ACADEMIC INTEGRITY REPORT

(1)

A C A D E M I C I N T E G R I T Y R E P O R T

Date:

Academic area:

Person reporting breach:

Course authority / Lecturer:

Course code:

Undergraduate or postgraduate:

Student’s name:

Student’s University ID:

Assessment item:

Assessment weighting (%):

Date assessment submitted:

Type of concern, e.g. Plagiarism (See DEFINITIONS OF BREACHES):

Complete the PROCEDURE CHECKLIST attached.

Date completed:

The Code of Practice for Student Academic Integrity can be found at:

The accompanying procedure can be found at:

(2)

Lecturer meets with

Student to determine if a breach has occurred.

Lecturer advises Student

in writing the matter is concluded No breach Breach Lecturer determines if breach constitutes ‘Academic Misconduct’ or ‘Poor Academic Practice’ (see definitions).

Lecturer notifies

Student in writing that matter is referred to Head of School. Academic Misconduct

Lecturer

i) counsels Student; ii) determines penalty,

and;

iii) informs Student of

consequences of further breaches.

Poor Academic

Practice

Student Office records

the breach on Student’s unofficial transcript and places all documentation in Student file and Academic Integrity audit record and file.

Associate Dean (Student Progress)

meets with College Dean to proceed under Discipline Rules.

Head of School meets

with Lecturer and Student and reviews determination.

Head of School informs

Student in writing that the breach will be recorded in their Student file.

Head of School sends

all a copy of all case documentation to CASS Student Office.

Poor Academic Practice No breach

Academic Misconduct

Lecturer awards 0% for

assessment item.

Head of School informs

Associate Dean (Student Progress) of academic misconduct and provides all case documentation.

Head of School advises

Student in writing:

i) of penalty; ii) that breach will be

recorded on Student’s file, and;

iii) that matter will be

referred to College Dean

Head of School sends

all case documentation to CASS Student Office.

(3)

PROCEDURE CHECKLIST

 Attach assessment item, notes, correspondence and all other documentation.

 See ACADEMIC INTEGRITY PROCEDURE FLOWCHART (above) for an overview.

Section 1 – Possible breach of the Code. To be completed by Lecturer

□

Student notified in writing of concern about possible breach. (S

□

Copy of notification attached.

□

Meeting held between Lecturer and Student. Date:

□

Code has not been breached

(See DEFINITIONS OF BREACHES) Go to Section 5.

□

Code has been breached.

(See DEFINITIONS OF BREACHES)

□

Meeting summary attached.

□

Breach constitutes ‘academic misconduct’.

(See ‘ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT’ OR ‘POOR ACADEMIC PRACTICE’?) Go to Section 2.

□

Breach constitutes ‘poor academic practice’.

Section 2 – Possible academic misconduct. To be completed by Lecturer

□

Student notified in writing that breach is being assessed as academic misconduct and has been referred to the Head of School.

(S

□

Head of School briefed and supplied with all documentation. (continued)

(4)

To be completed by Head of School

□

Meeting called between Head of School, Lecturer and Student. (S

□

Meeting held between Head of School, Lecturer and Student. Date:

□

Code has not been breached

□

Lecturer informed of determination.

Go to Section 5.

□

Code has been breached.

□

Meeting summary attached.

□

Breach confirmed as constituting ‘academic misconduct’.

□

Breach constitutes ‘poor academic practice’.

Section 3 – Finding: Academic misconduct To be completed by Head of School

□

Lecturer notified of finding of academic misconduct.

□

Lecturer instructed to award a mark of 0% for the assessment item.

□

Student notified in writing of finding of academic misconduct and that:

i. a mark of 0% has been awarded for the assessment item;

ii. that the breach will be recorded on the Student’s file, and;

iii. that the matter will be referred to the College Dean. (S

□

Associate Dean (Student Progress) informed of misconduct and supplied with documentation.

□

Student Office supplied with all documentation. Go to Section 6

(5)

Section 4 – Finding: Poor academic practice To be completed by Lecturer

□

Student notified in writing of finding of poor academic practice. (S

□

Penalty applied to assessment item.

□

Mark reduced – attach details.

□

Assessment to be resubmitted.

□

Alternative assessment required – attach details.

□

Other – attach details.

□

Student counselled

i. about appropriate academic practice.

ii. that future breaches may result in further academic penalties or disciplinary consequences.

