Student Contention Regulations Guidance 2014/15
Academic Offences
Contents
Principles
1
The Allegation
1
Summary Procedure
1
Full Investigatory Procedure
2
Investigatory Interview
3
Academic Offences Committee
4
Scope
4
Consideration of Cases
4
Allegations of Plagiarism
5
Post- Academic Offences Committee
5
Allegations Found Proven
5
Allegations Found not Proven
5
Flow Charts
6
Evidence Checklist
9
Invitation to attend investigatory interview letter template
11
Record keeping guidance
13
Academic Offences
13
Academic Review and Appeal
14
Student Complaints
14
Student Disciplinary Cases
14
Academic Offences – Guidelines for Schools
Principles
1. The process should be transparent and fair, and allegations dealt with in a timely
manner.
2. No member of staff shall be involved in more than one stage of the procedure.
3. The student shall be informed of the allegation as soon as possible and invited to
attend an investigatory interview to allow them a full and fair opportunity to present
a defence or explanation.
The Allegation







An allegation of the commission of an academic offence may be brought to the
attention of the Head of School (or equivalent) by a member of staff either through
a suspicion that arises in the course of marking assessed work or from an exam
invigilator if the student is suspected of cheating.
The staff member should submit a written report detailing the grounds for their
suspicion.
It is important to establish whether the student has previously committed an
academic offence. Accordingly, as soon as a suspicion is referred to the Head of
School, the Head should consult School records and the Officer to the Academic
Offences Committee to enquire about any previous offence(s).
The Head of School is not obliged to take action in respect of an allegation. Where
the Head believes that the matter is not sufficiently serious to warrant formal
investigation or that it is unlikely that sufficient evidence could be found to uphold
the allegation, he or she may decide not to invoke the procedure.
The decision as to whether the student has committed an academic offence
is one for the Academic Offences Committee, not for the marker(s), the Head of
School or those involved in the investigatory interview.
Communications, including emails, must avoid giving the impression that the matter
has already been adjudged and a guilty finding arrived at. In the event of an
appeal, or an external complaint to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for
Higher Education, all communications are potentially disclosable.
If the allegation relates to a piece of written work, the work must be given a ‘merit
mark’ which takes no account of the suspicion of plagiarism, cheating etc., but
which considers normal academic criteria, including the quality and quantity of
original work. The omission of acknowledgement of the work of others should not
be penalised, but where the marker is able positively to identify unoriginal material,
the balance of original and unoriginal content should generate an appropriate mark
for the piece of work submitted by the student.
Summary Procedure



Students at Levels One and Two of undergraduate programmes (including Higher
National and Foundation degrees) may be dealt with by the Summary Procedure if
they have not previously committed an academic offence and the suspected
offence(s) does not relate to misconduct in examinations (in which case the
allegation must be dealt with under the Full Investigatory Procedure).
The member of staff who suspects the commission of an academic offence must
immediately inform the Head of School and provide him or her with grounds for
their suspicion together with any documentary evidence in support of his or her
suspicion.
The Head of School should confirm that no previous offence has been recorded.
The Head should also contact the Officer to the Academic Offences Committee to
1





determine whether an allegation against the student has previously been
considered by the Academic Offences Committee.
If the Head believes there is merit in undertaking further investigation he or she
must write to the student informing him or her of the allegation. The letter should
set out the following:
o A clear and detailed account of the allegation and evidence as far as
reasonably practicable. If it is impractical to send the student copies of the
evidence, the student should be informed that he or she may have access
to the evidence, under supervision and by arrangement.
o The right to have the issue dealt with either under the summary or the full
investigatory procedure and invite him or her to attend a summary interview.
o Inform the student that, if they choose not to attend the interview, the matter
will be dealt with under the full investigatory procedure.
o The right to be accompanied by a friend as defined by the University
General Regulations.
o If the student intends to invoke extenuating circumstances as an
explanation for the alleged offence, they must submit a claim of extenuating
circumstances to the Extenuating Circumstances Panel as soon as
possible.
The interview should be carried out by the Head of School providing that he or she
has demonstrably had no involvement with the setting or marking of the work in
question, or with the raising of the suspicion. The Head will not play any part in
subsequent stages of the process.
If the student provides a satisfactory explanation for the allegation, the Head of
School should dismiss the case.
If the student admits the allegation, the Head of School may dispose of the matter
by imposing a maximum penalty of awarding a fail mark of zero per cent for the
submitted work and requiring the work to be resubmitted by a specified deadline,
which will be treated as a resit opportunity. The lesser penalties set out at section
A2.3(a) and (b) of the University General Regulations may be imposed in
appropriate circumstances.
If the student neither admits the allegation nor offers a satisfactory explanation, the
Head of School must advise the student that the matter will be dealt with under the
Full Investigatory Procedure.
Full Investigatory Procedure





