A Guide to the procedures - action to take in cases of cheating

Under the Student Discipline Statute, "dishonesty in assessment, including plagiarism and unauthorised collusion" constitutes misconduct. There are a number of procedural requirements staff must meet when cases of cheating are identified. It is important that these steps are followed in order to ensure that students are treated fairly and that the action you take is not undone by a procedural defect. This brief guide is designed as a ready reference to help lead you through these steps. It is based on Statute No. 23 – Student Discipline and Academic Council’s Advisory Guidelines on Penalties for Dishonesty in Assessment. These can be accessed on the web at the following URL:

http://www.murdoch.edu.au/admin/discipline/

If in doubt as to what to do, the University Secretary is the contact person who can clarify the procedures.

1. Academic staff are required to report all cases of suspected dishonesty in assessment to the unit coordinator.

2. If the case is serious, staff should retain the assignment/exam paper where the cheating has occurred. A copy can be returned to the student, but it is important not to return evidence which might subsequently be "lost".

3. Many cases are minor or unintentional, e.g. a first year student not understanding proper referencing in her or his first assignment. The unit coordinator can deal with such cases, where it is the student’s first offence and the plagiarism consists of inappropriate/inadequate acknowledgement: material copied word for word which is acknowledged as paraphrased but should have been in quotation marks, or material paraphrased without appropriate acknowledgement of its source.

Whether it is the student’s first offence should be checked with the Divisional office, which will look at the computerised student records.

In accordance with Academic Council’s Advisory Guidelines on Penalties for Dishonesty in Assessment, the unit coordinator interviews the student to identify the problem and provide assistance in understanding the University’s policy on plagiarism (including the consequences of a further offence). This is not a disciplinary matter. Unit coordinators should rely on their professional judgment as to what action to take. If appropriate, the coordinator can require the student to rewrite and resubmit the assignment, or deduct marks (but not a standard percentage). If the plagiarism was unintentional but substantial, the coordinator must advise the Divisional Office in writing, so a comment can be added to the student’s computer record. [This is not a penalty; it is simply so that if the student does it again, the University is aware that it is a repeat offence.]

4. Unit coordinators must refer the following cases to the Executive Dean:

(a)	plagiarism which is not the student’s first offence;
(b)	a first offence, but the plagiarism was substantial and the unit coordinator believes the student was aware that this constitutes plagiarism and is not permitted;
(c)	all other types of plagiarism and collusion:
	- material copied from another source without any attribution - assignment written by somebody other than the student - material copied from another student’s assignment or work, with or without that person’s knowledge

It is suggested that when forwarding the relevant papers, you use a highlighter pen to show the offending passages and the materials from which they are copied.

5. Unit coordinators do not have authority to fail students in unit components or in units for cheating. These penalties can only be exercised by the Executive Dean, under the Student Discipline Statute.

1. The Executive Dean must first determine whether the circumstances of the case warrant action being taken, and, if so, how serious the case is. If he or she feels that the circumstances do not warrant pursuing the matter, or that the appropriate outcome is simply to require the student to rewrite and resubmit the assignment, or for the coordinator to deduct marks, then simply advise the unit coordinator to that effect. The coordinator can then handle it informally.

2. If the alleged misconduct is serious and likely to lead to a penalty of failure in a unit or to a more serious penalty, the Executive Dean must consult the University Secretary before taking action. This is to discuss the appropriate penalty, in light of previous case history and Academic Council policy on penalties for cheating (including on aggravating and mitigating factors). Their joint view on what prima facie appears to be the appropriate penalty will determine whether the case is to be heard by the Executive Dean (fails in units or unit components) or by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (suspensions or expulsions). The University Secretary is also a useful source of advice on disciplinary procedures and on how seriously particular offences are usually regarded.

There are also some intermediate cases, sufficiently serious to be treated as a disciplinary matter but not so bad that the student would be failed in the unit, suspended or expelled. In these cases, the Executive Dean should proceed without needing to consult the University Secretary.

