FOE advice on handling Academic Integrity cases in Coursework

General information from the University about Academic Integrity and handling misconduct cases can be found in the Student Academic Conduct Statute and on this webpage, including the flowchart of managing student academic misconduct in coursework. The aim of this page is to provide relatively short Practice Notes specific for the Faculty of Engineering, based on the existing expertise in this area across all departments.

The Practice Notes are for handling misconduct in coursework. Misconduct in exams implies a different process, in which we do not interview or inform students. We simply document and submit all evidence to the AIMS system for Assessment Services to process (they do not interview students).

Initial steps on handling Academic Integrity cases

Academic misconduct suspicion is identified. This could include high similarity scores of submitted reports (detected by TurnItIn or MOSS Links to an external site. for programming assignments), suspected file sharing or generative AI use.
Discuss the academic misconduct allegation with the other teaching staff members in the course. If further advice is needed, discuss the case with either HoD deputy, Associate Dean Teaching and Learning, or Faculty Academic Integrity Advisor. Decide whether there is a case evident and serious enough to submit it as an academic misconduct / Poor academic practice (PAP) case into the Academic Integrity Management System Links to an external site. (AIMS).
If it is decided to submit the case into AIMS, you may wish to discuss with the other teaching staff members in the course ahead of deciding whether to invite the student to an interview on the case. The UoA academic misconduct policy and related procedures do not require interviewing all students suspected of academic misconduct. If a case is fairly minor, then the evidence document can be sent into AIMS when submitting the Academic Integrity Breach Reporting Form Links to an external site., and Academic Quality Office (AQO) can manage communications with the students including the collation of any student responses to the evidence presented.
If it is decided not to interview the student, then fill the Academic Integrity Breach Reporting Form Links to an external site. and attach an evidence document for the case. You can use this video as a guidance on how to fill the form. It is important to provide some commentary around how the decision was made to proceed with the case, and how the evidence (e.g. TurnItIn or MOSS) points to similarities that are greater than the class norm and\or cannot be ascribed to coincidence alone. Cases made through submission of automated reports alone will likely not be upheld should the decision be appealed.
If it is decided to interview the student, then see next Section, Interviewing students. It is recommended to interview students if that will be educative, for example in cases of file sharing or generative AI use or suspected misconduct at assignments with high weighting. In case of file sharing, if it is suspected that a student knowingly shared their work with another student, when the case is relatively serious and it is recommended to interview both students (separately).
After submitting the case in AIMS, the AQO will process it. Once the processing is finished, you will receive a decision email from the AIMS system. Then adjust the student’s mark accordingly on Canvas.

Interviewing students

Email the student to invite them for an interview and give them 10 working days to respond. The student should be offered the opportunity to invite a support person. The interview must be conducted by more than one member of staff.
Conduct the interview with the student (usually lasts about 15 minutes). Follow the UoA guidance for interviewing students, with the following steps recommended:

Welcome the student. Let the student know about the whole interview process – most importantly that a summary will be made after this interview and the student will have a chance to comment on it before it is logged into the system. Note that the case is in the investigation phase and that all decisions rest with the Deputy HOD (Academic), who will consider all evidence including these interview notes.
Ask the student to describe how the assignment was prepared. (Often students will admit at this stage).
If the student denies the allegation, present evidence to the student and describe the unusual features that have it highlighted as suspected misconduct, and ask them to comment.
Educate the student about the breach and academic integrity principles. For example, by noting that in industry lapses in professional integrity could lead to dismissal or legal action.
Ask the student if there has been a prior incident (because that informs the next step).
Inform the student about how the case will be processed next, including that it will be logged into the AIMS system. Also mention what penalty you would suggest to the academic quality office and the Deputy HOD (Academic). For a repeat offender, this may involve additional grade deductions and/or classification as major misconduct for referral to Discipline Committee.
Tell the student that they will receive the summary of the whole interview from you and be given a chance to correct/comment the summary before it is logged in the AIMS system.
Let the student know that the University will then process this further and that they will be notified via email about the decision that has been made. If they disagree with the decision, they have a right of appeal. They can also contact AUSA student advocacy to speak on behalf of them.
Ask student if they have any further questions, then thank the student for coming and conclude the meeting.

3. After the interview, log the incident into the AIMS system, attaching the summary of the interview AFTER the student had confirmed that it is a true record of the interview. Suggest a decision to be made here – usually educative advice plus a reduction in mark for that specific assignment based on how much was academic misconduct. More information about suggesting penalties is provided in the next Section, Suggesting Penalties. You can use this video as a guidance on how to fill the Academic Integrity Breach Reporting Form Links to an external site..

Your will receive a decision email from the AIMS system (after the AQO has processed the case), then adjust the student’s mark accordingly on Canvas.

Suggesting Penalties

For penalties, the suggested default is a ZERO mark for the assignment. And in case of a student knowingly sharing their work with another student, the ZERO mark is for both students. Every case is considered on its merits, and you have discretion to impose alternative penalties where appropriate. It is recommended to discuss the suggested penalty with another staff member, so that the suggestion is less subjective. In case of contract cheating or stealing work from another student, more severe penalty is recommended.

The questions you could ask yourself when suggesting a penalty are given below

How much is the proportion of the alleged academic misconduct (e.g. amount of similarity)? Usually if it’s >50% then we would suggest not marking that specific assignment (0 mark).
How many times has this student committed academic misconduct? If it’s their first offence, more likely to be PAP/minor. If it’s happened before, then could be minor/major depending on severity.
How far along is this student in their degree? For First year students, it is more likely to be PAP. Second year onwards it needs to be minor/major.
How much is the assignment worth for this course? If high %, then 0 mark.
Does this academic misconduct affect other student(s)? If student copied another student’s work or knowingly shared their work with another student for copying, then more severe penalty is recommended (0 mark). If something is just copied off the internet/journal articles inappropriately, you could be more lenient with a smaller penalty (e.g. 50% or 30%).

Last updated by Vladislav Sorokin on 09/10/2023