Academic Malpractice Policy

1.1 To deliver its strategic policy aims of excellence in: Curriculum Innovation; Learning, Teaching and Assessment; and the Student Experience, Results (thereafter referred to as ‘the College’) has a policy minimising the risk of academic malpractice and responding to reports of academic malpractice in a prompt and objective way.

1.2 This academic malpractice policy is part of the College’s planned compliance with the UK Quality Code for Higher Education expectations that: The academic standards of courses meet the requirements of the relevant national qualifications framework; the value of qualifications awarded to students at the
point of qualification and over time is in line with sector-recognised standards; courses enable a student’s achievement to be reliably assessed and all students are provided with the support that they need to succeed in and benefit from higher education.

1.3 The policy aims to:

• identify and minimise the risk of malpractice by students
• respond to any incident of alleged academic malpractice promptly and
  objectively
• standardise and record any investigation of academic malpractice to
  ensure openness and fairness
• impose appropriate penalties and / or sanctions on students or staff
  where incidents (or attempted incidents) of academic malpractice are
  proven
• protect the integrity of the College and qualifications

1.4. To avoid potential academic malpractice, the College will:

1.4.1 Use the student induction period and the student handbook to inform
students of the college’s policy on academic malpractice

1.4.2 Show students the appropriate formats to record cited texts and other
materials or information sources according to the Harvard Referencing system

1.4.3 Ask students to complete, sign and date an authenticity statement, and
include it with each assignment that they submit

1.4.4 Ask students to provide evidence that they have interpreted and
synthesised appropriate information and acknowledged any sources used

1.5 Where a potential offence is identified, this policy and procedure must be followed. It is not acceptable, for example, to ignore a potential offence, or to amend the grade to be awarded as a means of penalising activities covered by this policy.

1.6 If a student is being investigated for academic misconduct and a second
offence comes to light on an assignment, they submitted prior to the first case being concluded, then both allegations will normally be considered as part of the same case.

1.7 Where a student is required to leave the programme, they will normally be awarded any credit they have achieved to date unless the Academic Misconduct Panel specifies otherwise.

1.8 Institutions and awarding bodies, involved with the programme, may be
informed about cases of academic misconduct.

2. Definitions of Academic Malpractice by Students

2.1 Plagiarism

2.1.1 This offence is the presentation of someone else’s work, words, images, ideas, opinions, or discoveries, whether published or not, as one’s own, or alternatively appropriating the artwork, images or
computer-generated work of others, without properly acknowledging the source, with or without their permission. Plagiarism also covers the direct and unacknowledged translation of foreign language texts into English.

2.1.2 Sometimes poor study skills or different academic practices may result
in poor academic practice, occurring with minimal dishonesty. For this reason, cases of plagiarism may be dealt separately to other cases of academic misconduct.

2.1.3 Examples of plagiarism would include (this list is not intended to be
exhaustive):

• Directly copying from written physical, pictorial, or written material, without crediting the source
• Paraphrasing someone else’s work, without crediting the source
• Quoting another’s work “word for word” without placing the phrase(s), sentence(s) or paragraph(s) in quotation marks and providing a reference for the source.
• Taking a sentence or sentences from another source and re-using them after changing a small number of words.References to the original source may be given correctly.
• Using statistics, tables, figures, data, diagrams, etc. created by others without acknowledging and referencing the original source.
• Summarising or paraphrasing the work or ideas of another without acknowledging and referencing the original source. “Paraphrasing” means re-stating another author’s ideas,meaning or information in a student’s own words. This includes all teaching material provided by tutors.
• Copying the work of a student from a previous cohort or another Institution, with or without that student’s agreement.
• Collaborating legitimately with another student, for example for a group project, and then presenting the resulting work as one’s own.

2.2 Re-use of academic work for credit (self-plagiarism)

2.2.1 Academic credit should only be given for work once. Re-use of
academic work that has previously been used for credit, without fully referencing the earlier work, is a form of academic misconduct and is not allowed. This may be referred to as ‘self-plagiarism’.

2.2.2 Where students wish to refer to work for which they have previously
received credit, they should either

• reproduce it directly as a quote or
• rewrite, in a new form of words, the ideas contained in the original work. In both cases the original work should be referenced.

