|
|
|
|
|
|
C/9.3 Procedures for academic dishonesty |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9.3.1 What is academic dishonesty?
Assessment at QUT is designed to promote and safeguard academic standards and academic integrity. Instances of academic dishonesty undermine fairness in assessment, and consequently, are not tolerated by the University. The following procedures balance the educative focus of assessment with the need to ensure that students do not gain an unfair advantage in undertaking assessment tasks. These procedures are underpinned by principles of procedural fairness. Academic dishonesty is a breach of QUT's Student Rules relating to assessment, and penalties may be imposed under these procedures in accordance with Student Rule 29 .9.3.1 What is academic dishonesty?One purpose of assessment is to give students due credit for work undertaken and submitted by them, in providing a record of achievement or certification of competency. Students are expected to exhibit honesty and ethical behaviour in undertaking assessment requirements. Any action or practice on the part of a student which would defeat the purposes of assessment is regarded as academic dishonesty, and may be dealt with in accordance with these procedures. Cheating in examinations and plagiarism are two commonly recognised forms of academic dishonesty. Cheating in examinations may include conduct such as bringing unauthorised material into an examination, bringing written notes into an examination whether on some object or paper or on the student's body, communicating with others during examinations (whether by speaking or other, possibly electronic, means) or reading the work of other examinees during the exam. Cheating also includes any attempt to do these things. Plagiarism is representing another person's ideas or work (including the ideas or work of another student) as one's own, by copying or reproducing without appropriate acknowledgment of the source. Plagiarism may take the form of direct copying without acknowledgment, summarising without acknowledgment, or developing an idea or thesis from another's work without acknowledging the source. Acknowledgment should take the form usually used in the discipline. Plagiarism includes paraphrasing another's work, with minor changes but with the essential meaning, form and/or progression of ideas maintained, piecing together sections of the work of others into a new whole, or copying non-word based materials such as musical scores, audiovisual material, art or industrial plans of others. Plagiarism may also extend to using experimental results obtained by another person and representing these as the student's own work. However, there are other actions or practices which undermine fairness in assessment and which constitute academic dishonesty. These might include giving one's own work to another for copying, recycling an item of assessment from one unit or course and using it in another, fabricating or falsifying data, experimental results or sources of information, collaborating with another student about assessable work and representing that as individual work when this has not been contemplated by unit outlines or assessment requirements. It is also recognised that there is an increasing variety of web-based tools which provide assignment completion and assistance techniques, the use of which may defeat the purposes of the assessment item and so be regarded as academic dishonesty. Where discipline-specific conventions or expectations affect what may be regarded as academic dishonesty, the faculty or school concerned has a responsibility to ensure that students understand those expectations or conventions. These procedures are not intended to discourage group work, which may result in submission of a single item of assessment or a number of associated assessment items. It is a responsibility of unit coordinators, in setting group work for assessment, to ensure that clear guidance is provided as to the level of collaboration and legitimate cooperation between students that is permitted or expected in undertaking the joint assessment task. 9.3.2 ApplicationThese procedures apply to students undertaking undergraduate or postgraduate coursework studies. Faculties are responsible for ensuring students are made aware of these procedures. Where allegations of academic dishonesty arise in relation to postgraduate students undertaking a higher degree by research, the matter will be dealt with under the University's Code of Conduct for Research (see section D/2.6 ). For the purposes of these procedures - " executive dean of faculty " includes the Director, QUT International College ; " head of School " includes a head of discipline in the Creative Industries Faculty and may include the Director of Studies in QUT International College ; service units will be dealt with within the faculty designated as the " owner " of the unit for administrative purposes; a reference to a number of days in which some action must be taken is calculated by excluding the day upon which the trigger event for the taking of the action occurs, but the action must be taken by the final day of the specified period. Where the reference is to a number of working days, weekends and public or University holidays are excluded in calculating the period; for QUT International College, a committee convened under these procedures should reflect as closely as possible the composition outlined in section C/9.3.4 . 9.3.3 Procedures for dealing with minor cases of academic dishonestyThis section outlines mechanisms for managing minor instances of academic dishonesty. In these cases, mechanisms for resolution should be relatively speedy and informal, and the focus should be educative, raising an infringing student's awareness of academic values and of conventions for referencing and other scholarly activity such as experimentation or data collection. In general, the University recognises that minor academic dishonesty could be:
