Student Contention Regulations Guidance 2014/15

Academic Offences

Contents

Principles1

The Allegation1

Summary Procedure1

Full Investigatory Procedure2

Investigatory Interview3

Academic Offences Committee4

Scope4

Consideration of Cases4

Allegations of Plagiarism5

Post- Academic Offences Committee5

Allegations Found Proven5

Allegations Found not Proven5

Flow Charts6

Evidence Checklist9

Invitation to attend investigatory interview letter template11

Record keeping guidance13

Academic Offences13

Academic Review and Appeal14

Student Complaints14

Student Disciplinary Cases14

Academic Offences – Guidelines for Schools

Principles

1. The process should be transparent and fair, and allegations dealt with in a timely manner.

2.No member of staff shall be involved in more than one stage of the procedure.

3.The student shall be informed of the allegation as soon as possible and invited to attend an investigatory interview to allow them a full and fair opportunity to present a defence or explanation.

The Allegation

An allegation of the commission of an academic offence may be brought to the attention of the Head of School (or equivalent) by a member of staff either through a suspicion that arises in the course of marking assessed work or from an exam invigilator if the student is suspected of cheating.
The staff member should submit a written report detailing the grounds for their suspicion.
It is important to establish whether the student has previously committed an academic offence. Accordingly, as soon as a suspicion is referred to the Head of School, the Head should consult School records and theOfficer to the Academic Offences Committeeto enquire about any previous offence(s).
The Head of School is not obliged to take action in respect of an allegation. Where the Head believes that the matter is not sufficiently serious to warrant formal investigation or that it is unlikely that sufficient evidence could be found to uphold the allegation, he or she may decide not to invoke the procedure.
The decision as to whether the student has committed an academic offence is one for the Academic Offences Committee, not for the marker(s), the Head of School or those involved in the investigatory interview.
Communications, including emails, must avoid giving the impression that the matter has already been adjudged and a guilty finding arrived at. In the event of an appeal, or an external complaint to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, all communications are potentially disclosable.
If the allegation relates to a piece of written work, the work must be given a ‘merit mark’ which takes no account of the suspicion of plagiarism, cheating etc., butwhich considers normal academic criteria, including the quality and quantity of original work. The omission of acknowledgement of the work of others should not be penalised, but where the marker is able positively to identify unoriginal material, the balance of original and unoriginal content should generate an appropriate mark for the piece of work submitted by the student.

Summary Procedure

Students at Levels One and Two of undergraduate programmes (including Higher National and Foundation degrees) may be dealt with by the Summary Procedure if they have not previously committed an academic offence and the suspected offence(s) does not relate to misconduct in examinations (in which case the allegation must be dealt with under the Full Investigatory Procedure).
The member of staff who suspects the commission of an academic offence must immediately inform the Head of School and provide him or her with grounds for their suspicion together with any documentary evidence in support of his or her suspicion.
The Head of Schoolshould confirm that no previous offence has been recorded. The Head should also contact the Officer to the Academic Offences Committee to determine whether an allegation against the student has previously been considered by the Academic Offences Committee.
If the Head believes there is merit in undertaking further investigation he or she must write to the studentinforming him or her of the allegation. The letter should set out the following:
A clear and detailed account of the allegation and evidence as far as reasonably practicable. If it is impractical to send the student copies of the evidence, the student should be informed that he or she may have access to the evidence, under supervision and by arrangement.
The right to have the issue dealt with either under the summary or the full investigatory procedure and invite him or her to attend a summary interview.
Inform the student that, if they choose not to attend the interview, the matter will be dealt with under the full investigatory procedure.
The right to be accompanied by a friend as defined by the University General Regulations.
If the student intends to invoke extenuating circumstances as an explanation for the alleged offence, they must submit a claim of extenuating circumstances to the Extenuating Circumstances Panel as soon as possible.
The interview should be carried out by the Head of School providing that he or she has demonstrably had no involvement with the setting or marking of the work in question, or with the raising of the suspicion. The Head will not play any part in subsequent stages of the process.
If the student provides a satisfactory explanation for the allegation, the Head of School should dismiss the case.
If the student admits the allegation, the Head of School may dispose of the matter by imposing a maximum penalty of awarding a fail mark of zero per cent for the submitted work and requiring the work to be resubmitted by a specified deadline, which will be treated as a resit opportunity. The lesser penalties set out at section A2.3(a) and (b) of the University General Regulations may be imposed in appropriate circumstances.
If the student neither admits the allegation nor offers a satisfactory explanation, the Head of School must advise the student that the matter will be dealt with under the Full Investigatory Procedure.

