The Regulations on the Use of Unfair Means17 Mar 08Tim Burton, University Senior Quality Officer

Overview

Purpose of the regulatory framework Definition of unfair means Overlaps with related conduct issues The Caution Procedure Adjudication Panel Hearings Boards of Examiners Appeals

Purpose of the Code

to provide a mechanism for penalising any form of unacceptable academic behaviour by candidates seeking Hull qualifications

a clear statement of how the University (including external examiners) view such conduct

to ensure that allegations are fairly and properly investigated in accordance with legal obligations

Importance for academic standards - comparability for UoH awards

Duty to educate students in good academic practice

What are "unfair means"?

Any conduct which may > "gain an illegitimate advantage or benefit"> "create a disadvantage or loss"

Applies to any UoH candidate on any UoH programme where credit is sought - including collaborative programmes (excl. HYMS)

Whether acting alone or with another whether attempted or completed Only applies to ‘summative assessment’ (reg. 4(d)) Library materials – now outside scope (reg. 1(c))

Examples:> Plagiarism (below) – including self-plagiarism> cheating in examinations (including (i) possession

of prohibited materials (ii) use of prohibited materials)

> falsifying laboratory or other results> conspiring to have work completed by another> collusion> impersonation

Plagiarism

‘plagiarism is a form of fraud’ ‘work which purports to be a candidate's own but

which is taken without acknowledgement from the published or unpublished work of others’ (reg. 5)

‘The primary test of plagiarism is … the presence or absence of quotation marks, and adequate acknowledgement of sources …’

cf: poor academic practice/scholarship Intention is irrelevant - planned amendments

Other forms of misconduct

Professional unsuitability / misconduct> QH:F17> Only applicable to programmes which adhere to the

standards of statutory bodies (e.g. Nursing, Teaching)> Dean, on receipt of an allegation, must determine whether to

proceed under unfair means or prof unsuit (one or other, never both) (UM Reg. 1(d))

> Likely review of penalties to ensure alignment between revised UM regulations and PU/M

Research misconduct> QH:L2> Now applies to any research activity> But makes the regs on Unfair Means applicable for all

allegations relating to students

Responsibilities

The dean – responsibility can be delegated Significant role in ensuring consistency Partner institutions need to identify dean

equivalent and inform UQO The dean or (delegate) cannot be involved in

any Adjudication Panel except to provide evidence to the panel

When an allegation is made I – plagiarism

Regs Part II – determination of whether candidate eligible for caution

Identifying plagiarism Examiner when marking piece of summative assessment

identifies parts of the work as plagiarised, indicate in appropriate manner but not indicate the source(s)

Then decide whether plagiarism ‘minimal’ (NOT defined in the regs)

If minimal – advise the candidate (having removed the anonymity)

If more than minimal must forward to dean with covering statement and supporting evidence (dean then removes anonymity)

If examiner suspects plagiarism but difficult to prove, once anonymity removed advise candidate of ‘concerns’ – no penalty

Eligibility for the caution On receipt of an allegation, the dean must decide whether the

candidate is eligible for a caution Reg. 12 defines the circumstances through which all candidates

get an initial ‘cautionable period’ whenever they commence their studies on a programme leading to a UoH award [diagram]

Candidates can only ever receive one caution unless the second offence was committed before the candidate received the first caution

Issuing a caution The dean must issue using the University’s

approved wording set out in annexe 1 Set a deadline for resubmission of the work –

deadline must be ‘reasonable’ having regard to the mode and location of study and in all cases be no less than five working days

Consequences of a caution being issued Resubmission of the work correctly acknowledging the sources but not

otherwise revising the work Examiner re-examines the work imposing the prescribed penalty –

never more than 40 awarded for the piece of work Module Board will calculate the overall module mark (the mark for the

module as a whole is not capped – this is not a resubmission in the capping sense)

If the module has then been failed normal reassessment rules apply Candidate may refuse to accept the caution and elect a full adjudication

panel hearing (though at risk of higher penalty, as explained in the annexe 1 caution letter)

Part III – Adjudication Panel hearings

Where a caution is inapplicable, because> Candidate not eligible (outside cautionable period or received

previous caution> Candidate refused caution (above)> Allegation relates to unfair means other than plagiarism

Dean makes such further investigation as deems appropriate

If behaviour the result of mental health difficulties – should consult Disability Services