In all cases where the Executive Dean takes action under the Student Discipline Statute, he or she must follow the steps outlined below.

3. The student must be given the opportunity for an interview. The student must be sent a written notice containing:

(a)	The details of the alleged offence. This must be specific, giving the unit code and title, the title and/or number of the assignment, and the nature of the cheating. For example: "It is alleged that in H237 Sociology 2A in first semester 2002 you submitted an assignment titled Theories of Underdevelopment containing large sections that were plagiarised". Please note: this is an "allegation", not a "charge", as at this stage you have not heard the student’s side of the story. [This term is much more appropriate in those cases where there is uncertainty about whether or not the student is at fault. A disciplinary charge can be quite distressing for some students, especially if they are innocent.]
(b)	The date and time of the interview. This must be at least 5 days after the date the letter is received. The letter can be sent by any of the following methods:
	by email – in which case it is taken to be received on the day sent. A notice sent by email must be sent by post also. by fax - in which case it is taken to be received on the day sent. by post – in which case an extra 3 days notice must be given after the letter is posted (an extra 7 days if the address is overseas). You need to check with the Office of Student Services for the most recent address of the student. by hand – if the student is calling in at the office.

The student may waive this period of notice – sometimes the student is keen to resolve the matter as soon as possible, in which case he or she can waive the period of notice. If the student has done this, then the letter should state so, e.g. "The interview will take place at 10am on Monday 5 December. I understand that you have waived the period of notice in order to achieve an early resolution of the matter; if this is not so, please let me know immediately".

(c)	Where the interview will be held. Include the room number, or where the student should go first, e.g. "please come to my secretary’s office, in ECL2.31, at 10am".
(d)	Advise the student that he or she may bring another person, other than a legal practitioner, to attend the interview as a witness and to provide moral support; and that any greater role for that person is at the discretion of the staff member conducting the interview.
(e)	Advise the student that if he or she is unable to attend at that time, whom to contact (and that person’s telephone number) in order to arrange another time. Also indicate that if he or she fails to attend the interview, the Student Discipline Statute provides that you will deal with the allegation in the absence of the student.
(f)	If the student is not in Perth and unlikely to be able to attend an interview on campus, offer the option of holding the interview by telephone, teleconference or videoconference. [The Division bears the cost of this. If the student instead chooses to come to Perth for the interview, the Statute provides that he or she is responsible for her or his own transport and accommodation costs.]

The wording of the letter may be more or less formal or understanding in its tone, depending on the seriousness of the allegation and the strength of the evidence.

4. The Executive Dean may delegate the investigative and interviewing roles - but not the authority to make a finding. This delegate must provide the Executive Dean with a brief written report (one page in bullet form, under the following headings, should suffice) containing:

• the alleged offence and a summary of the evidence, e.g. the proportion of the assignment that is plagiarised, and from what source(s)

• the student’s response

• the reasons for concluding whether or not misconduct occurred

• if a finding of misconduct is recommended, the recommended penalty or penalties and the reasons. You will find useful here the lists of aggravating and mitigating factors at the end of Academic Council’s Advisory Guidelines on Penalties for Dishonesty in Assessment. Include information on what percentage this assignment comprises of the total marks in the unit.

Before the Executive Dean considers this report, the student must be given a copy and the opportunity, if he or she wishes, to provide written comments within seven calendar days. [Note: If the Executive Dean conducts the interview, then there is no need for a report to be written.]

5. If a disability prevents the student’s attendance, the interview may be held by telephone, teleconference or videoconference, if the officer agrees to this. [The Division bears the cost of this.]

6. Conduct of the interview. It is wise to have a witness at the meeting with the student; this might simply be the unit coordinator or tutor sitting in, and/or the Divisional Executive Officer or one of the DEO’s staff. The student should be shown the material in dispute, and invited to provide an explanation. Sometimes this will have arisen because of a misunderstanding by the student (a common case being new overseas students having different expectations about referencing), so the session may become more of a counselling than a disciplinary one. In more serious cases, it is important not to be too understanding in tone. If the student does not front, the Statute allows the Executive Dean to deal with the allegation regardless.