Following the notification of an allegation, the Head of School (or nominee) shall
arrange for the student to be interviewed by an appropriate member of staff.
The interview should be arranged to take place as quickly as possible following
notification of the allegation.
The interview should be carried out by one member of staff who demonstrably has
no involvement with the setting or marking of the work in question or with the
raising of the suspicion; and who will not play any part in subsequent stages of the
procedure. The only other member of staff present will be the note-taker, who
should speak only if factual clarification of something is required for the record.
In the unusual event of the Head of School carrying out the interview, he or she
must be disqualified from any further involvement, and so cannot take the decision
as to whether there is a prima facie case to refer to the Academic Offences
Committee.
The student should be invited in writing to attend the interview. Reasonable notice
should be given. The letter should advise the student of the right to be
accompanied by a friend as defined in the University General Regulations; and also
that if the student does not attend the interview, the Head of School will decide on
2

the available evidence whether there is a prima facie case for referral to the
Academic Offences Committee.
In accordance with recent best practice in the Higher Education sector, the letter
should also set out the precise allegation and enclose the evidence which will be
discussed at the interview. Students have no right under the University
Regulations to appear or to be represented at the Academic Offences Committee,
so the interview is the main opportunity for the student to challenge the evidence
and offer a defence or explanation. Fairness requires that the student be permitted
to see the evidence against them in advance of the interview, and to decide
whether to attempt to contest it.
Investigatory Interview






1
Other than the interviewer, the only other member of staff present at the
interview is the note-taker, who should speak only if factual clarification of
something is required for the record. If a third member of staff is present, for an
exceptional reason, the student’s consent should be sought and recorded, with an
explanation included in the minutes of the interview. AOC can and does dismiss
cases where more than two members of staff are present at the interview (unless
the student has arranged to be accompanied by a staff member).
Where the student is not accompanied, the interviewer should confirm that the
student is aware of the right to be accompanied and has chosen not to exercise
that right. This should be recorded in the minutes of the interview.
The burden of proof of an allegation is on the School referring it. The
interviewer should ask, in clear terms, questions such as whether the student
agrees that highlighted passages from his/her work and the alleged source material
are identical, or very similar to each other; whether the student admits to copying
some or all of the highlighted passages; why there is no reference or citation or
other acknowledgement that the passages in question were not the student’s
original work; and how the person marking the assignment would know that these
passages were taken from another person’s work. An admission by the student at
interview is obviously valuable evidence for the AOC. It goes without saying that
the questions should not be put to the student in an intimidating way.
The interviewer should be ready to explore and if appropriate to challenge
statements made by the student in defence or explanation of the
allegation(s). Where a defence or explanation is simply recorded in the minutes,
the Academic Offences Committee may have little option but to accept it (example:
“I had a child sick at the time, and asked for an extension but received no response
from my tutor.” “We had to put our work through Turnitin prior to formal submission.
My Turnitin report showed a match of X% against other sources; I did not know
what to do so phoned my tutor who told me to hand my assignment in anyway.”). If
it becomes apparent that further information is needed on an essential point, in
particular one which is put forward as a defence, the interview can be adjourned.
Where an unaccompanied student at an interview is showing clear signs of not
understanding key points about the allegation and/or process, for example because
of language difficulties, the interviewer should carefully consider whether to adjourn
the interview and strongly recommend to the student that s/he seek support from
the Students’ Union or other appropriate source. AOC will wish to be confident that
the student has had a full opportunity to offer a defence.
At the close of the interview, the student should be told that he or she will receive a
copy of the notes1, which will also be sent to the Head of School (or nominee) who
It is considered good practice to ask the student to sign a copy of the interview notes as a correct
record. This is particularly helpful to the Academic Offences Committee where the student has
admitted the allegations during the interview.
3
will decide whether there is a prima facie case. If the Head of School decides this
affirmatively, the student will be notified in writing. The student will also be advised
of their right to submit any further defence or explanation to the Chair of the
Academic Offences Committee. The letter should also explain that the Committee
will determine whether the allegation is proved, in which event it will recommend a
penalty to the student’s College Board of Examiners.
Academic Offences Committee
Scope
The Academic Offences Committee does not investigate allegations referred to it; it
simply determines, on the basis of the evidence submitted by the School and the
student whether, on the balance of probabilities, the student has committed an
academic offence. Where an allegation is found proven by the Committee, it
recommends a penalty from Part A2.3 of the University General Regulations.
Consideration of Cases
It is essential that the Academic Offences Committee can clearly understand the
allegation and judge the strength of the evidence; and also be confident that the
processes have been followed, ensuring fairness to the student. The documents and
information sent to the Committee should include:

the name, level, award and enrolment number of the student;

an unambiguous referral of the case to the Academic Offences Committee by the
Head of School (or nominee), stating that he or she has found a prima facie case;

any correspondence/report from the staff member alleging the academic offence;
and any correspondence between the School and the student about the allegation,
the interview and the process;

the minutes of the interview (together with, where available, confirmation by the
student that they are an accurate record);

the assessment brief/assignment criteria, making it clear what was expected and
what particular instructions had been given about, for example, collaboration with
other students; citation of references in presentations and the handing-in of
presentation material;

the mark sheet, demonstrating that a merit mark had been given;

the student’s work and the related evidence of an academic offence having been
committed. In alleged cases of plagiarism, the alleged source material must be
clearly cross-referenced to the work submitted by the student, so that the Academic
Offences Committee can make immediate comparisons.

Turnitin reports, but please note the guidance below regarding allegations of
plagiarism; the implications of the identified matched text should be made clear by
evidencing the alleged lack of citation/referencing.
An evidence checklist proforma has been developed by Secretariat for use by Schools.
Completed forms should be appended to all allegation material forwarded to the Officer
to the Academic Offences Committee.
4
Allegations of Plagiarism





Before an allegation of plagiarism is submitted to the Academic Offences
Committee, the Head of School should be satisfied that the evidence is
sufficiently clear to enable the Committee to make a determination.
The piece of work must be given a ‘merit mark’ (see The Allegation, page 1).
The suspected original source(s) must be identified. Unexplained changes in the
standard of English or clarity of thought or expression etc. within a student’s work
are not in themselves sufficient evidence of an offence.
Where a Turnitin report has been produced, it is very persuasive if the AOC can
see, as evidence, the main sources identified by it, marked up in the usual way to
cross-refer to the student’s work.
The standard penalty for an academic offence at Level 3 is failure of the
whole unit at zero, with no reassessment opportunity. The consequence of
that would usually be that an undergraduate student could not obtain an
honours degree. It will be appreciated that AOC members, in finding a student
guilty, will wish to see clear evidence of the offence.
Post-Academic Offences Committee
Allegations Found Proven



The Officer of the Academic Offences Committee will inform the Head of School of
the Committee’s determination and any recommendations about the penalty for
consideration/ratification by the appropriate Board of Examiners. It is expected that
Boards of Examiners will only amend an AOC recommendation in exceptional
circumstances.
The Chair of the Academic Offences Committee will inform the student in writing
that the allegation has been found proven, and that a penalty has been
recommended to the Board of Examiners. The letter will not state what penalty has
been recommended.
The Academic Offences Committee does not consider whether a student’s
culpability for an offence may be mitigated by claiming extenuating circumstances.
This responsibility lies with the Board of Examiners when considering the
Committee’s recommendations. In informing the Head of School of the outcome,
the Officer will highlight cases where the student has referred to adverse
circumstances.
Allegations Found Not Proven