The following considerations can be used to assist in assessing whether the academic dishonesty is minor or major:
Where minor academic dishonesty is detected, the primary responsibility for management lies with the unit coordinator. A marker or other member of the teaching team who detects academic dishonesty should refer it to the unit coordinator immediately. The unit coordinator, upon becoming aware that an instance of academic dishonesty has been alleged, will:
to determine whether the student has a case to answer (ie whether the incident appears to have been an attempt to defeat the purposes of that assessment item). The unit coordinator must inform the student of the infringement by the time that marks in the assessment item are released and the student must be given the opportunity to answer the charge. The unit coordinator should counsel the student regarding the parts of the assessment item causing concern and refer the student to appropriate instructional resources. A reduction of marks reflecting the degree to which the student has failed to meet the required academic standard may also be imposed, at the discretion of the unit coordinator under the unit coordinator's general responsibility for allocating marks in the unit. As an alternative to reducing marks, the unit coordinator may require a student to undertake a further or alternative item of assessment, for example, an equivalent piece of work on another topic. This allows the student to demonstrate that they can produce work that meets an appropriate standard of academic integrity. No other penalties may be imposed in these minor cases. Proven instances of minor academic dishonesty and the penalties imposed should be recorded in an appropriately secure file system held in the faculty. In determining the penalty of educative process to be applied, the unit coordinator should, in consultation with the head of school or course coordinator, take into account any previous proven cases of academic dishonesty involving the student. In more difficult cases, the unit coordinator may consult with the course coordinator or head of school to determine whether the more formal procedures in section C/9.3.4 are justified. The student must be advised of a right of appeal under the standard procedures for review of grades and academic rulings (see E/9.1 ). 9.3.4 Procedures for dealing with major cases of academic dishonestyCases of academic dishonesty which do not fall into either of the categories described in sections C/9.3.3 and C/9.3.5 should be dealt with in accordance with the following procedures. These procedures recognise that the faculty in which an incident occurs is generally best placed to form judgments on the seriousness of an instance of academic dishonesty, in the light of the practices of the academic discipline. For the purposes of this section, academic dishonesty may be cheating in school-based examinations, significant plagiarism, or other matters such as fabricating data, collusion, or serious and inappropriate collaboration with other students. a) Composition of faculty committee To deal with these cases of academic dishonesty, a faculty committee should be formed. The committee should be comprised of a nominee of the executive dean who is a senior and experienced member of the academic staff of the faculty to act as Chair of the committee, one academic staff member nominated by the faculty academic board, and one student representative nominated by the faculty academic board. The quorum of the committee is three. A non-voting secretary will be appointed by the executive dean of faculty. A faculty may elect to have undergraduate and postgraduate committees if significant numbers of cases are dealt with each year. b) Detection Suspected acts or instances of academic dishonesty warranting the taking of action under these procedures will generally be detected by teaching or tutoring staff undertaking marking or other duties associated with a unit (eg supervising a school-based examination or a laboratory practicum). Where academic dishonesty is suspected by a member of staff other than the unit coordinator, it should be referred to the unit coordinator for action as soon as possible after detection (and in any event, within 5 working days). The unit coordinator, upon becoming aware that an instance of academic dishonesty has been alleged, may:
to determine whether the student has a case to answer (ie whether the incident appears to have been an attempt to defeat the purposes of that assessment item). Naturally, part of this process will include a consideration of whether the procedures for minor academic dishonesty in section C/9.3.3 above should instead be used. Upon determining that the student has a case to answer, the unit coordinator will refer the matter in writing, through the head of school, to the Chair of the faculty committee within 5 working days. c) Process for the faculty committee The Chair of the faculty committee will, within 10 working days, formally notify the student in writing of the allegation of academic dishonesty in a " show cause " notice. The " show cause " notice must:
The student may elect to both attend the interview and provide a written response. The student may obtain a copy of any report from the unit coordinator, upon making request to the Chair. A student who attends an interview may be accompanied by another person (the Student Guild is generally able to provide this support to students upon request). This person must not be legally qualified and has no rights of advocacy on behalf of the student. The time set for the interview and for a written response must be no less than 10 working days, and no more than 15 working days, from the date of the notice. In exceptional circumstances only, the Chair may consider a request from the student for an extension of time to provide a written response or attend an interview. Following receipt of any further information from the student, the faculty committee will consider all the evidence and determine whether the allegation has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the faculty committee (by simple majority). If the student does not provide any written response to the " show cause " notice or attend an interview, the faculty committee may determine whether the allegation has been proved, again to the faculty committee's reasonable satisfaction, without further recourse to the student. The faculty committee's determination should be made within 5 working days of the date set down for the interview of the student. d) Imposition of penalty Where the faculty committee makes a finding that the allegation has been proved, the committee must provide a report to the executive dean of faculty. The report will include the justification for the findings of the faculty committee, a record of interview and/or the student's written response. The executive dean of faculty decides the penalty to be applied having regard to penalties applied in similar cases previously, the seriousness of the breach of academic standards having regard to the circumstances, and any previous proven acts of academic dishonesty on the part of the student. The executive dean of faculty may obtain details of penalties previously applied in similar cases, and of recidivist behaviour, from the Examinations Officer, Student Business Services Department, who is responsible for maintaining a database of instances of academic dishonesty. However, where the faculty committee regards the incident as particularly serious or flagrant, or if the executive dean of faculty considers that a penalty such as exclusion or awarding of failing grades in other units should be applied, then the executive dean of faculty must refer the matter to the Registrar for the imposition of a penalty. The executive dean of faculty or Registrar, as the case may be, will formally advise the student in writing of the findings of the faculty committee, and of the penalty to be imposed. This advice should be forwarded to the student no later than 15 working days after the date set down for the interview. Action arising from the imposition of a penalty (eg recording a unit failure grade) should be referred to the Student Business Services Department or officers of the faculty or school (including the unit coordinator) as appropriate. Details of the proven case should be provided to the Examinations Officer, Student Business Services Department, for information (see section C/9.3.8 ). 9.3.5 Procedures for dealing with cheating in central examinationsIn central examinations, it is generally an invigilator who will detect cheating or an attempt to cheat. The student may be permitted to complete the examination, provided that further infringing conduct can be prevented or the unauthorised material is removed. The invigilator must provide a written report of the incident to the Examinations Officer, Student Business Services Department, immediately after the examination. Any unauthorised material which is confiscated (including objects such as calculators, writing implements or dictionaries) should accompany the invigilator's report. Upon receipt of this report, the Examinations Officer, Student Business Services Department, may, as appropriate:
Based on the information supplied to the Examinations Officer, Student Business Services Department, the Examinations Officer will consider whether the student has a case to answer (ie whether the incident appears to have been an attempt to defeat the purposes of that assessment item). If so, the Examinations Officer must forward reports and any other relevant information to the Registrar as soon as possible. The Registrar will, within 5 working days of the date of the examination, formally notify the student in writing of the allegation of cheating in a " show cause " notice. The " show cause " notice must:
The date set for the written response must be 10 working days from the date of the notice. This response must also advise if an interview is sought. In exceptional circumstances only, the Registrar may consider a request from the student for an extension of time to provide a written response. The student may obtain a copy of any reports from the Examinations Officer, Student Business Services Department, and/or invigilator, upon making request to the Registrar. A student who elects to attend an interview may be accompanied by another person (the Student Guild is generally able to provide this support to students upon request). This person must not be legally qualified and has no rights of advocacy on behalf of the student. The interview will be held as soon as possible after the student provides the written response. Following receipt of any further information from the student (both in the written response and in any interview attended by the student), the Registrar will consider all the evidence and determine whether the allegation