Determining The Outcome

In order to ensure natural justice for the student involved the AIO and the AIRC members must pay attention to a range of matters in how the inquiry is conducted and the outcome is determined.

Apply an open, impartial and unprejudiced mind to their duties

Impartiality holds that decisions should be based on merit (in this case the merit of the reasons for the judgement) and without bias, caprice (a sudden changing of the mind without good reason), favouritism or self-interest. An impartial judgement objectively considers all of the relevant facts and considerations and implements the policy equitably.

Prejudice occurs when a decision maker pre-judges the outcome without taking into account any of the relevant considerations including without regard to the evidence presented in the case in question.

For example, a decision-maker’s prior knowledge of the student or previous experience of other cases of academic misconduct may lead them to hold a prejudice about the student or about the outcome of the case in question and would mean that they would be unable to apply an impartial mind to the decision.

AIOs and AIRC Members must be able to set aside such personal views when they determine the outcome of the case. For this reason, members of the AIRC should always be ready to identify a potential conflict of interest and act accordingly.

Recuse themselves if there is or could be a conflict of interest

An AIO or AIRC Member should not be involved in a case, or have any involvement in the finding and recommendation of a case before them, if they have a personal relationship with the student or direct or indirect financial or personal interest in that case, or otherwise have a conflict of interest in the case, even if they do not believe that their interest would affect their duties.

Maintain confidentiality about all matters before them

All investigations of alleged breaches of academic integrity will remain confidential and all information provided in relation to the allegation will remain confidential and only used for the purpose for which it was provided unless:

• the student gives their express consent in writing
• the information gives the University grounds for concern about the security of people or property
• procedural fairness requires the information to be shared
• access to the information is required by law
• the University is obligated or able to do so under the University’s Privacy Policy
• if required as part of any requirement, or request, for relevant information from regulators or government agencies (e.g. TEQSA, Department of Education (Cth), Auditor-General’s Department).

Base findings and recommendations solely on relevant considerations

The Policy sets outs the matters that must be considered in determining an outcome of an alleged breach. Weighing the relevant considerations is a matter for the judgement of the AIO or AIRC.

It is a fundamental principle of justice that a decision-maker must first determine whether a breach of the policy has occurred, weighing the evidence available on the balance of probabilities.

Only once a breach has been established should other considerations be made in determining the appropriate outcome (penalty).

Deciding whether a breach has occurred

The relevant considerations are:

• the available evidence
• specific academic conventions within the relevant discipline

The available evidence

The AIO needs to determine the probative value of the available evidence. The probative value is the extent to which the evidence can be relied on to prove that it is more likely than not (on the balance of probabilities) that the student has breached the policy.

The type of evidence that may be collected will vary in its probative value from highly probative evidence that more reliably indicates that the alleged misconduct has occurred through to weaker evidence that is more suggestive.

In academic integrity investigations objective evidence which is harder to dispute (for example a Turnitin report that is automated and impartial) is more reliable (has more probative value) than evidence about which someone must make a subjective judgement (for example that the writing style is different between two passages of a written assignment).

The more that various forms of evidence corroborate the initial suspicion, and each other, the more certainty the decision-maker can have in weighing the evidence on the balance of probabilities.

Highly probative evidence is needed to support a finding of serious academic misconduct and the more severe penalties that may be applied.

Specific academic conventions within the relevant discipline

In the course of the investigation course coordinators may identify issues that are specific to the discipline or assessment which could help to judge whether misconduct has occurred.

These are the types of issues that may have initially raised the suspicion of the staff member making the allegation – that something about the assessment isn’t ‘right’ for the discipline (for example discipline conventions in written language or disciplinary approaches to problem-solving). AIOs may wish to discuss with the Course Coordinator or person making the allegation if these matters should be taken into consideration in the case in question.

Determining whether the breach is Genuine Misunderstanding or Poor Academic Practice?

The Policy allows the AIO to make a determination at the beginning of the investigation that the student does not have a case to answer. This may be because the allegation is lacking in substance, is vexatious, or reflects Poor Academic Practice rather than academic misconduct.