□

Head of School notified of details. To be completed by Head of School

□

Student notified in writing that the breach will be recorded on the Student’s file.

□

Student Office supplied with all documentation. Go to Section 6

Section 5 – Finding: No breach

To be completed by Lecturer or Head of School

□

Student informed in writing that the matter is concluded. (S

Section 6 – Breach recorded on Student’s file To be completed by Student Office

□

Breached noted on Student’s unofficial transcript.

□

Breached noted in Academic Integrity audit record

(6)

‘ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT’ OR ‘POOR ACADEMIC PRACTICE’?

The following should be considered when determining if a breach of the Code is ‘academic misconduct’ or ‘poor academic practice’:

i. The student's explanation of what has occurred, and the student's response to concerns raised by the Course Authority, including redemptive behaviour (such as contrition, remorse, apologies).

ii. The extent of problematic material relative to the total amount of material in the submitted work.

iii. Whether the conduct is inadvertent or accidental.

iv. The circumstances in which the academic misconduct is alleged to have occurred, including the student's personal circumstances at the time.

v. Whether the student has received general instruction, in this or other courses, about appropriate standards of academic research and writing practice.

vi. Whether the student has previously been specifically counselled about the need to adhere to the principle of appropriate scholarly practice or has been found to be in breach of the

Code.

vii. The stage of studies that the student has reached (it can be expected that later year students should have a greater awareness of the principles and expectations embodied in the Code than students at the early stages of their academic studies).

Academic misconduct

A finding of academic misconduct is appropriate where:

i. there is evidence that the student's conduct was knowing, intentional, reckless, wilful, or premeditated;

ii. the student’s conduct was a repeat breach of the Code;

iii. there are no compelling or adequate mitigating circumstances to explain the conduct;

iv. the student's explanation is inconsistent with other compelling evidence (e.g. the student denies copying even though the assessment item contains material that is clearly copied from another identified source), or;

v. the student’s conduct is otherwise inexcusable. The response to academic misconduct is punitive.

Poor academic practice

A finding of poor academic practice is appropriate where the Code has been breached but:

i. the student’s conduct was unintended, careless, inadvertent or uninformed, or;

(7)

DEFINITIONS OF BREACHES

The following are breaches of the Code of Practice for Student Academic Integrity: Cheating

means the breach of rules regarding formal examinations, or dishonest practice in informal examinations, tests or other assessments. Examples include the use of prohibited material or equipment for unfair advantage, and consultation with other persons during the course of the assessment where this is prohibited.

Collusion

is the involvement of more than one individual in an instance of academic dishonesty. All parties involved in such collusion are in breach of the principle of academic integrity (unless there is good evidence of innocent involvement). "Collusion" needs to be distinguished from "collaboration", defined for the purposes of this document as work jointly undertaken and produced.

Fabrication

is the representation of data, observation or other research activity as genuine, comprehensive and/or original when it is not. This includes inventing the data, using data gathered by other researchers without acknowledgment, or wilfully omitting data to obtain desired results. Plagiarism

is copying, paraphrasing or summarising, without appropriate acknowledgement, the words, ideas, scholarship and intellectual property of another person. This remains plagiarism whether or not it is with the knowledge or consent of that other person. Plagiarism has also taken place when direct use of others' words is not indicated, for example by inverted commas or indentation, in addition to appropriate citation of the source.

Each individual student is responsible for ensuring that they are fully informed about methods of acknowledgement appropriate to any piece of assessable work that they submit.

Recycling

is the submission for assessment of work which, wholly or in large part, has been previously

presented by the same student for another assessment, either at the Australian National University or elsewhere. In some cases, lecturers will specifically allow this practice. If no specific provision to the contrary is made, submission of work for assessment a second or subsequent time constitutes a breach of this Code.

(8)

Details of concerns and summary of initial meeting with Student: (To be completed by Lecturer)

Include details of counselling, penalties and other arrangements.

Finding (See ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT OR POOR ACADEMIC PRACTICE?)

□

No breach.

□

Poor academic practice.

□

Academic misconduct.

(9)

Summary of academic misconduct meeting with Lecturer and Student: (To be completed by Head of School, if required)

Finding (See ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT OR POOR ACADEMIC PRACTICE?)

□

No breach.

□

Poor academic practice.

□

Academic misconduct.