Title: Academic Misconduct Committee, Report for 2006-07

Origin: Meredith Coney, Administrative Officer, Student Office

Date: May 2008

This report includes details of all major cases, and all minor cases where an allegation of misconduct was upheld, in the academic year 2006-07 (including SAP 2007).

1. Membership of Committee

The Academic Misconduct Committee (AMC) during 2006-07 was composed as follows:

Dr JG Dickens (Chair)

Dr JA Dearnley

Dr RE Kinna

Miss K Roxborogh

2. Incidence and Type of Academic Misconduct (Appendix I)

In total there were 147 cases of Academic Misconduct (AM), a decrease of 11 on the total for 2005-06. 120 of these cases were plagiarism-related (including collusion and/or inappropriate collaboration with other students). The remaining 27related to offences which took place in examination halls.

2.1 Examination hall AM

There were fewer examination hall offences, as compared to 2005-06 (27 compared to 31), and a proportion of these were ‘technical’ offences (i.e. 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). There were only a small number of cases where candidates were found with substantial relevant crib-notes (i.e. where there was a more apparent intent to cheat). Most cases were dealt with by the AMC as major offences, but some were re-classified as minor and dealt with by the relevant Head of Department.

As in previous years, the most common forms of examination hall AM were: (i) possession of crib notes, (ii) notes written in a dictionary, on a pencil/calculator-case, or on a hand, and (iii) possession of an inappropriate calculator or other programmable device (electronic translator, mobile telephone etc).

Anecdotal evidence supports the view that the lower number of examination hall offences reflects an ever-increasing awareness amongst candidates of the University’s robust procedures for detecting examination hall AM, instituted at the beginning of the 2003-04 academic year.

2.2 Plagiarism and other forms of AM

There were 7 fewer cases of plagiarism-related AM, as compared to 2005-06 (120 compared to 127). Cases were dealt with as major or minor offences, depending on their perceived seriousness, but in practice, most were dealt with as minor by the relevant Head of Department (HoD). Most 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 2006-07 (as in previous years) the penalty most commonly imposed was the reduction of marks in the module in which AM was found. This penalty was imposed in 72.8% of cases (79.7% of minor offences, and 64.9% of major offences). Most of the remaining cases resulted in the issue of a formal reprimand (18.4% of the total). 2006-07 saw the introduction of a new penalty: the reduction of marks in a module (to a level at which reassessment was required) together with the capping of the reassessment mark at a specified level.

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 assessed in at least one module in 2006-07).

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 2005-06, there were four appeals against penalties imposed for minor offences (all plagiarism), and five against penalties imposed for major offences (two plagiarism, and one exam hall offence).

Of the appeals relating to minor offences, 2 were upheld and 2 were dismissed. Of the appeals relating to major offences, three were dismissed and two were upheld. In both cases the AMC had decided that reassessment rights should be withdrawn, but the Appeals Committee decided that reassessments should be allowed, but that a cap should be imposed on the reassessment mark.