2.2.3 Where the re-use of academic work without appropriate referencing is
detected, it is often due to poor understanding of why it is unacceptable. Providing it is a first offence, the student should be permitted to resubmit the assessment, as a first attempt and for a full range of marks. Support should be given to help the student understand the issues associated with this practice and why it is unacceptable. If it is a subsequent offence, the matter should be dealt with as plagiarism and the process detailed in paragraph 2.4 will be followed.

2.2.4 In some cases, students submit work for formative feedback which
informs subsequent summative assessment. In this situation the formative assessment is not for credit and does not need to be referenced in the final summative assessment.

2.3 Poor academic practice

2.3.1 This is when minor irregularities are detected in a piece of work and the assessor suggests that it is a case of poor academic practice rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive. Such cases should be referred to the Higher Education Manager.

2.3.2 If the Higher Education Manager agrees and feels that the poor
academic practice may be addressed appropriately within the marking scheme (with no application of a penalty), then the student should receive explicit feedback with further instructions on proper academic practice, and a note will be put on the student’s record for future internal reference. Student should also be referred to study skills support.

2.3.3 If the Higher Education Manager suspects that the irregularity may
amount to more than poor academic practice the procedure described in Paragraph 2.4 can be followed.

2.4 Procedure for cases of plagiarism

2.4.1 All cases of plagiarism, reported by Assessors, shall be considered by the Higher Education Manager and the Lead Internal Verifier.

2.4.2 Students will be invited to attend an interview with the Higher
Education Manager and the Lead Internal Verifier to understand if and how cheating may have occurred. This may take the form of determining the level of understanding a student has on their submitted answer. Students may also be asked to demonstrate their knowledge in relation to the work they have submitted.

2.4.3 The purpose of the interview shall be to determine whether or not there has been academic misconduct and to allow the student to make representations and to present any mitigating factors.

2.4.4 A note of the interview with the student will be taken, which will be
circulated after the interview to all parties. A member of staff will attend the panel in order to carry out this role.

2.4.5 All allegations should be supported by a clear indication of the
elements of the student’s work which are believed to have been plagiarised, and a brief statement outlining the concern by the Assessor.

2.4.6 If the plagiarism is deemed to occur because of different academic
practices, poor understanding of assessment expectations or poor academic writing skills some cases can be dealt through feedback to help students reach the required understanding of expected ways of working. This normally applies if:

• the student is a first time offender,
• it occurs in in the student’s first teaching term and does not involve copying from another student from the same cohort.

2.4.7 In such cases the student will be referred to discuss ways of working
and expectations of academic integrity.

2.4.8 This process should be supportive and may involve directing the
student to study skills support. Advice and feedback on the academic content of the assessment should not be provided as part of this additional support so the student does not gain an unfair advantage over their peers. Potential outcomes may include:

•  Allegation dismissed or unfounded
•  Written warning and referral to student support skills
• Resubmission of the plagiarised sections of the assessment
  within an agreed timeframe.
• Resubmission of the assessment within an agreed timeframe.
  The work will be marked with a full range of marks available and considered as a first submission. This will normally be within two weeks of the student receiving the additional support, providing this timescale does not conflict with other assessment tasks.
•  The case should be held on the student’s record for reference in
  case further concerns over plagiarism are raised.

2.4.9 For all other cases of plagiarism, the following factors should be
considered:

• The academic history of the student and how this may have informed their understanding of academic integrity.
• Whether there have been previous offences and the student has already been given additional support and guidance
• The nature, extent and significance of the plagiarism in the piece of work.
• Whether the assessment contributes significantly to the student’s progress or degree classification.

2.4.10 Possible outcomes may include:

• Allegation dismissed or unfounded
• Written warning
• Resubmission of the work which will be considered as a first submission and will be capped at a Pass
• U grade for the assignment and a further resubmission opportunity
• U grade for the unit with no further resubmission opportunity.

2.4.11 In all cases, students will be required to attend Session(s) on academic integrity and academic writing skills

2.5 Cheating in an exam

2.5.1 This offence consists of attempting to complete an examination or test that counts towards a unit grade by unfair means, including but not limited to:

• deliberately acquiring advance knowledge of the detailed content of an examination
• obtaining help from others in a manner not explicitly permitted by the regulations for the examination, including the use of mobile telephones, or any other electronic device capable of sending or receiving information.
• bringing into the examination any unauthorised materials, or
• referring during the examination to any unauthorised material.

2.5.2 A student who shares their work with others will be treated with equal seriousness to the student who copies the work. This applies even if it is not clear that the work was shared with knowledge that academic misconduct was planned.

