Student Academic Misconduct Procedures

2.1 The Academic Integrity Team based in the Centre for Education and Innovation will:

1. implement academic integrity education initiatives for staff and students;
2. provide academic misconduct case administration including correspondence, committee support and record keeping; and
3. undertake the analysis and reporting of academic misconduct.

2.2 Academic Integrity Officer(s) (AIO) will be appointed to investigate and determine allegations of academic misconduct. The AIO will be:

1. appointed by the Director, Centre for Education and Innovation in consultation with the relevant Head of School, or equivalent;
2. a dedicated member of academic staff with a commensurate workload allocation; and
3. supported by the Academic Integrity Team.

2.3 A Faculty Academic Misconduct Committee will be constituted to determine allegations of serious academic misconduct. The Committee:

1. will be chaired by the Executive Dean, Deputy Dean or Associate Dean of the relevant Faculty;
2. will include two other appropriately qualified persons selected by the Chair, at least one of which must be an academic staff member from the discipline;
3. must exclude any person who has participated in the referral or investigation of the allegation of academic misconduct; and
4. will be supported by the Academic Integrity Team

2.4 A quorum of a Faculty Academic Misconduct Committee is all three members.

2.5 The Academic Registrar will determine allegations of suspected fraudulent documentation submitted for the purpose of receiving an academic advantage under the Dealing with Instances of Fraudulent Information Policy.

2.6 Authority may be exercised by a person(s) designated by the relevant responsible officer to act on their behalf for the purpose of these Procedures.

3.1 The University may use text matching software or other tools to assist in identifying cases of academic misconduct, provided that students are notified in the Unit Outline of the availability of self-evaluation tools and the intended use of software or tools in the detection of breaches.

3.2 In any discussions or interviews in which a student participates during any process under the Student Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy or these Procedures, the student may be accompanied by one support person, other than a person with a qualification in law. A support person:

1. may not be a person who was involved in, associated with, or alleged to have been involved in or associated with, the subject matter of the academic misconduct allegation; and
2. may speak where required for reasons of clarification, but may only make submissions on behalf of the student if invited to do so by the responsible officer or committee dealing with the matter.

3.3 When conducting any interview, the AIO should provide the student with the name and position of any accompanying staff member in accordance with section 6.5.

3.4 In any case in which a responsible officer has any verbal communication with a student regarding a matter arising under the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy and/or these Procedures, that officer will make a written note of such communication and retain it within an appropriate secure file(s).

3.5 A student may seek confidential, independent advice from the Student Advocacy Service at any stage.

4.1 Where any member of staff, other than a Lecturer in Charge, detects or is made aware of possible academic misconduct, the staff member or the Coordinator, Examinations and Results will report the matter to the Lecturer in Charge of the unit.

4.2 Any member of staff who becomes aware of suspected fraudulent information submitted by a student for the purpose of receiving an academic advantage must bring the matter to the attention of the relevant Senior Officer in the Dealing with Instances of Fraudulent Information Policy.

4.3 Where a Lecturer in Charge has received a report of academic misconduct from an anonymous or external party, the Lecturer in Charge must report the matter to the Academic Integrity Team.

4.4 The preliminary analysis and decision to refer an anonymous and/or external report of academic misconduct for investigation will be made by the Academic Integrity Team in consultation with the Lecture in Charge. A report will normally only be referred where sufficient information from the anonymous or external party has been provided which would allow an investigation to proceed.

5.1 Where a Lecturer in Charge detects or is made aware of possible academic misconduct, they will undertake a preliminary analysis by:

1. reviewing the examination paper or work submitted by the student for assessment;
2. reviewing any report including from any software or tools used for the detection of breaches;
3. reviewing the assessment requirements as specified in the Unit Outline; and
4. seeking informal clarification from the student where it is necessary to further understand the matter.

5.2 Following the preliminary analysis, the Lecturer in Charge will determine whether:

1. they are satisfied that the student did not act inappropriately or dishonestly and the matter should not proceed to investigation; or
2. there is sufficient evidence to proceed as an allegation under section 7.