has been proven. If the student does not provide any written response to the " show cause " notice, the Registrar may consider the allegations without further recourse to the student. The Registrar must be reasonably satisfied that there is sufficient evidence that the student has cheated. Upon making such a finding, the Registrar will consider an appropriate penalty, having regard to penalties applied in similar cases previously, the seriousness of the breach of academic standards having regard to the circumstances, and any previous proven acts of academic dishonesty. The Registrar's decision must be sent to the student in writing within 5 working days of the date of receipt of the student's written response or the interview (where it occurs). Action arising from the imposition of a penalty (for example, recording a unit failure grade) should be referred to the Student Business Services Department and/or the faculty (including unit coordinator) as appropriate. The Examinations Officer, Student Business Services Department, maintains records of cheating cases (see section C/9.3.8 ). 9.3.6 PenaltiesThe penalty to be imposed when instances of academic dishonesty are proven in accordance with sections C/9.3.4 and C/9.3.5 above should reflect the seriousness of the breach of academic standards of fairness in assessment. Given that penalties can have significant impacts on a student's program of study, costs of study, and so on, they may only be imposed by the executive dean of faculty or the Registrar, as appropriate. In accordance with Student Rules 29(4) and 29(5), the following penalties may be applied:
Where the penalty includes awarding of a failing grade in a unit other than the unit in which the academic dishonesty was detected, this will be determined following consultation with the course coordinator. 9.3.7 AppealsA student upon whom a penalty has been imposed by the executive dean of faculty or the Registrar may appeal to the Appeals Committee of University Academic Board. The student must appeal within 10 working days of the date of the letter to the student advising of the findings and penalty imposed for academic dishonesty. Appeals Committee (see section E/1.1.2 ) may consider all relevant evidence and documentation relating to the detection of academic dishonesty, findings of fact and penalties imposed. Appeals Committee has the authority, in determining the appeal, to conclude that the finding of academic dishonesty was wrong, to impose a lesser penalty or to make a finding that there has been a material departure from procedures resulting in unfairness to the student and thus warranting the allegation being referred back to the Registrar or the Faculty Committee to deal with afresh. The Secretary to Appeals Committee will advise the student, and relevant officers of the University as appropriate, of the outcome of the appeal. 9.3.8 RecordsProven instances of minor academic dishonesty (see C/9.3.3 ) and the penalties imposed should be recorded in an appropriately secure file system held in the faculty. Immediately upon detection of a case of suspected academic dishonesty falling within sections C/9.3.4 or C/9.3.5 , the student's grade in the unit should be changed or recorded as a grade of A (Result unfinalised) , irrespective of the point in time in the teaching period. Any penalty resulting in unit failure or affecting a student's academic history must be notified to Student Business Services Department, to ensure that this is taken into account for student progression through the course. In relation to records arising from these procedures, it is important that the University is able to demonstrate that these procedures have been fairly applied. Accordingly, appropriate records must be kept of all stages of the process. Where instances of academic dishonesty are dealt with under section C/9.3.4 , the faculty office has responsibility for creating and retaining appropriate records, including the documentation of the Faculty Committee. Records must be kept in the faculty even where the Faculty Committee makes a finding that an allegation is not proven. The executive dean of faculty is responsible for providing relevant records to Appeals Committee on request. Where action is taken in the Registrar's Office under section C/9.3.5 , records will be retained by the Examinations Officer, Student Business Services Department. The Examinations Officer, Student Business Services Department, will be responsible for maintaining a database of cases of academic dishonesty proven under sections C/9.3.4 and C/9.3.5 , for the purposes of applying penalties consistently and for considering whether an incident represents recidivist behaviour on the part of a student. Details of previous cases of academic dishonesty on the part of a student dealt with under these procedures and of penalties applied in similar cases will be provided by the Examinations Officer, Student Business Services Department, to the executive dean of faculty, to the Registrar or to Appeals Committee on request. Information revealing the identity of other students will not be provided. 9.3.9 ReportingBiannual meetings of the chairs of the faculty committees established as per C/9.3.4 (or their nominees), chaired by the Registrar (or nominee), will be used for moderation of decisions and penalties, discussion of procedures and preparation of a report for presentation to University Academic Board. Related DocumentsImplementation guidelines for academic dishonesty procedures - under development E/6.5 Allocation and release of results E/9.1 Review of grades and academic rulings Modification History
|
