Title: Academic Misconduct Committee, Report for 2004-05
Date: March
2006
This report
includes details of all major cases, and all minor cases where an allegation
of misconduct was upheld, in the academic year 2004-05 (including SAP 2005).
1. Membership of Committee
The
Academic Misconduct Committee (AMC) during 2004-05 was composed as follows:
Dr Martin
Harrison (Chair)
Dr Dave
Berry
Dr Keith
Gregory
Jonathan
Roberts/Becky Dicks (LSU)
2.
Incidence and Type of Academic Misconduct (Appendix I)
In total
there were 154 cases of Academic Misconduct (AM), an increase of 26 on the
total for 2003-04. 100 of these cases were plagiarism-related (including
collusion and/or inappropriate collaboration with other students). The
remaining 54 related to offences which took place in examination halls.
There were
a similar number of cases of examination hall AM as in 2003-04 (53), but a
larger proportion of ‘technical’ offences (most commonly where candidates
were found with prohibited materials in their possession, which were of limited
or no relevance to the examination being sat, and where there was no evidence
of any real attempt to obtain an unfair advantage), and fewer cases where
candidates were found with substantial relevant crib-notes (i.e. where there
was a more apparent intent to cheat). It is possible that this reflects an
increasing awareness among candidates of the University’s robust procedures
for detecting examination hall AM, instituted at the beginning of the 2003-04
academic year.
As in 2003-04, the most common forms of examination hall AM were: crib notes concealed in a dictionary, pencil-case, sleeve or hand; notes written in a dictionary, or on a pencil or calculator-case; notes written on a hand; notes programmed into the memory of a calculator; and possession of an inappropriate calculator or other programmable device (electronic translator, mobile telephone etc).
2.2 Plagiarism and other forms of AM
There were
25 more incidents of plagiarism-related AM, as compared to 2003-04 (75). Cases
were dealt with as major or minor offences, depending on their perceived
seriousness, but in practice, most were dealt with as minor offences by the
relevant Head of Department (HoD). Most of these cases involved candidates
submitting as their own work, un-referenced material from published (internet,
textbook etc) or unpublished (other students’ work) sources.
3. Analysis of Penalties Imposed for Academic
Misconduct (Appendix II)
In 2004-05 (as in 2002-03, and 2003-04) the penalty most commonly imposed was the reduction of marks in the module in which AM was found. This penalty was imposed in 64.9% of cases (86% of minor offences, and 39.1% of major offences). Most of the remaining cases (31.2%) resulted in the issue of a formal reprimand. The large proportion (52.2%) of major offence cases that resulted in the imposition of a formal reprimand can be explained with reference to the ‘technical’ exam hall offences, referred to in section 2 above. Although these were dealt with as major offences, the lack of any evidence of any intent to cheat led the AMC to impose only a reprimand in most cases. The AMC imposed a smaller number of more severe penalties than in the previous year; only 8.6% of major offences resulted in the imposition of a penalty greater than the reduction of marks in the module in which AM was found, compared to 26.9% in 2003-04.
4. Analysis of Incidence of Academic Misconduct against
Total Population (Appendix III)
Appendix
III provides an analysis of the incidence of academic misconduct against the
total population (i.e. all students who were registered to be reassessed in at
least one module in 2004-05).
Given the
relatively small number of cases, care should be taken not to overstate minor
differences between the characteristics of those charged with AM, and those of
the total population for each year. It is also important to note that some of
the characteristics identified (particularly ethnicity, fee status, course
level and age on entry) are closely linked, given the make up of the student
population.
Data are
provided by department as well as aggregated for the University for
information, but given the very small number of students involved in each department,
it is again difficult to draw conclusions from these figures.
5. Appeals
In 2004-05, there were six appeals against penalties imposed for minor offences of plagiarism, and four against penalties imposed in relation to major offences of exam hall misconduct.
Of the appeals relating to minor offences, 1 was upheld in full, 2 upheld in part, and 3 were dismissed. Of the appeals relating to major offences, three were dismissed. In the remaining case the penalty imposed by the AMC had resulted in the appellant being ineligible to progress to the next part of his programme. The Appeal Committee ruled that the appellant had been guilty of academic misconduct, and that the penalty imposed by the AMC should stand. However, the Appeal Committee felt that the effective termination of the appellant’s studies was a disproportionately harsh penalty in all the circumstances, and it therefore sought and obtained a waiver of general regulations to allow the appellant to progress to the next part of his programme, notwithstanding the fact that he had not met the appropriate progression requirements. (see 6.3 below for more discussion on penalties).
6. Issues Arising from Cases Considered in 2004-05
6.1 Calculators
A large
number of cases of examination hall misconduct involved candidates being found
with notes written on the inside of their calculator case. The Committee noted
that if the University supplied calculators for exams, the opportunity to
attempt to obtain an unfair advantage in this way would be removed.
6.2 Advice
to students on referencing and plagiarism
In cases
involving an allegation of plagiarism, it was not always clear to the Committee
that the student accused of misconduct fully understood the meaning of
plagiarism and appropriate referencing. The Committee therefore recommend that
all academic departments provide a compulsory lecture on referencing and
plagiarism for new students. It was noted that some departments did this
already.
6.3 Penalties
As in
previous years, the Committee sometimes found that the penalties available to
it, together with the prevailing general and programme regulations, made it
difficult to impose sanctions that were neither too lenient nor too severe. In
particular, it was difficult to find middle ground between (a) reducing the
module mark to zero, and (b) reducing the module mark to zero and removing
reassessment rights. For example, (a) was the standard penalty imposed for
taking relevant prohibited materials into an examination hall, but it was
considered too lenient in the most serious cases where very extensive materials
were found. However, (b) would normally mean that the student could not
progress/graduate, and in all but the most extreme cases was considered too
severe for a first offence. The result was that most students found guilty of
taking relevant prohibited materials into an examination hall tended to receive
the same penalty (reduction of module mark to zero), even where the extent of
the materials found varied significantly. In 2004-05, the Committee considered
reducing marks in other modules, but was reluctant to do so, particularly where
this involved an arbitrary selection of the other module mark(s) to be reduced.
In
discussing this issue in February 2006, the Committee noted that it was within
its power to reduce all exam, coursework, or module marks in the Semester or
Part under consideration by an appropriate amount, depending on the seriousness
of the case. Reducing all marks across a particular period in this way provided
a basis for deciding which module marks (other than that in the module in which
AM was found) should be affected by a penalty.
In order to
broaden the range of sanctions available to it, it was also proposed that the
Committee be empowered to impose the following penalty:
6.4 Student
allegations of misconduct/allegations made against former students
An unusual case arose in autumn 2005, in which a LUSAD
student accused a recently graduated student of plagiarising her work, the work
involved being a short film. Staff in the department did not support the
allegations. The matter was dealt with by appointing an external expert to
undertake an
initial investigation to determine whether there were any grounds to take the
matter further through the academic misconduct procedures. The investigation
concluded that there was no evidence to support the allegations. However, this
case has highlighted two issues:
(a) There are currently no procedures to deal with allegations of academic
misconduct made by one student against another.
(b) There are currently no procedures to deal with
allegations of academic misconduct made against former students.