Policy Number: AUS-PA0002
Sponsor: Office of Academic Affairs
Effective Date: September 3, 2021
I. POLICY PURPOSE
1. Malpractice refers to any deliberate act or practice that compromises or threatens to compromise the process and integrity of assessment and, as a result, the validity of the result or certification awarded.
2. Maladministration refers to any non-deliberate activity, neglect, default, or other practice that compromises or threatens to compromise the process and integrity of assessment and, as a result, the validity of the result or certification awarded.
3. It is the responsibility of all AUS staff and students to be vigilant concerning any events that may lead to malpractice/maladministration occurring and report promptly to relevant Deans and Directors where they suspect malpractice/maladministration has or may occur so that appropriate action can be taken to address this in line with the Student Conduct Policy.
4. The Provost, Vice Provosts, Chairs, Deans, and Directors are responsible for notifying relevant awarding bodies of alleged/actual malpractice and maladministration cases to ensure appropriate action may be taken.
II. POLICY APPLICABILITY
This policy applies to the malpractice/maladministration by AUS staff and students and details the procedure to be followed if an allegation of malpractice/maladministration is made.
III. POLICY STATEMENT
A. Objectives
To identify and minimize the risk of malpractice/maladministration by students;
To identify and minimize the risk of malpractice/maladministration by staff;
To respond to any incident of alleged malpractice promptly and objectively;
To standardize and record any investigation to ensure openness and fairness;
To impose appropriate penalties and/or sanctions on students and/or staff where incidents (or attempted incidents) are proven;
To protect the integrity of the AUS and awarding bodies;
To do this, the AUS will:
Seek to avoid potential malpractice by using the induction period and the student handbook for academic programs to inform students of the AUS’s policy on malpractice and the penalties for attempted and actual incidents of malpractice as well as demonstrate the correct procedures for referencing the work of others;
Communicate the Academic Malpractice and Maladministration Policy to students
Communicate the Academic Malpractice and Maladministration Policy to staff
Show students the appropriate formats to record cited texts and other materials or information sources;
Ask students to declare that their work is their own;
Ask students to provide evidence that they have interpreted and synthesized appropriate information and acknowledged any sources used
Conduct investigations in a form commensurate with the nature of any malpractice allegation. Such an investigation will be supported by the Provost, Vice Provosts, Chairs, Deans, Directors, and all personnel linked to the allegation. It will proceed through the following stages:
Make the individual fully aware at the earliest opportunity of the nature of the alleged malpractice and the possible consequences should malpractice be proven;
Give the individual the opportunity to respond to the allegations made;
Inform the individual of the avenues for appealing against the judgment made;
Document all stages of any investigation
Ensure the handling of individual cases takes account of the needs of the individual, including those arising from protected characteristics.
B. Expectations
All Students are expected to:
Avoid sharing their work (electronic or physical) with other students;
Avoid sharing passwords with other students;
Only submit work for assessment that is their own original work.
All Assessors/Teachers are expected to:
Declare a conflict of interest;
Keep candidate coursework/portfolios of evidence secure;
Work within the professional teaching standards in relation to assessment practices;
Check for malpractice/maladministration when assessing or moderating work;
Comply with awarding bodies' procedures;
All AUS Staff are expected to:
Declare a conflict of interest;
Comply with awarding bodies procedures;
C. Examples of Malpractice
1. Examples of Malpractice/Maladministration by Students
This list is not exhaustive, and the AUS may consider other instances of malpractice/maladministration at its discretion:
Plagiarism of any nature;
Collusion by working collaboratively with other students to produce work that is submitted as individual student work;
Copying (including the use of ict to aid copying).
Deliberate destruction of another’s work;
Fabrication of results or evidence;
False declaration of authenticity in relation to the contents of a portfolio or coursework;
Impersonation by pretending to be someone else to produce the work for another or arranging for another to take one’s place in an assessment/examination/test
Inappropriate behavior during an internal or external assessment that disrupts others. This includes shouting and/or aggressive behavior or language and having an unauthorized electronic device that causes a disturbance in the examination room;
Inclusion of inappropriate, offensive, discriminatory, or obscene material in assessment evidence. This includes vulgarity and swearing that is outside of the context of the assessment, or any material of a discriminatory nature;
Frivolous content - producing content that is unrelated to the examination paper/question in scripts or coursework;
Unauthorized aids - physically possessing unauthorized materials (including mobile phones, electronic devices, etc.) In the examination room unless a concession has been agreed upon in advance.
Misuse or incorrect referencing of AI tool – see the section below on Misuse of AI
2. Examples of Malpractice/Maladministration by Assessors
This list is not exhaustive, and the AUS may consider other instances of malpractice/maladministration at its discretion:
Improper assistance to candidates.