Poor Academic Practice is alleged academic misconduct that is not extensive or blatant or does not result from an obvious lack of effort. Poor Academic Practice may be found where the conduct represents a very minor contravention of the expected academic standards for university level study in Australia. It is most likely to be found in relation to poor referencing or paraphrasing practice. The policy requires that this be managed through normal marking and feedback processes and considered an opportunity for education of the student about the expected standards.

While more extensive copying of, or failure to acknowledge sources is also poor academic practice, it is likely to be judged to meet the definition of plagiarism or other breach, and would therefore be academic misconduct. AIOs must then make a judgement about whether it occurred as a result of a genuine misunderstanding.

In deciding whether the breach was a result of a genuine misunderstanding, in addition to the evidence of the alleged breach, the decision-maker should consider:

• the level/year of the program or course the student is enrolled in
• any specific information provided to the student about academic integrity as part of their program or course

After a student has been through an investigation for suspected academic misconduct they would not normally be given the benefit of the doubt regarding their knowledge of the policy or the requirements. However, the current breach may be for a different type of misconduct and it is open to the AIO or AIRC to find genuine misunderstanding even when a student has a previous breach in the Register.

Level/year of the program/course student is enrolled in

AIOs and AIRC members should give students in the first year of their programs some leeway in understanding the expectations of academic integrity and of learning the academic conventions associated with their discipline. Students later in their programs can be expected to have a better understanding of academic integrity.

It is reasonable to assume that postgraduates students should have a better grasp of how to behave with academic integrity, having previously studied at undergraduate level at some time in the past.

Nevertheless, academic conventions may differ from what is acceptable in many workplace cultures (for example with respect to referencing), conventions may have changed since the postgraduate student’s first degree or the student may be studying in a new discipline with different conventions.¹⁰ Therefore it should not be assumed that a postgraduate student would necessarily be accomplished at behaving in line with contemporary expectations for academic integrity without some refreshing of their knowledge.

Decision-makers should also consider that there are differences in academic conventions and approaches to academic integrity in different countries. International students and others whose previous academic experience was not in the Australian education system may also lack appropriate knowledge to apply required academic integrity principles, whether they are postgraduate or undergraduate students.¹⁰

Any specific information provided to the student about Academic Integrity as part of their program or course

All students at the University of Adelaide have access to the Academic Integrity module in the Assignment Help area of MyUni.

As part of the investigation decision-makers should consider whether the student has completed the module and any other information about academic integrity education the student has received.

Applying the balance of probabilities test

In law the ‘balance of probabilities’ is the standard of proof applicable in civil proceedings. It describes the weighing up and comparison of the likelihood of the existence of competing facts or conclusions.

In practical terms upon weighing all of the evidence available, the AIO or AIRC must ultimately be more convinced/sure than unconvinced/unsure that a student may have breached the policy in order to meet this threshold.

Deciding what outcome (penalty) should apply

The determination of the penalty to be imposed should consider:

• the extent and seriousness of the misconduct
• mitigating circumstances (that might explain but not excuse the misconduct)
• the level/year of the program or course the student is enrolled in

The extent and seriousness of the alleged misconduct

There is no universal definition of ‘serious academic misconduct’. However, a useful way to decide how serious the alleged misconduct is, may be by considering the intent of the student and the impact of the conduct on the integrity of the assessment scheme and/or the reputation of the University.

Intent of the student

Conduct that is considered to be either unintentional or due to recklessness or negligence is less serious than conduct that is considered to be deliberate and planned. The latter is serious academic misconduct because it leads to the awarding of marks for the assessment that the student would not otherwise have received.

Impact of the conduct

The impact of the conduct on the integrity of the assessment scheme should be considered in light of the purpose of assessment i.e. to demonstrate student achievement of the learning outcomes. So the impact of the conduct should be judged in relation to how difficult it makes determining whether the student has achieved the learning outcomes. Less serious academic misconduct occurs when a student attempts to the address the learning outcomes, but through poor academic practice it is difficult for the marker to establish how much the assessment task relies on the work of others and how much is the student’s own work. Serious academic misconduct occurs therefore when a large portion (or all) of the work relies on the work of others (or previously presented work by the student) or the results are falsified, so that no judgement about the student’s ability to demonstrate the learning outcomes can be made at all. 