Full Investigatory Procedure

Following the notification of an allegation, the Head of School(or nominee) shall arrange for the student to be interviewed by an appropriate member of staff.
The interview should be arranged to take place as quickly as possible following notification of the allegation.
The interview should be carried out by one member of staff who demonstrably has no involvement with the setting or marking of the work in question or with the raising of the suspicion; and who will not play any part in subsequent stages of the procedure. The only other member of staff present will be the note-taker, who should speak only if factual clarification of something is required for the record.
In the unusual event of the Head of School carrying out the interview, he or she must be disqualified from any further involvement, and so cannot take the decision as to whether there is a prima facie case to refer to the Academic Offences Committee.
The student should be invited in writing to attend the interview. Reasonable notice should be given. The letter should advise the student of the right to be accompanied by a friend as defined in the University General Regulations; and also that if the student does not attend the interview, the Head of School will decide on the available evidence whether there is a prima facie case for referral to the Academic Offences Committee.
In accordance with recent best practice in the Higher Education sector, the letter should also set out the precise allegation and enclose the evidence which will be discussed at the interview. Students have no right under the University Regulations to appear or to be represented at the Academic Offences Committee, so the interview is the main opportunity for the student to challenge the evidence and offer a defence or explanation. Fairness requires that the student be permitted to see the evidence against them in advance of the interview, and to decide whether to attempt to contest it.

Investigatory Interview

Other than the interviewer, the only other member of staff present at the interview is the note-taker, who should speak only if factual clarification of something is required for the record. If a third member of staff is present, for an exceptional reason, the student’s consent should be sought and recorded, with an explanation included in the minutes of the interview. AOC can and does dismiss cases where more than two members of staff are present at the interview (unless the student has arranged to be accompanied by a staff member).
Where the student is not accompanied, the interviewer should confirm that the student is aware of the right to be accompanied and has chosen not to exercise that right. This should be recorded in the minutes of the interview.
The burden of proof of an allegation is on the School referring it. The interviewer should ask, in clear terms, questions such as whether the student agrees that highlighted passages from his/her work and the alleged source material are identical, or very similar to each other; whether the student admits to copying some or all of the highlighted passages; why there is no reference or citation or other acknowledgement that the passages in question were not the student’s original work; and how the person marking the assignment would know that these passages were taken from another person’s work. An admission by the student at interview is obviously valuable evidence for the AOC. It goes without saying that the questions should not be put to the student in an intimidating way.
The interviewer should be ready to explore and if appropriate to challenge statements made by the student in defence or explanation of the allegation(s). Where a defence or explanation is simply recorded in the minutes, the Academic Offences Committee may have little option but to accept it(example: “I had a child sick at the time, and asked for an extension but received no response from my tutor.” “We had to put our work through Turnitin prior to formal submission. My Turnitin report showed a match of X% against other sources; I did not know what to do so phoned my tutor who told me to hand my assignment in anyway.”). If it becomes apparent that further information is needed on an essential point, in particular one which is put forward as a defence, the interview can be adjourned.
Where an unaccompanied student at an interview is showing clear signs of not understanding key points about the allegation and/or process, for example because of language difficulties, the interviewer should carefully consider whether to adjourn the interview and strongly recommend to the student that s/he seek support from the Students’ Union or other appropriate source. AOC will wish to be confident that the student has had a full opportunity to offer a defence.
At the close of the interview, the student should be told that he or she will receive a copy of the notes[1],which will also be sent to the Head of School(or nominee) who will decide whether there is a prima facie case. If the Head of School decides this affirmatively, the student will be notified in writing. The student will also be advised of their right to submit any further defence or explanation to the Chair of the Academic Offences Committee. The letter should also explain that the Committee will determine whether the allegation is proved, in which event it will recommend a penalty to the student’s College Board of Examiners.

Academic Offences Committee

Scope

The Academic Offences Committee does not investigate allegations referred to it; it simply determines, on the basis of the evidence submitted by the Schooland the student whether, on the balance of probabilities, the student has committed an academic offence. Where an allegation is found proven by the Committee, it recommends a penalty from Part A2.3 of the University General Regulations.