5.3 Where the Lecturer in Charge has determined the student did not act inappropriately or dishonestly, they should advise the staff member who detected the alleged academic misconduct, where relevant.

5.4 Where the Lecturer in Charge has determined that an academic misconduct investigation should proceed as an allegation, it must be referred to the Academic Integrity Team for assignment to an AIO within 5-working days of being made aware of the possible academic misconduct.

5.5 The Lecturer in Charge must provide all relevant materials to the Academic Integrity Team, which includes:

1. the examination paper or work submitted by the student for assessment; and
2. any evidence of the basis on which the allegation is based, for example:
   1. the Examination Supervisor's report and any associated evidence; or
   2. reference to and preferably copies of other resources which are considered to have been plagiarised; (a printout from an internet site is appropriate, in case that site is subsequently changed); or
   3. evidence of collusion or recycling; or
   4. evidence from text matching software or other detection tools.
3. any penalty recommendation for consideration.

6.1 The Academic Integrity Officer will, within 5 working days of receiving the allegation initiate such investigations as considered appropriate.

6.2 The Academic Integrity Team will confirm whether the student is subject to any concurrent investigation(s) and provide advice to the investigating AIO(s) where allegations are similar and may impact penalty decisions, including any requirements for academic skills development.

6.3 If the Academic Integrity Officer considers that the evidence does not support the allegation, the Academic Integrity Team will advise the Lecturer in Charge, the staff member who detected the alleged misconduct and other relevant officers accordingly and no further action will be taken.

6.4 If the Academic Integrity Officer considers that the allegation has substance, the Academic Integrity Team must notify the student in writing of the nature of the allegation/s and provide the student with:

1. a copy of, or an opportunity to inspect, documentation relevant to the alleged academic misconduct;
2. a link to the Student Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy and these Procedures; and
3. the opportunity to prepare and submit a written response which must be lodged within 10 working days of the notification of alleged academic misconduct.

6.5 The Academic Integrity Team, on behalf of the Academic Integrity Officer will also:

1. provide the student with the opportunity to request an interview to discuss the allegation; or
2. request the student to attend an interview, giving at least five working days' written notice of the date, time and place of the interview, the name and position of any accompanying staff member and the option to be accompanied by a support person under section 3.2; and
3. where the Academic Integrity Team has reasonable grounds for believing that the student may be adversely affected by the receipt of an allegation notice, attempt to contact the student directly via telephone before the allegation notice is issued.

6.6 Where an allegation of academic misconduct remains under investigation at the end of the relevant study period, the AIT will request that a Results Withheld (RW) grade be applied to the relevant unit by Student Results.

7.1 The Academic Integrity Team must obtain information about any previous educational advice for poor academic practice or occurrences of academic misconduct from the student's personal file or the central register of academic misconduct with the exception of records from units undertaken in a sub-bachelor program which have not been recognised for credit in any higher level award.

7.2 The Academic Integrity Officer will notify the Academic Integrity Team of their decision under section 7.3 within 10 working days from the receipt of a response from the student, or, if no response is received, the due date for a response from the student.

7.3 The Academic Integrity Officer may take one or more of the following actions:

1. dismiss the allegation; or
2. dismiss the allegation but determine that the student has engaged in poor academic practice consistent with section 8; or
3. make a determination of academic misconduct, consider the factors in section 7.7 and apply any penalty that may be imposed under section 9.1 of the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy; or
4. where it is judged that the penalty that may be imposed at section 9.1 of the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy is insufficient, refer the matter to a Faculty Academic Misconduct Committee under section 7.4.

7.4 In the event of an allegation of academic misconduct being referred by an Academic Integrity Officer, to a Faculty Academic Misconduct Committee, the Committee will:

1. undertake such further investigation of the case as is considered appropriate; and
2. provide the student with the opportunity to provide additional information either in writing or in person, giving at least five working days' written notice of the date, time and place of the meeting and the option to be accompanied by a support person under section 3.2.

7.5 The Faculty Academic Misconduct Committee will notify the Academic Integrity Team of their decision under section 7.6 within 10 working days from the receipt of any additional information from the student either in writing or in person, or, if no response is received, the due date for a response from the student.