Dean decides whether there is prima facie evidence of a breach of the Code

If no prima facie case, allegation closed; inform candidate in writing

No further action

If yes, candidate informed in writing> summarising the allegation and supporting evidence> explaining the right of the candidate to respond in writing

within 21 days> opportunity to admit or deny the allegation> if admitted, make statement in mitigation or by way of

explanation

On receipt of denial from candidate Dean can close matter if s/he considers allegation’ satisfactorily explained’

Other possible evidence

Evidence of attempts to destroy or make unavailable evidence

Evidence of a previous allegation bearing a ‘striking similarity’ to the present allegation (reg. 22)

Establishing the hearing

Dean responsible for establishing the panel consisting of a trained chair, at least one member of academic staff, a trained secretary

Register of trained chairs being established

if allegation denied, Adjudicating Panel established to determine proof and penalty

if admitted, Adjudicating Panel established to determine penalty

Inform the candidate in writing of the time, date and venue – 7 days notice (leaflet to be revised)

Details of witnesses, copies of witness statements Candidate right to be heard and be accompanied by

person of his/her choosing Supervisor may attend

Conducting the hearing

Dean to present the findings of the investigation Candidate entitled to ask ‘fair and relevant’ questions Chair of panel responsible for ensuring proceedings fair, and

deciding if sufficient evidence presented Trained secretary must minute proceedings Panel makes decision in private – majority decision now

sufficient Proof beyond reasonable doubt (not defined)

> Remember Turnitin does not in itself prove plagiarism

Plagiarism – mitigating circumstances are not relevant to proof unless very exceptional – matter for SPC/RD to decide - adjourn

Penalties

Penalties must be within the framework set out in reg. 25 (taught), 26 (PGTS) or 27 (research degree thesis) subject to:

The general principles in reg. 24> If previous offence (other than caution or simultaneous offence) start

with presumption that the penalty is termination of programme> Relevant factors – e.g. nature and severity of conduct, stage on

programme, statement by way of mitigation Penalty must be applied to the whole module University Warning to be issued by SPC or termination of

programme – record latter on transcript (relevant to future admissions decision)

Special cases – must adjourn and apply to SPC

Notifying the decision

Copies of decision to relevant Module, Programme Board and SPC

Inform candidate in writing of decision and summary of reasons within three working days

Relationship with boards of examiners

Boards must not interfere with the decision of the Adjudication Panel

But must make decisions according to University regulations and can make decisions on grounds unrelated to unfair means

Pending cases must be deferred Module Board

> accepts the mark awarded by the Panel> But an MB can RNP on other grounds

Programme Board> Decides the consequences of the module mark> Decides if candidate eligible for reassessment/referral or

condonement according to regulations> If eligible, but AP denied r/r or c then AP decision is binding> If eligible, but AP decided can be r/r or c Programme Board

can deny if - only if - decision to deny is based on other criteria (e.g. non attendance/submission)

Right of appeal

Right of appeal to the chair of SPC within 14 days of UM decision being served in writing

Appeal on grounds relating to procedure leading to decision, but can challenge the finding of proof and/or the penalty imposed

University Senior tutor will investigate Duties of panel chair to provide information to the Senior Tutor

(note deadlines) If appeal hearing takes place dean and/or chair of panel may be

called Possible role for candidate’s supervisor

Nb: only candidate can challenge decision

Application to collaborative provision

Delegation to PIs to hold panels and issue cautions

Staff development for chairs and secretaries Clarification of appeals Confirmation of role players to UQO and

faculties

Data

The faculty must provide the following as an annexe to the QER (effective Winter 2009, reporting on 07/08)

> The number of cautions issued> The number of allegations rejected without holding an

Adjudication Panel (no prima facie case and satisfactorily explained)

> The number of Adjudication Panels held, divided by plagiarism/other form of unfair means

> The number of allegations upheld/rejected> The number of cases arising from retrospective investigation> The penalties imposed for those allegations upheld

>Data must be presented by department or equivalent unit mode level of study gender, disability and ethnic origin.

Further guidance on unfair means

The codes/procedures> UoH Quality Handbook - www.hull.ac.uk/quality > UQO Faculty-link

Appeals/special cases -> UG/PGT: Derek Ord (d.j.ord@hull.ac.uk) > PGR: Nigel Shaw (n.a.shaw@hull.ac.uk)