such a meeting should be strongly encouraged to seek the advice of the Advice and Information Centre of the Students' Union. |
| |
4.5 |
All relevant documentation should be made available to all participants, including the student, in advance. It is the student's responsibility to provide copies to any person accompanying him/her. |
| |
4.6 |
Failure of the student to attend a Panel meeting will not prevent the meeting from proceeding nor invalidate the outcome. However, where the student indicates in advance that, for good reason, he/she is unable to attend on the date specified, reasonable efforts should be made to accommodate the student. |
| |
4.7 |
The function of the Panel is to investigate the circumstances of the case, the student's understanding of academic integrity and what is required for good academic practice, and any mitigating circumstances. The approach should not be adversarial. Having investigated these matters, where it is established that a breach of academic integrity has taken place, the Panel will have the remit to determine the penalty to be applied from a range of penalties of differing severity, depending on the extent and nature of the breach. |
| |
4.8 |
The Panel should conduct its business in an open manner with normally both the School representative and the student (where attending) present for the full meeting until the Panel asks all non-members (other than the notetaker) to withdraw so that it can consider its decision. However, should the student wish to address the Panel privately, for example to reveal information they consider to be sensitive, they should be given the opportunity to do so. In such circumstances, the notetaker will remain present but discretion should be used in recording the details of information presented by the student. |
| |
Conducting the Meeting |
| |
4.9 |
The person presenting the case will outline to the Panel the facts of the case which should include:
- the reasons for suspecting a breach and its extent or seriousness;
-
the information given to students about the Academic Integrity Statement and how this is reinforced by additional guidance appropriate for the level and discipline (including coverage of cultural issues);
-
whether a declaration statement has been signed;
-
whether the student has previously been warned about poor academic practice or unprofessional academic behaviour.
|
| |
|
The student will be invited to respond. The Panel may question both the student and the reporting person as necessary. All non-members of the Panel (excluding the notetaker) will then withdraw and the Panel will consider in private the facts of the case as presented. |
| |
4.10 |
The penalties available to the Panel are as follows. In determining the most appropriate penalty the Panel should take account of the guidance in Appendix 1. |
| |
|
| • |
Provide feedback, issue a warning to be retained on the student's file and award a mark appropriate to the work submitted, taking account of the fact that not all of the work is that of the student. |
| • |
Require the student to re-submit the same piece of work for a capped mark (should the student fail to re-submit the work a mark of 0 will be awarded). |
| • |
Award no marks for the piece of work. |
| • |
Award a fail grade for the module/unit concerned with or without the right of resit. |
| • |
Failure in the year as a whole. |
| • |
Reduction in degree class. |
| • |
Termination of programme. |
| • |
Deprivation of award (which must have the authority of Senate). |
|
| |
4.11 |
In determining the penalty to be applied, the Panel should in all cases take account of possible consequential effects such as a reduction in marks on one assignment leading to failure in the module or the year as a whole. |
| |
4.12 |
Should the Panel determine that no breach of academic integrity has taken place, the School will be asked to arrange for the work to be marked according to the usual marking criteria. |
| |
4.13 |
The student and the School representative will be informed in writing of the Panel's decision, including the imposition of any penalties, within 5 working days of the Panel meeting. A copy of the letter will also be sent to the School Office. If the conclusion is that no breach of academic integrity has taken place, no records will be retained. The notetaker will take responsibility for ensuring that records are destroyed accordingly. |
| |
4.14 |
The decision of the Panel to impose a penalty will be reported to, and recorded by, the relevant Examination Board. |
| |
4.15 |
A student may request a review of the decision of a Panel under the Regulations Governing Academic Appeals by Students if they have appropriate evidence as required within these regulations. This must be done through the School in which he/she is registered. |
| |
|
|
| 5. |
Monitoring |
| |
5.1 |
Numbers of cases under each of stages 1, 2 and 3 within the School and a brief outline of each case and the outcome should be recorded and reported annually to the Faculty. This will also help to provide 'case law' within each School. One aspect of this will be to consider whether any particular groups of students appear to be over-represented in breaches of academic integrity and penalties and different levels. |
| |
| APPENDIX 1 |
| Guidelines on Incidents and Penalties |
| Stage 1 : Minor Incidents |
| |
First recorded incident of:
Small amount of plagiarism which may be the result of poor academic practice
Collusion leading to limited similarity between submitted assessment items. |
| |
• |
Provide feedback and issue a warning to be retained on the student's file. Award a mark appropriate to the work submitted taking account of the fact that not all the work is that of the student. |
| Stage 2 : Intermediate Incidents |
| |
Any repeat incident
Moderate amount of plagiarism/extensive plagiarism with strong evidence eg: matched text
Collusion leading to significant similarities between submitted items
Copying
Recycling
Minor breaches of examination regulations, eg: inadvertent use of the wrong type of calculator |
| |
• |
Provide feedback and issue a warning to be retained on the student's file. Award a mark appropriate to the work submitted taking account of the fact that not all the work is that of the student. |
| |
• |
Require the student to re-submit the same piece of work for a capped mark (should the student refuse to re-submit the work a mark of 0 will be awarded). |
| |
• |
Award no marks for the piece of work. |
| |
• |
Award a fail grade for the module/unit concerned, with or without the right of resit. |
| Stage 3 : Major Incident |
| |
Extensive plagiarism
Serial plagiarism - any
Ghosting/use of essay bank services
Impersonation
Falsification
Deliberate breaches of examination regulations; eg: unauthorised use of notes in examination rooms |
| |
• |
Award a fail grade for the module/unit concerned with or without the right of resit |
| |
• |
Failure in the year as a whole |
| |
• |
Reduction in degree class |
| |
• |
Termination of programme |
| |
• |
Deprivation of award (which must have the authority of Senate) |
