University of the Arts LondonAcademic Misconduct Procedures and GuidanceIssue 42010/11
Guidance Note on Academic Misconduct Procedures
1Introduction
The new UAL procedures to deal with suspected cases of academic misconduct will apply from 2009/10. These notes have been drawn up to assist in some of the more complex decision-making processes involved in an investigation. They also set out accepted best practice in pursuing an allegation, including the University’s legal obligations regarding evidence, proof, the rights of students and the rules of natural justice.
Further sources of advice can be found on the Academic Misconduct webpage. In addition to the University Regulations, the Introduction to Study in Higher Education webpage (tbc)is available for course teams to access advice and guidance on topics such as investigating misconduct, gathering evidence and talking to the student, designing plagiarism out of assessments and encouraging good academic writing skills.
The new procedures aim to encourage parity and fairness of treatment for all students within the University, as well as with other institutions across the sector. The following notes set out the key principles to consider in the investigation of misconduct.
2Identifying Academic Misconduct
2.1What is Academic Misconduct?
Academic Misconduct refers to any form of academic cheating or attempt to fraudulently benefit oneself over others. The most common form of misconduct is plagiarism, although current sector debates centre around the difference between plagiarism and cheating - many students can unintentionally plagiarise in their work because they have misunderstood the principles of academic writing, but they have not set out to deliberately deceive the marker. It is important to distinguish between a poorly-referenced essay and a case of deliberate cheating and to address the problem in an appropriate way.
Whilst text-based plagiarism is the most common form of academic misconduct, it is by no means the only example of cheating. Examples include visual plagiarism, such as downloading a diagram from the internet and passing it off as the student’s own and the theft of work or intellectual property rights. Contract Cheating is also becoming increasingly prevalent – students can pay for their essay to be written for them via a proliferation of internet sites. Because the work is bespoke and original, it is undetectable through plagiarism software such as Turnitin. Staff need to be aware of all types of potential misconduct when designing assessment schemes to deter cheating.
2.2Levels of Offence
There can be differing opinions amongst staff as to what constitutes a serious offence and what penalties are appropriate. A table of different types of misconduct has therefore been included to help staff identify procedures, giving examples of different offences and the range of penalties that would be appropriate in each scenario, following standard sector practice.
It is important to note that these are guidelines and that there will always be an element of academic judgement in determining the level of offence and appropriate penalty for each individual case. However the guidelines have been drawn up to help ensure that all students committing similar offences across the University are treated in a similar way, and to help avoid appeals on the grounds of material irregularity.
2.3Unintentional Misconduct
Informal resolution should always be considered for minor offences or cases that appear unintentional. The University encourages the use of learning and teaching support to help students understand what is and is not acceptable, rather than penalise students for minor or unintentional mistakes. Where the Course Director feels that this is the appropriate course of action, they should write to the student using the template provided, giving details of additional tuition available. It is also advisable to make arrangements with the Personal Tutor to monitor attendance at additional tutorials and help the student work through any difficulties.
2.4Disciplinary Offences
Some offences will be of such severity that they will need to be dealt with through the University's Disciplinary Procedures. This might include acts of gross misconduct, such as violence or vandalism, or other offences which need to be investigated by the Police. The policy for academic misconduct is in place to resolve offences which compromise the integrity of the University’s awards and not, generally, to deal with criminal actions. However it may be used in conjunction with the Disciplinary Code for Students, if the sanction affects the student’s award – for example the Disciplinary Hearing Panel may ask the Board of Examiners to revoke a student’s award or to fail the student without the opportunity to resubmit.
3Investigating Academic Misconduct
3.1Reporting Misconduct
If a tutor suspects academic misconduct, the first step is to report their suspicion to their Course Director (or equivalent member of staff). Tutors are advised not to discuss the matter with the student outside of the formal channels, to ensure that due process is followed. The Course Director has ultimate responsibility for the investigation, however tutors can be involved if it is appropriate. The Course Director should discuss the matter with the member of staff involved and gather together as much evidence in support of the allegation as possible (see 3.4 below).
3.2Marking the Work
Tutors have asked for clarification on whether suspected work should be marked. In order to be consistent across UAL, staff are advised that they do not have to fully mark suspected work until the academic misconduct procedures are complete. If the student is found guilty of misconduct, the work will receive 0%; if the student is found to be innocent, the work will need to be fully marked.