7. The burden of proving an allegation of misconduct rests with the University. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

8. If after the interview (or at any other stage) it seems that the offence is sufficiently serious to warrant suspension or expulsion, the case may be transferred to the Deputy Vice Chancellor.

9. In reaching a decision, under administrative law the Executive Dean must exercise her or his discretion, not simply rubber stamp the recommendation of the delegate or the unit coordinator. This can be shown by, for instance, annotating a comment on the report; quizzing the person who wrote the report; or discussing it with someone else. The Executive Dean is entitled to take such advice and seek such information as he or she considers appropriate.

10. The penalties that may be imposed by the Executive Dean are:

	a caution
	if the student has acted unfairly or dishonestly in connection with any assessment in a unit conducted by that Division:

	o fail in the unit or in assessment component(s) of the unit;
	o a reduced mark for the assessment component;
	o rewrite and resubmit an assignment or other assessment component;
	o write and submit another assignment in its place

	a fine of up to $300. However, fines are regarded as inappropriate in cases of misconduct involving cheating: they are more appropriate to cases involving harm to persons or property
	suspension of all or any of the student’s rights and privileges within the Division for up to 14 days

One or more of the above penalties may be imposed. In cases involving dishonesty in assessment, the Executive Dean must take account of Academic Council’s Advisory Guidelines on Penalties for Dishonesty in Assessment. These are advisory guidelines: as the introductory statement says, "Staff shall exercise their professional judgement on whether the suggested penalties fit the particular case; sometimes a more lenient or more severe penalty may be appropriate, depending on the circumstances."

If the student is guilty of misconduct, but the Executive Dean is sympathetic, it usually is advisable to issue at least a caution, so it can be taken into account if the student repeats the behaviour in another unit.

Any penalty may be suspended by the Executive Dean until the time for appealing against it has expired, or for a longer period or indefinitely. Any such suspension may be subject to terms and conditions (including undertakings by the student) set by the Executive Dean.

11. Advise the student of the decision. If the student is found guilty of misconduct, this must be in writing and contain the following information:

• advice that the student has been found guilty of misconduct, and what that misconduct is, e.g. "I have found you guilty of misconduct in that you have acted dishonestly in assessment, by substantially plagiarising your assignment 3 in the unit H232 Screen Texts".

• the penalty or penalties imposed

• if the student is required also to seek assistance from the Teaching and Learning Centre, indicate who to contact and perhaps a deadline to do so.

• the appeal procedures: "If you wish to appeal against the finding of misconduct or against the penalty, you may appeal to the Student Appeals Committee within the next 15 calendar days. Details of the appeal arrangements are contained in s.4 and 5 of the Student Discipline Statute, which can be seen at the following URL:

http://www.murdoch.edu.au/admin/legsln/statutes/statute23.html

• often a paragraph is included stressing the seriousness of cheating, and advising that a further offence would be treated more seriously. For example: "The integrity of the assessment process - and the value of the degrees awarded to our graduates - is dependent on ensuring that no dishonesty is permitted in assessment. Such action warrants a severe penalty in order to send a clear message to all that such behaviour is not tolerated by the University. I hope that you will learn from this and ensure that it never occurs again. The University's guidelines stipulate that repeat occurrences are treated more severely, which means that any repeat occurrence would be likely to result in …..."

A copy of this letter must be forwarded to the Office of Student Services, which records the finding and the penalty on the computerised student records. Sometimes it may be appropriate to ring or email the student at the same time as posting the letter.

Subject to the rights of appeal, the Executive Dean’s decision is final and conclusive. [Note: Students cannot appeal to a Divisional Appeals Committee against a finding of misconduct or disciplinary penalty.]

top