7.6 The Faculty Academic Misconduct Committee may take one or more of the following actions:

1. dismiss the allegation; or
2. dismiss the allegation but determine that the student has engaged in poor academic practice consistent with section 8; or
3. make a determination of academic misconduct, consider the factors in section 7.7 and apply any penalty that may be imposed under section 9.2 of the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy.

7.7 When deciding a penalty to be imposed under sections 7.3 and 7.6, consideration will be given to:

1. the form of the academic misconduct as described in section 8.1 of the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy;
2. the extent of the academic misconduct or the amount or proportion of assessment task or work that is not the student's own and the extent to which the assessment process is compromised;
3. the experience of the student or the extent to which the student should be aware of appropriate behaviour and of the seriousness of their actions;
4. any explanations and mitigating circumstances provided by the student;
5. the number and type of any previous determination(s) of poor academic practice and/or academic misconduct obtained under section 7.2; and
6. whether the student has had a reasonable opportunity to improve following any previous determination of poor academic practice and/or academic misconduct.

7.8 The Academic Integrity Team will notify the student of the decision of the Academic Integrity Officer or Faculty Academic Misconduct Committee.

7.9 An Academic Integrity Officer or Faculty Academic Misconduct Committee may substitute another penalty where:

1. a student fails to participate in any academic skills development which has been applied as a penalty; or
2. new information has been provided or discovered that impacts the penalty consideration under section 7.7; or
3. a student's enrolment status in the program or unit prevents the application of the penalty.

7.10 A student may not withdraw from a unit after census date to avoid an academic misconduct penalty which results in a fail grade for the unit. Where a student has withdrawn from the unit, their enrolment will be reinstated, and the penalty will be applied.

8.1 To make a determination of poor academic practice it must be evident that:

1. the student has misunderstood the requirements of academic integrity and/or good academic practice; and
2. the student is enrolled in the first eight units of undergraduate or sub-bachelor study, or first four units of postgraduate study at ACU; and
3. there are no more than two records relating to previous determinations of poor academic practice, or any finding of academic misconduct with the exception of records from units undertaken in a sub-bachelor program which have not been recognised for credit in any higher level award; and
4. the misunderstanding has a minor effect on the assessment task.

8.2 Where a student has contravened the expected academic standards in accordance with section 7.1 of the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy, but is found to be ineligible for a determination of poor academic practice under section 8.1, the matter must proceed to an investigation of academic misconduct.

8.3 Where a determination of poor academic practice has been made:

1. the allegation of academic misconduct will be dismissed; and
2. the student's assessment task will be marked as submitted with any reduction in marks for the misunderstanding being justified against the marking rubric/guide; and
3. the student will be directed to appropriate educational resources and may be required to undertake mandatory education to improve their academic skills.

8.4 Where a student refuses to participate in any academic skills development required under section 8.3(c), the matter may penalised as Academic Misconduct under section 7.3(c).

9.1 Where a determination of poor academic practice is made, written educational advice should include advice that an investigation of further possible academic misconduct will take into consideration any previous educational advice. The educational advice letter should be:

1. issued by the Academic Integrity Team;
2. include details of any academic skills development required; and
3. copied to the Lecturer in Charge and the AIO, for information.

9.2 Following determination of a case by an Academic Integrity Officer or Faculty Academic Misconduct Committee, the Academic Integrity Team will advise the student in writing of:

1. the process undertaken during the investigation;
2. the decision reached;
3. the reasons for the decision; and
4. the available avenues of appeal.

9.3 A copy of the advice to the student will be provided to all relevant officers which may include all or a combination of the:

1. Executive Dean; or
2. Head(s) of School (or equivalent); and
3. Lecturer in Charge; and
4. Academic Integrity Officer; and
5. staff member who detected the alleged academic misconduct.

9.4 Where a determination of poor academic practice has been made, the Academic Integrity Team will upload the receipt of educational advice on the student file.

9.5 In cases where there has been proven academic misconduct, the Academic Integrity Team will:

1. upload the misconduct record on the student file; and
2. record the breach and the penalty on ACU's central register of academic misconduct.