3.3Gathering Evidence
The University will be able to help and advise Colleges in identifying evidence – this might include asking for first drafts, notes and book lists, comparing the work to previous assignments or searching on Turnitin or Google. Evidence can take many forms. It is preferable to have concrete evidence, such as proof of the original source of the work – but this is not always possible, particularly with Contract Cheating. In this instance, the tutor should write down in detail why they have suspicions about the work. This could be that the standard of English seems too good, that there is obvious evidence of cut and paste, that the student has not directly answered the essay question – or whatever else has made the tutor suspicious.
Guidance on gathering evidence (and designing out plagiarism) can be foundon the Introduction to Study in Higher Education (ISHE) webpage.
3.4Discussion with the Student
It is also very important for the Course Director to meet with the student to give them the opportunity to discuss the matter. This discussion should not be seen as a viva as we cannot require the student to undertake an additional form of assessment. The Course Director can ask the student about the work and about the allegation, but it is important to remember that this is not a formal hearing and such questions should be framed in an appropriate context as it is important to ensure parity and fairness of treatment for all students. The Academic Misconduct Panel will be able to question the student more thoroughly at the Hearing, if this is appropriate.
A written summary of the conversation should be drawn up and, wherever possible, signed by the student as a true record.
Guidance for staff and Course Directors on investigating misconduct and talking to the student, can be found on the Introduction to Study in Higher Education (ISHE) webpage.
3.5Fast-tracking Cases
The Course Director may find that the student admits to misconduct at this point in the process. The Course Director should pass all the evidence to the Chair of the Academic Misconduct Panel whocan exercise their discretion to make a recommendation directly to the Board of Examiners without the need for a full Hearing.
If, however, it is a more serious or complex case, the Chair will call a meeting of the Panel. This ensures that such cases are always considered by a group of experienced staff and not by one individual.
3.6Burden of Proof
There will be minor cases of academic misconduct which are best dealt with through learning and teaching support. In these cases evidence is less important - even if the misdemeanour is unintentional or slight, students will always benefit from additional help and advice on avoiding the same mistakes in the future.
For moderate and serious misconduct, the Academic Misconduct Panel will use all the evidence that they have available to them to make a considered judgement. On the balance of probabilities, the Panel will be asked whether they are satisfied or not satisfied that an offence has taken place. Staff must remember that it is the University’s responsibility to prove guilt, rather than for the student to prove their innocence. There must be reasonable justification for the Panel’s decision, particularly if the outcome could affect the student’s ability to graduate or progress.
4Academic Misconduct Panels
4.1Panel Membership
The responsibility for more serious offences lies with an impartial, experienced panel of staff. The Academic Misconduct Panel will conduct all academic misconduct hearings within the College, with the aim of building up a body of knowledge and experience amongst its members and with a view to maintaining parity of treatment of students within the College, and across the University.
The Chair of the Panel will be chosen from the University-approved list of Exam Board Chairs. A Deputy Chair should also be identified for circumstances which prevent the Chair from attending, either due to other commitments, or due to issues of impartiality. The Chair will be joined by a Students’ Union Sabbatical Officer, three senior members of academic staff (at least two must be present at each meeting) and a Clerk who will usually be a Senior Administrator. Panel members must be impartial and are required to stand down for the discussion of cases where their impartiality may be compromised – for example, if the student is on their course.
4.2Academic Misconduct Hearings
The Panel will agree an agenda in advance. This may include questions about the content of the work and the nature of the offence, but should not take the form of a viva or additional assessment requirement. The student and all members of the panel will be sent copies of the Course Director’s report, any supporting evidence available, the membership of the Panel and the Academic Misconduct Procedures in advance of the hearing.
The student has a right to attend the hearing and present their case. Students should therefore be given at least 1 week’s notice of the hearing. If they are not able to attend on the suggested date, the hearing should be re-scheduled for a time convenient to the student. However, if the student then fails to attend on the agreed date and time, the Panel may choose to conduct the hearing in the student’s absence. Similarly, if the student fails to respond to all reasonable attempts to contact them during the investigation, the Panel may agree to conduct the hearing without the student present. The College is not obliged to make more than two attempts to arrange for the student to attend the panel hearing.