Inappropriate retention of certificates.
Facilitating and allowing impersonation.
Failure to provide information on improper assistance to candidates;
Inventing or changing marks for internally assessed work (coursework or portfolio evidence) where there is insufficient evidence of the candidates’ achievement to justify the marks given or assessment decisions made;
Failure to keep candidate coursework/portfolios of evidence secure;
Fraudulent claims for certificates, that is, claiming for a certificate before the student completing all the requirements of assessment;
Assisting students in the production of work for assessment, where the support has the potential to influence the outcomes of assessment, for example, where the assistance involves assessors producing work for the student;
Producing falsified witness statements, for example, for evidence the student has not generated;
Allowing evidence, which is known by the staff member not to be the student’s own, to be included in a student’s assignment/task/portfolio/coursework;
Misusing the condition for special student requirements e.g., Support;
Falsifying records/certificates, for example, by alteration, substitution, or by fraud;
Failure to comply with awarding organizations' procedures for managing and transferring accurate student data.
Knowingly accepting or failing to check inauthentic work for qualification assessments, including using AI.
3. Examples of Malpractice/Maladministration by AUS Staff
This list is not exhaustive, and the AUS may consider other instances of malpractice/maladministration at its discretion:
Facilitating and allowing impersonation;
Misusing the condition for special student requirements, e.g. Support;
Falsifying records/certificates, for example, by alteration, substitution, or by fraud;
Fraudulent certificate claims, that is, claiming for a certificate before the student completes all the requirements of assessment;
Failure to comply with awarding organizations' procedures for managing/transferring and storing accurate student data;
Failure to distribute certificates.
D. AI Use in Assessments
1. AI use refers to using AI tools to obtain information and content that might be used in work produced for assessments that lead toward qualifications. Misusing AI tools in relation to qualification assessments at any time constitutes malpractice.
2. Students must submit work for assessments that is their own. This means ensuring that the final product is in their own words and isn’t copied or paraphrased from another source, such as an AI tool, and that the content reflects their own independent work.
3. AI tools must only be used when the conditions of the assessment permit the use of the internet and where the student is able to demonstrate that the final submission is the product of their own independent work and independent thinking.
Examples of AI misuse include, but are not limited to, the following:
Copying or paraphrasing sections of AI-generated content so that the work is no longer the student’s own.
Copying or paraphrasing whole responses of AI-generated content.
Using AI to complete parts of the assessment so that the work does not reflect the student’s own work, analysis, evaluation or calculations.
Failing to acknowledge use of AI tools when they have been used as a source of information.
Incomplete or poor acknowledgement of AI tools.
Submitting work with intentionally incomplete or misleading references or bibliographies.
4. How to use and reference AI Tools in line with the regulations
Sources that are used must be referenced when producing work for an assessment. Appropriate referencing is a means of demonstrating academic integrity and is key to maintaining the integrity of assessments. If a student uses an AI tool that provides details of the sources it has used in generating content, they must be verified by the student and referenced in their work in the usual way. Where an AI tool does not provide such details, students should ensure that they independently verify the AI-generated content – and then reference the sources they have used. In addition, the AI used must also be acknowledged, and students must show clearly how they have used it. Where AI tools have been used as a source of information, a student’s acknowledgment must show the name of the AI source used and should show the date the content was generated. For example: ChatGPT 3.5 (https://openai.com/ blog/chatgpt/), 25/01/2023. The student must retain a copy of the question(s) and computer-generated content for reference and authentication purposes in a non-editable format (such as a screenshot) and briefly explain how it has been used.
E. Reporting Alleged Malpractice/Maladministration
1. All AUS staff are responsible for reporting any alleged malpractice/maladministration of staff to their Curriculum Director or the Vice Principal of Quality Apprenticeships and Information.
All AUS staff are responsible for reporting students' alleged malpractice/maladministration to their Directors, Deans, Chairs, Vice Provosts, and the Provost as appropriate.
2. Alleged malpractice/maladministration may be reported to the AUS by awarding bodies.
3. AUS will consider allegations made verbally but will request in all cases that allegations be put in writing with any available supporting evidence.
F. Investigations
1. All investigations will adhere to the following principles:
Confidentiality – by their very nature, investigations usually necessitate access to confidential information to AUS or individuals. All material collected as part of an investigation must be kept secure.
Impartiality - investigations will be undertaken by a nominated investigating officer and assessed against the specific facts/evidence of the case in deciding intention and culpability.