2.6 Collusion

2.6.1 This offence is a form of cheating. It is the joint production with another person or persons of work that is submitted as individual learner work where this is not permissible in the assessment task, and it includes examination/test collusion. In cases of collusion the work of all students involved will be considered.

2.7 Fabrication of results or evidence

2.7.1 This offence is a form of cheating. This offence consists of the
presentation of any false or fabricated information, results or conclusions in any form of assessment. It also includes the fabrication of information within an application for a programme of study at the College or false declaration of authenticity in relation to the contents of a portfolio or coursework.

2.8 Impersonation by pretending to be someone else

2.8.1 This offence is a form of cheating. This offence is the assumption by
any person of the identity of a student in order to produce work or take one’s place in an examination, test or assessment task.

2.9 Submission of work produced by a third party

2.9.1 This offence is a form of cheating. In such cases, where there is no
actual evidence of the allegation, the student may be invited to attend a viva. The student responses at the viva can then be provided as evidence of an offence if this is what the viva demonstrates. If the student does not attend the viva, this should be indicated in the report.

2.10 Procedure for cases of cheating

2.10.1 All cases of cheating, reported by Assessors, shall be considered by
the Higher Education Manager and the Lead Internal Verifier.

2.10.2 Where an allegation relates to more than one student e.g. collusion or group work cases, then each student will be asked to attend individual investigations and no outcome will be applied until all cases have been investigated at the appropriate stage.

2.10.3 All allegations should be supported by relevant evidence and a brief
statement outlining the concern by the Assessor.

2.10.4 Students will be invited to attend an interview with the Higher
Education Manager and the Lead Internal Verifier to understand if and how cheating may have occurred. This may take the form of determining the level of understanding a student has on their submitted answer.

2.10.5 The purpose of the interview shall be to determine whether or not there has been academic misconduct and to allow the student to make representations and to present any mitigating factors.

2.10.6 The interview with the student will be taken, which will be circulated after the interview to all parties. A member of staff may attend the panel in order to carry out this role.

2.10.7 Once the interview is complete, the panel may decide to defer a
decision until further investigation has taken place. In such cases the panel should decide whether they need to meet with the student again to discuss any new material that has been considered as part of the decision-making process. Otherwise, the panel shall determine if misconduct has occurred and the penalty.

2.10.8 Possible outcomes may include:

• Ask for more information, or summarily dismiss the case, if they judge that the allegation is not supported by sufficient evidence.
• Written warning
• Resubmission of the work which will be considered as a first submission and if successful will be capped at a Pass
• U grade for the assignment and a further resubmission opportunity
• U grade for the unit with no further resubmission opportunity.
• if the case is considered more serious the student case may be referred to the Principal, or their nominee, who will convene an Academic Misconduct Panel/Disciplinary Panel.

2.10.9 When determining an outcome, the following factors should be
considered:

• The academic history of the student and how this may have informed their understanding of academic integrity.
• Whether there have been previous academic misconduct offences
• The nature, extent, and significance of the academic misconduct
• Whether the assessment contributes significantly to the student’s progress or degree classification.

3 Academic Misconduct Panel

3.1 Academic misconduct panels may be held depending upon the seriousness of a case.

3.2 Plagiarism will normally be considered by the Interview panel when it occurs for the first time, including if the student has previously been given additional support for an offence that occurred within their first teaching term.

3.3 All subsequent cases of plagiarism would normally be dealt by the Interview panel, unless specific circumstances suggest an Academic Misconduct Panel would be more proportionate.

3.4 Students may be asked to engage with an investigation in relation to
academic misconduct via attendance at a panel and/or via completion of written questions as part of an investigation into a case.

3.5 Students may be asked to attend a panel in person or via video calling.

3.6 The student may elect not to attend an interview and to submit a statement instead. Where the student does not attend an interview, the panel will proceed to reach its conclusions without the student’s attendance.

3.7 The Higher Education Manager and/or other appropriate academic linked to the work in question may be required to attend the academic misconduct panel as a witness (not as a panel member) in order to explain the allegation and provide specialist knowledge.

3.8 The student may be accompanied by another person at the panel interview. This person may address the panel and confer with the student during the meeting, however, they will not be permitted to answer any questions on behalf of the student, unless in exceptional circumstances where they are appropriately trained, and the student is unable to do so themselves.