The student will be invited to present their case to the Panel – they may choose to do this in writing or in person. They should also be invited to bring along any supporting evidence that they may want the panel to consider. The student may also invite a supporting ‘friend’ to the Hearing. This may be a Students’ Union Caseworker. The friend will have no direct right of representation but can offer advice and support to the student.
4.3Academic Misconduct Panel Decision
In order to maintain parity for students across the University, the Panel will only consider the allegation of misconduct and will not take other factors into account - such as the number of attempts that the student has had or whether there are any material Extenuating Circumstances. The Panel will decide whether they are satisfied or not satisfied that misconduct has taken place.
If the Panel is not satisfied, the student will be informed in writing and the allegation will not be considered as part of the Exam Board’s deliberations. If the Panel is satisfied that misconduct has taken place, they will make a recommendation to the Board of Examiners on the severity of the offence and an appropriate penalty. The student will be informed of the Panel’s recommendation in writing.
5Board of Examiners’ Decisions
5.1Board of Examiners
The Exam Board will ultimately determine whether a penalty is imposed. The Academic Misconduct Panel will recommend one of the standard penalties appropriate to the level of the offence e.g. a moderate offence will usually incur a fail for that unit with the opportunity to resubmit the assignment. The standard penalties have been agreed to ensure parity of treatment for students across the University.
However, in reaching their decision, the Exam Board will also need to take into account a range of other factors, in addition to the Panel’s recommendation – for example they may need to take account of validated EC’s, or the number of attempts that the student has already had. The Exam Board will normally adjust the recommended penalty, so that it is in keeping with the standard course regulations. For example, if the student has already been given one opportunity to resubmit, the Board may ask them to repeat the unit for moderate misconduct, instead of resubmitting. This ensures that the student is not given any unfair advantage over the rest of the cohort.
5.2Appeals by students against the verdict or conduct of a hearing
As with any assessment appeal, the student may only appeal on the grounds of material irregularity in the assessment or academic misconduct procedures, or on the grounds of extenuating circumstances which may have led the Board of Examiners to make a different decision. Appeals against academic judgements, including the decision of the Academic Misconduct Panel, will not be heard by the Appeals Committee.
6Support for Students
6.1Communicating with Students
Students must be kept fully informed throughout the different stages of the process. Students should be made aware of any allegation that has been made against them; of their rights in the course of the investigation or hearing and of the possible outcomes. All students should be given the opportunity to discuss the allegation with their tutor or Course Director before the case can be referred to the Academic Misconduct Panel. Template letters (see Academic Misconduct webpage) have also been drawn up for staff to send to students at each stage, helping to ensure that all Colleges are giving the same information to students.
6.2Sources of Support for Students
Students should be encouraged to contact the Students’ Union Caseworkers for advice and support throughout the process. The SU can explain the process to the student, including the possible outcomes. The SU Caseworkers are also available to attend the Hearing with the student as their nominated ‘friend’ – whilst they cannot directly speak for the student, they can offer valuable support and advice. The Caseworkers can be contacted on extension 6270 or by fax on extension 6284.
6.3Students with Disabilities
Students suspected of misconduct may have disability and access requirements that need to be taken into account. This might include making special arrangements (such as a signer) to attend the Hearing or the Discussion with the Course Director. Colleges must ensure that they check the disability status of all students suspected of misconduct at the start of the process (this is flagged on the top of the Academic Misconduct Report Form).
Tutors should also be aware that some disabled students may need extra support and tuition in referencing and citation, and avoiding plagiarism.
7Parity and Consistency
7.1Record Keeping
Only a decision taken by the Board of Examiners will be visible on the student’s official record. Course Directors must keep a separate Academic Misconduct File with a full and accurate record of any allegation of misconduct. The Clerk of the Academic Misconduct Panel will also keep comprehensive records of all Academic Misconduct cases, including where no misconduct is found, so that there is documentary evidence of all decisions and communications. These records will not be included on the student’s official QL record or transcript, but may be called upon as evidence should there be an investigation into a complaint or appeal at a later date.
7.2Timeframe for Resolving Cases
The University should aim to deal with any suspected case of academic misconduct in a timely manner. These notes include a time line illustrating the deadlines by which elements of the procedures should ideally be completed, in order to avoid protracted disputes. If a case arises immediately before an Exam Board, the Board may formally delegate authority to the next meeting of the Board (or a sub-group) to allow a proper investigation to be completed.