The Officer will inform the Academic Officer and the relevant Head of School of the
Committee’s determination.
The Chair of the Academic Offences Committee will inform the student in writing of
the outcome of the meeting; a copy of the letter will be forwarded to the Head of
School.
All references to the allegation must be removed from the student’s records.
5
Academic Offences Committee
Principles



No person previously involved in the allegation or its investigation shall take part in the discussions pertaining to it in the
Academic Offences Committee
Determination of whether an allegation is found proven or not shall be conducted on the basis of the evidence submitted to the
Committee
Penalty recommendations shall be commensurate with the offence
Decision made by the AOC
Allegation
PROVEN
Allegation NOT
PROVEN
Chair informs the
student in writing
AOC considers penalty
recommendation, taking
into consideration:
Premeditation
Theft of materials
Mark of zero for every
assessment item within all
units or modules during
the academic level
concerned. No reenrolment or
reassessment.
Mark of zero for every
assessment item within
all units or modules
during the academic
level concerned
Adverse effect on
other students
Take no further action.
Any previous
offence
Warn student against
any future academic
offence but impose no
other penalty.
AOC recommends penalty to the
Faculty Board of Examiners for
consideration*
Mark of zero for every
assessment item within
all units or modules
during the semester
concerned
Scale and extent
Mark of zero for the
assessed work or
examination only
Mark of zero for every
assessment item within
the unit or module
* The Faculty Board of Examiners considers the recommendation and may take into account any mitigation submitted by the
student; the student is informed of the outcome in writing by the Chair of the Faculty Board of Examiners.
6
ACADEMIC OFFENCES
PRINCIPLES
- no member of staff involved in more than one stage of the process
- the student is made aware of the nature of the allegation as soon as possible and
prior to interview
Academic
Offences
Misleading
Material
Collusion
Plagiarism
Cheating
THIS LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE
Summary Procedure
The Summary Procedure is used when an allegation is made against an
undergraduate Level 1 or 2 student UNLESS the allegation relates to misconduct
in an exam or the student has had a previous allegation against him/her upheld
Where an academic staff member suspects an eligible student to have
committed an academic offence, the staff member will inform the Head of
School immediately and provide evidence of the grounds on which the
suspicion is held.
If the Head of School considers there are grounds for further investigation into the
allegation, he/she shall inform the student in writing: of their right to have the matter dealt with under either the summary or full
investigatory procedure
 inviting the student to attend an interview under the summary procedure
Student chooses to
attend interview?
Yes
No
HoS explains the basis of the
allegation
Matter will be dealt with
under the full investigatory
procedure
Student provides
satisfactory
explanation
Allegation dismissed;
student informed in writing
Student neither
admits nor provides
satisfactory
explanation
Student admits the
allegation
HoS may impose maximum
penalty of awarding a fail mark of
zero per cent for the submitted work
and require its resubmission by
specified deadline. The HoS may
require the student to receive
academic counselling.
Matter will be dealt with
under the full investigatory
procedure
7
Full Investigatory Procedure
In what circumstances has the
allegation arisen?
Coursework
Examination
The invigilator should confiscate the student’s exam
booklet and any other relevant evidence and endorse it
appropriately. The student shall be issued with a new
answer book and allowed to continue the exam unless the
conduct which raised the original suspicion continues.
The invigilator shall provide the Head of School with a
written report.
The allegation, and any relevant
evidence, should be immediately
reported to the relevant Head of
School.
INVESTIGATORY INTERVIEW