3.9 The penalty for an offence should be decided on the individual circumstances of the case.

3.10 The panel should ensure penalties reflect the seriousness with which the College views academic integrity.

3.11 When considering a penalty, the panel should take into account the seriousness of the offence. Factors that should be considered include:

• The educational history of the student and how this may have informed their understanding of academic integrity.
• Whether this is a first or subsequent offence.
• The amount of credit attached to the assessment.
• The extent and significance of academic misconduct in the piece of work.
• The extent to which the academic misconduct undermines the learning objectives of the work.
• Whether the assessment contributes significantly to the student’s progress or degree classification.
• The degree and effects of the dishonesty.

3.12 Possible outcomes may include:

• to dismiss the case entirely
• to refer it back to the Higher Education Manager to be dealt with as poor academic practice
• to impose no penalty beyond recording the case on the student’s record for future reference
• to require the submission of an equivalent piece of work which is awarded: the mark it would normally have achieved or a capped pass.
• referral of the student to skills support
• to award the student a U grade for the unit
• to withdraw the student from the programme
• Permanent exclusion from the College

3.13 The Student shall be informed in written of the panel’s decision and of any recommendations within two weeks of the date of the panel.

3.14 Where the Academic Misconduct Panel decides the case is of such
seriousness that the withdrawal or exclusion of the student from the programme is recommended, the Assessment Board will be informed of the outcome and consider whether any exit award can be made using credits awarded that had no academic integrity concerns.

3.14 Where the Academic Misconduct Panel decides the case is of such
seriousness that the withdrawal or exclusion of the student from the programme is recommended, the Assessment Board will be informed of the outcome and consider whether any exit award can be made using credits awarded that had no academic integrity concerns.

3.15 Where a student is not permitted to resubmit the piece of work and the final mark for the assessment or the unit is less than that required to be awarded credit for a unit, then the student should be treated in the same way as if they had obtained the same mark through academic failure.

3.16 The student will have the right of appeal against a decision of the Assessment Board

3.17 The decision of the Assessment Board in relation to academic misconduct
panels, with supporting rationale, will be recorded in its minutes.

3.18 Absence from a meeting or hearing

3.18.1 Student are expected to attend any investigation meetings or hearings,
but if they are unable to attend for a good reason, which can be independently evidenced, they must inform the Panel before the date of the meeting or hearing date.

3.18.2 A meeting or hearing cannot be postponed indefinitely and will be
normally rearranged once.

3.18.3 If a student fails to notify the panel before the meeting or hearing, and they do not attend, the meeting or hearing will go ahead in their absence and a decision will be made based on the information available. The same applied ion cases where a student inform in advance the panel thar they are unable to attend but they cannot provide independent evidence as to the reason why

4 Submitting work during an investigation

4.1 A Grade cannot be confirmed for an assessment under investigation until a decision has been made. Student are advised to continue working on any other assessments not affected by the allegation. Student will receive results as normal for any units that are not being investigated.

5 Extenuation in relation to outcomes

5.1 Extenuation does not provide a defence for academic misconduct
however the Panel will consider any extenuating circumstances

5.2 We expect students to engage with the extenuating circumstances procedure prior to an assessment rather than submitting an assessment which results in a breach of the academic misconduct
regulations.

6 Appealing the outcome

6.1 Student can appeal an outcome at any stage, with the exception of the
outcome which requires a referral to a later stage.

6.2 Grounds for appeal are as follows:

• a material irregularity occurred during the procedure
• the decision maker(s) reached an unreasonable decision and/or the penalty was disproportionate or not permitted under the procedures
• extenuating circumstances which for good reason you could not tell us about earlier
• There was bias or reasonable perception of bias in the procedure.

6.3 If the appeal is rejected, the original decision will stand.

6.4 If the appeal is successful the original decision may be changed, or it
may stand but the penalty applied may be altered.

Appendix 1 – Sources of Information

In addition to the requirements found in the qualification specifications, the following documents contain the regulations relating to the conduct of examinations and assessments. In all cases the most recent version of the regulations must be referred to. The following JCQ documents are available on the JCQ website:

• JCQ Guidance on malpractice for summer awarding 2020
• Plagiarism in Assessment
• Notice to Centres – malpractice
• JCQ Suspected Malpractice: Policies and Procedures 2021 – 2022
• JCQ M1 Report of suspected candidate malpractice 2021 – 2022

Pearson Centre Guidance

Dealing with malpractice and maladministration

End-point assessment malpractice and maladministration policy