Serious academic misconduct may also be found when the assessment task in question relates to the demonstration of a professional competency in a professionally accredited program where failure to achieve the learning outcome could have a material impact on the professional competency of the student and hence could undermine the integrity and reputation of the university’s qualifications.

Across the higher education sector some types of academic misconduct are usually considered more serious, including contract cheating, some types of misrepresentation and solicitation.

Serious academic misconduct should be referred immediately to an AIRC Inquiry.

Circumstances that may be considered

Students may provide an explanation for their alleged breach of the policy which relate to mitigating circumstances. These can be taken into account in determining the appropriate penalty.

Year level of the student

Consistent with the principle of taking an educative approach to  academic integrity, students that are less experienced i.e. students that are new to university or to Australian higher education, are typically treated with more leniency than later year students.

Regardless of the year level of the student repeated breaches of the policy are more serious, particularly if they indicate a pattern of behaviour. For first year students or students new to the University a judgement must be made about whether the behaviour is the same misunderstanding repeated in multiple courses or a more systematic attempt to undermine the integrity of the assessment schemes or gain an unfair advantage.

The Policy guides AIOs and AIRCs in determining the outcomes by mandating certain categories of outcome depending on what the investigation has found. The penalties that can be applied increase in severity and should align to the seriousness of the alleged breach, and the relevant considerations that have been weighed.

Possible findings and penalties/outcomes

No academic misconduct

No further action. Any documentation is captured in the University Recordkeeping system.

Academic misconduct as a result of a genuine misunderstanding

The outcomes for the student will be

Academic integrity counselling and either:

• Re-submission of the assessment task OR
• Adjustment of the grade for the assessment task

A entry is made in the Academic Integrity Register

Academic Misconduct

The outcomes for the student depend on the seriousness of the alleged breach and the other relevant considerations. The outcomes for the student will be:

Academic integrity counselling and either:

• Re-submission of the assessment task OR
• Adjustment of the grade for the assessment task OR
• Failure with a zero grade for the assessment task OR
• An overall fail grade for the course OR
• Referral to an Academic Integrity Committee Inquiry OR
• Referral to the Student Misconduct Tribunal in accordance with the Student Misconduct Rules

Making a considered judgement

Deciding what penalty to apply must be a matter of considered judgement. Having determined that academic misconduct has occurred and decided whether it was as a result of a genuine misunderstanding, the AIO or AIRC panel members must then determine what is the appropriate penalty in this particular case for this particular student. The outcomes are not prescribed.

The decision-maker should have regard for the seriousness of the misconduct, fairness for other students who acted with academic integrity, and also to the effect the penalty may have on  the student. In some cases, the consequences of the penalty may be judged to outweigh the seriousness of the misconduct.

This Figure aims to help decision makers to identify the seriousness of the misconduct and then consider what type of penalty would be appropriate.

Academic integrity counselling

AIOs are required to provide academic integrity counselling as outcome of any confirmed breach whether through a genuine misunderstanding or not. However, AIOs should consider all investigations of suspected academic misconduct as an educative opportunity for the student.

Academic integrity counselling should be information-focused, ensuring that the student understands the nature of the alleged breach and the expected academic standards they should display in order to behave with integrity. When providing academic integrity counselling AIOs should also refer students to academic support services as appropriate to the case in question, including the Writing Centre, Library, Maths Learning Centre, Studiosity and PASS if appropriate. Program advice may also be appropriate especially if a pattern of behaviour across multiple courses is detected.

All students suspected of academic integrity breaches should be required to complete (or repeat) the Academic Integrity module in MyUni.

A student suspected of academic misconduct is likely to experience some level of distress particularly when detailing circumstances that may have been considered by the AIO in determining the outcome of the case. AIOs should refer students to the counselling service or an Education Welfare Officer.

Early referral for support at the beginning of the investigation (i.e. before the outcome has been determined) may be important and students should be encouraged to make use of the support services provided by the Education Welfare Officers in the Student Union or other support.