Principles:
The interview shall be conducted by two staff members, one of whose sole role will be to take minutes
Neither staff member shall have been involved in the process at any other stage
The allegation shall be conveyed to the student prior to the interview to enable him/her to give his/her account and
provide any defence/explanation
The student may be accompanied at the interview by a staff member or student of the University
The Head of School (or nominee) shall arrange for the interview to be
conducted by an appropriate staff member. The student shall be informed
of the allegation in writing and invited to attend the interview.
Yes
Student attends
the interview?
The HoS considers the case
on the evidence available.
A copy of the interview minutes shall be
forwarded to the HoS and the student. The
student may be asked to return a signed
copy.
Yes
No
Does the HoS
consider that there is a
prima facie case?*
The HoS shall forward all papers to
the Chair of the Academic Offences
Committee and inform the student in
writing of this course of action.
No
No further action taken;
the student is notified in
writing
The Academic Offences Committee shall
determine whether an offence has been
committed.
* In determining this issue, the Head of School may in exceptional circumstances request a further interview with the student. The preceding guidance on interview
procedure applies in this situation.
8
AOC
Academic Offences Committee:
Evidence Checklist
Secretariat & Legal
Services
Please word-process this form
This form should be completed as fully as possible when it has been decided at School level that a prima
facie case exists for an allegation of an academic offence against a student. All documentary evidence
should be collated and forwarded to the Officer to the Academic Offences Committee, Secretariat, Main
Administrative Building, Brayford Pool. The evidence should be prefaced with this completed form.
1 Name of Student
2 Enrolment Number
3 College and School
Programme title:
Module title:
Level of Study:
Assessment type:
Module Code:
4 Programme Details:
5 Allegation (e.g. plagiarism, collusion,
cheating etc)
6
7
6 Piece of work subject to the allegation:
unit code, title and format (e.g.
coursework, exam script, thesis)
8
Please confirm whether the following information is included in the evidence put forward to the Academic
Offences Committee. If it is not, please explain its omission.
Evidence of correspondence
7 Referral to AOC by Head of School
confirming prima facie case
8 Any correspondence/report from the
staff member(s) making the allegation
9 Minutes of the investigatory interview,
where possible confirmed by the
student as accurate record
10 Correspondence between the School
and student regarding the allegation
and interview arrangements
9
Evidence Relating to Student’s Work
11 The piece(s) of work subject to the
allegation
12 If plagiarism is alleged, the alleged
source material(s)
13 The marksheet. This must
demonstrate a merit mark and identify
the first and second markers.
14 Assessment brief/assignment criteria
for the piece of work
For allegations of plagiarism, the student’s work and alleged source material must be clearly marked up to
enable the Academic Offences Committee to make immediate comparisons.
It is the School’s
responsibility to ensure that this is done. Please note that highlighter pen is inadequate for this task as it
does not photocopy properly.
15 Student’s work and alleged source
material have been marked up
appropriately
Signature of the Academic Officer
_________________________________
Signature
_____________
Date
10
Academic Offence – Invitation to attend investigatory interview template
Ref
Date
Dear ABC
Allegation of an academic offence in (module/assessment)
I am writing to inform you that an allegation of [plagiarism/ etc] has been made in respect
of the work you submitted for (module/assessment)
In accordance with the University Regulations governing academic offences, I have been
asked by the Head of the School of XXX to invite you to attend an interview. This has
been arranged for (date and time) in the [School meeting room]. On arrival, please
report to the School Office, (location), Lincoln campus.
I enclose an example of your work for this assessment and of the sources from which it is
alleged that material has been copied. At the interview, the allegation will be explained to
you in full and you will be given the opportunity to give your account and to provide any
defence.
The interview will be chaired by XXX. An administrative member of the School staff will
also be present to take minutes. You will receive a copy of these shortly after the
meeting. Please note that you have the right to be accompanied by a friend. They must
be a student of the University, a member of staff or a member of the Student Union.
Further details of the investigatory interview and the possible outcomes are contained in
the attached extract from the University General Regulations. Please read these
carefully. The Regulations are also available on the Portal
https://portal.lincoln.ac.uk/C14/C2/UniversityRegulations/default.aspx
If you feel that in respect of this assessment your behaviour has been affected by
exceptional and unforeseen circumstances beyond your control, and you intend to raise
this in your response to the allegation, you should without delay submit a formal claim for
extenuating circumstances, if you have not already done so. You should read the
Extenuating Circumstances regulations and guidance, also available via the Portal (insert
link); and download the Extenuating Circumstances forms, or collect a copy from the
Student Support Centre or your School Office. The form should be completed and signed,
supporting evidence appended as appropriate, and submitted to your School Office.
If you have any questions about the procedures, you may wish to seek advice from the
Students Union.
Please confirm receipt of this letter and your intention to attend. Please contact me by
telephone on (01522) 88XXXX or by email to [email protected].
Yours sincerely
XXXXXXXX
Senior Administrative Officer/PA
School of XXXXXXXXX
11
Enc. Extract from University Regulations
Copy of Work under investigation
cc:
Officer to the Academic Offences Committee
12
Record Keeping Guidance – All Student Contention Processes
With all student contention issues, students may initially approach any of the following
members of staff:
Academic Tutor
Academic Officers
Student Support Services
Module Co-ordinator
Lecturers
Head of School
Dean of College
It would be useful for School staff to develop a common approach, and to keep records of
the following in all cases:




all email correspondence from students and responses thereto;
all letter correspondence and responses thereto;
brief notes of telephone conversations, i.e. date/time, who spoke to the student,
summary of content of conversation, any resulting actions and who was responsible
for these;
brief notes of any face-to-face meetings with students.
It is important that Schools maintain records pertaining to matters of student contention,
and it would be helpful if a file on each complaint, appeal or disciplinary matter is held so
that the relevant material can be easily accessed in the event that the student escalates
the issue. The student may make a complaint to the Office of the Independent
Adjudicator, who will require the disclosure of all relevant information from the University
in the course of their enquiries.
Academic Offences
As both the summary and investigatory procedures for Academic Offences allegations are
administered at School level it is important that records are maintained during any
investigation and, if appropriate, after referral to the Academic Offences Committee. If the
allegation is found not proven at the Academic Offences Committee, all references to the
allegation should be removed from the student’s record.
When dealing with academic offences allegations, the following should be kept and
recorded:






all correspondence and/or the report from the staff member alleging the academic
offence;
the student’s work which is subject to the allegation e.g. coursework/exam script
together with any assessment brief/assignment criteria;
the student’s marksheet (including merit mark) if appropriate;
correspondence between the School and the student about the allegation, the
interview and the process including notes of telephone conversations or face-to-face
meetings, i.e. date/time, who spoke to the student, summary of content of
conversation;
the minutes of the interview (together with, where available, confirmation by the
student that they are an accurate record);
memo of referral of the case to the Academic Offences Committee by the Head of
School (or nominee), stating that he or she has found a prima facie case;
13

if the allegation is found proven at the Academic Offences Committee, further
correspondence with the student following consideration of the recommended penalty
at the College Board of Examiners.
Academic Review and Appeal
The formal Academic Appeals process is administered by the Academic Appeals Officers
within Secretariat and Legal Services. However, students are encouraged to raise
concerns with School staff before resorting to the formal process. It is likely that a number
of would-be appeals can be resolved at this stage. Some students will, though, remain
dissatisfied and choose to instigate the Appeals process. In these cases, it will be useful
if the School is able to forward to the Academic Appeals Officer the records that have
been kept during this initial dialogue.
It is important to note that an Academic Appeal is not a complaint and accordingly should
not be dealt with under the complaints procedures. It is common for an appellant to raise
a number of concerns in their statement, such as lack of facilities or poor teaching, for
example, but if the material issue relates to a dispute against a decision of a Board of
Examiners, i.e. a mark, grade, classification etc., then the dispute should be dealt with
under the appeals regulations given the time limits associated with this procedure. If in
doubt about how to deal with a query from a student, please contact Secretariat and Legal
Services for advice.
Student Complaints
Students should be encouraged to raise their concerns with their School informally in the
first instance. Colleagues are encouraged to try to resolve issues where possible at the
earliest stage possible. Records should be maintained of any communications from
students that raise students, including the response made and any actions taken.
All formal stages of the complaints process are adminstered by Secretariat, but Schools
should continue to maintain a file of any communication with the student during this
process.
Once the complaint become formal i.e. when the student has completed the Complaints
proforma and submitted it to Secretariat, any records relating to the complaint may be
requested as part of the investigation by the HoS.
Student Disciplinary Cases
Both the Heads of Schools’ and Deans’ procedures are administered by Schools.
Schools should maintain records documenting the allegation of misconduct, investigations
undertaken and the outcome at each stage.
14