Rights of individuals – where an individual is alleged of malpractice/ maladministration, they should be informed of the allegation made against them (preferably in writing) and the evidence that supports the allegation. They should be allowed to consider their response to the allegation and submit a written statement or seek advice if they wish to. They should also be informed of the possible consequences if the malpractice/maladministration is proven and of the possibility that other parties may be informed, e.g., the regulators, the police, the funding agency, and professional bodies. The appeals process should also be communicated to them.
Staff Interviews should be carried out in line with the AUS’s Staff Disciplinary Policy and Procedure. AUS staff may request that a friend or colleague accompany them.
Candidate Interview - students may request that a friend or colleague accompany them.
Retention and storage of evidence and records – all relevant documents and evidence should be retained in line with the awarding organization's policy and procedures.
Decisions and action plans – all conclusions should be based on evidence. A course of proposed action should be identified and agreed upon between the AUS and awarding organizations.
Proportionality – any decision on the outcome must reflect the weight of evidence and the nature of the case – the staff member or student does not have to admit malpractice.
Sanctions – any sanctions applied should be proportionate to the extent of maladministration/malpractice identified (and evidenced) during the investigation.
2. Investigation of alleged malpractice/maladministration by Assessors/AUS Staff
If malpractice/maladministration is alleged by Assessors/AUS staff, there will be an investigation process commissioned by Vice Provosts and Information to establish the full facts and circumstances of any allegations or evidence. Such an investigation will usually be under the terms of the AUS’s Staff Disciplinary Policy and Procedure, given the potential seriousness of the matter.
The Vice Provosts will nominate an investigating officer. To avoid conflicts of interest, investigations into alleged malpractice/maladministration should not be delegated to the Curriculum Director, team, or department involved in the alleged malpractice.
Any disciplinary investigation will proceed as described in the AUS’s Staff Disciplinary Policy and include provision for:
The member of staff to be informed about the concerns and possible consequences;
Possible suspension depending on the circumstances of the case;
The member of staff to be allowed to be accompanied to interviews;
Collection of evidence related to the alleged malpractice/maladministration;
The review of evidence and production of a report;
A decision to be made on whether or not to proceed to a formal disciplinary hearing;
If necessary, a formal hearing with a right of representation.
3. Possible Actions Taken by the AUS
In cases where it is believed, following an investigation and hearing, that there is clear evidence of malpractice/maladministration:
AUS will inform the appropriate awarding organizations of the malpractice, and they will be given the supporting evidence;
AUS may take internal disciplinary action per the Staff Disciplinary Policy. This action will be commensurate with the seriousness of the malpractice/maladministration.
4. Investigation of alleged malpractice/maladministration by Students
If students allege malpractice/maladministration, an investigation will be undertaken by the nominated investigator to establish the full facts and circumstances of any allegations or evidence.
Investigations will proceed through the following stages:
The student will be informed about the issues, possible consequences, and right of appeal
The student may be requested to give a written initial statement in the case of external assessment, which can be reviewed in line with the malpractice procedure;
Collection of evidence related to the alleged malpractice/maladministration;
The review of evidence and production of a report;
A formal interview between the relevant Director, Dean, and/or Chair and the student against whom an allegation has been made.
5. Possible Actions Taken by the AUS
In cases where it is believed that there is clear evidence of malpractice/maladministration:
AUS will inform the appropriate awarding organizations of the malpractice/maladministration, and they will be given supporting evidence;
AUS may take internal disciplinary action per the Student Conduct Policy. This action will be commensurate with the seriousness of the malpractice/maladministration.
G. Reporting Alleged Malpractice/Maladministration to Awarding Organizations
AUS is responsible for reporting any staff or student assessment malpractice/maladministration to the appropriate awarding organization. The only exception relates to assessment malpractice/maladministration in coursework or controlled assessment, discovered before the student signs the declaration of
authentication. In these cases, the incident need not be reported to awarding organizations but will be dealt with per the AUS’s Student Conduct Policy. Any work not the student’s own will not be given credit. In addition, a note will be added to the cover sheet to detail any assistance given. In all other instances of alleged malpractice/maladministration, the nominated investigator will submit the fullest details of the case to the relevant awarding organizations as per awarding organizations' regulations at the earliest opportunity. In certain cases, awarding bodies may wish to allocate their own staff to join or lead an investigation.
H. Appeals
1. Assessors and AUS staff can appeal against the decision and/or any penalty imposed due to a malpractice/maladministration investigation through the Staff Disciplinary Policy process.
2. Students have the right to appeal against the decision and/or any penalty imposed due to a malpractice/maladministration investigation directly to the Director, Dean, and/or Chair. Appeals should be made within 20 working days of the date they were notified of the decision, detailing the fact that they are appealing and their grounds for doing so. Appeals will be dealt with within 20 working days.