Consideration of Cases

It is essential that the Academic Offences Committee can clearly understand the allegation and judge the strength of the evidence; and also be confident that the processes have been followed, ensuring fairness to the student. The documents and information sent to the Committee should include:

the name, level, award and enrolment number of the student;

an unambiguous referral of the case to the Academic Offences Committee by the Head of School (or nominee), stating that he or she has found a prima facie case;

any correspondence/report from the staff member alleging the academic offence; and any correspondence between the School and the student about the allegation, the interview and the process;

the minutes of the interview (together with, where available, confirmation by the student that they are an accurate record);

the assessment brief/assignment criteria, making it clear what was expected and what particular instructions had been given about, for example, collaboration with other students; citation of references in presentations and the handing-in of presentation material;

the mark sheet, demonstrating that a merit mark had been given;

the student’s work and the related evidence of an academic offence having been committed. In alleged cases of plagiarism, the alleged source material must be clearly cross-referenced to the work submitted by the student, so that the Academic Offences Committee can make immediate comparisons.

Turnitin reports, but please note the guidance below regarding allegations of plagiarism; the implications of the identified matched text should be made clear by evidencing the alleged lack of citation/referencing.

An evidence checklist proforma has been developed by Secretariat for use by Schools. Completed forms should be appended to all allegation material forwarded to the Officer to the Academic Offences Committee.

Allegations of Plagiarism

Before an allegation of plagiarism is submitted to the Academic Offences Committee, the Head of Schoolshould be satisfied that the evidence is sufficiently clear to enable the Committee to make a determination.
The piece of work must be given a ‘merit mark’ (see The Allegation, page 1).
The suspected original source(s) must be identified. Unexplained changes in the standard of English or clarity of thought or expression etc. within a student’s work are not in themselves sufficient evidence of an offence.
Where a Turnitin report has been produced, it is very persuasive if the AOC can see, as evidence, the main sources identified by it, marked up in the usual way to cross-refer to the student’s work.
The standard penalty for an academic offence at Level 3 is failure of the whole unit at zero, with no reassessment opportunity. The consequence of that would usually be that an undergraduate student could not obtain an honours degree. It will be appreciated that AOC members, in finding a student guilty, will wish to see clear evidence of the offence.

Post-Academic Offences Committee

Allegations Found Proven

The Officer of the Academic Offences Committee will inform the Head of School of the Committee’s determination and any recommendations about the penalty for consideration/ratification by the appropriate Board of Examiners. It is expected that Boards of Examiners will only amend an AOC recommendation in exceptional circumstances.
The Chair of the Academic Offences Committee will inform the student in writing that the allegation has been found proven, and that a penalty has been recommended to the Board of Examiners. The letter will not state what penalty has been recommended.
The Academic Offences Committee does not consider whether a student’s culpability for an offence may be mitigated by claiming extenuating circumstances. This responsibility lies with the Board of Examiners when considering the Committee’s recommendations. In informing the Head of School of the outcome, the Officer will highlight cases where the student has referred to adverse circumstances.

Allegations Found Not Proven

The Officer will inform the Academic Officer and the relevant Head of School of the Committee’s determination.
The Chair of the Academic Offences Committee will inform the student in writing of the outcome of the meeting; a copy of the letter will be forwarded to the Head of School.
All references to the allegation must be removed from the student’s records.

AOC
Academic Offences Committee: Evidence Checklist / Secretariat & Legal Services
Please word-process this form /
This form should be completed as fully as possible when it has been decided at School level that a prima facie case exists for an allegation of an academic offence against a student. All documentary evidence should be collated and forwarded to the Officer to the Academic Offences Committee, Secretariat, Main Administrative Building, Brayford Pool. The evidence should be prefaced with this completed form.
1Name of Student
2Enrolment Number
3College and School
4Programme Details: / Programme title: / Module title: / Module Code:
Level of Study: / Assessment type:
5Allegation (e.g. plagiarism, collusion, cheating etc)
6
76 Piece of work subject to the allegation: unit code, title and format (e.g. coursework, exam script, thesis)
8

Please confirm whether the following information is included in the evidence put forward to the Academic Offences Committee. If it is not, please explain its omission.

Evidence of correspondence

7Referral to AOC by Head of School confirming prima facie case
8Any correspondence/report from the staff member(s) making the allegation
9Minutes of the investigatory interview, where possible confirmed by the student as accurate record
10 Correspondence between the School and student regarding the allegation and interview arrangements

Evidence Relating to Student’s Work

11 The piece(s) of work subject to the allegation
12 If plagiarism is alleged, the alleged
source material(s)
13 The marksheet. This must demonstrate a merit mark and identify the first and second markers.
14 Assessment brief/assignment criteria for the piece of work

For allegations of plagiarism, the student’s work and alleged source material must be clearly marked up to enable the Academic Offences Committee to make immediate comparisons. It is the School’s responsibility to ensure that this is done. Please note that highlighter pen is inadequate for this task as it does not photocopy properly.