University Rules: Academic Misconduct Rules (Students) 1. Preamble These Rules are made under Statute No. 22 Student Conduct. 2. Definitions “Academic Misconduct” means any conduct by a student in relation to academic work that is dishonest or unfair and includes, but is not limited to: (a) plagiarism; (b) unauthorised collaboration; (c) cheating in assessment; and/or (d) theft of another student’s work; “Act” means the Edith Cowan University Act 1984; “cheating” means dishonest conduct in any assessment ; “Committee” means: (a) in relation to an honours or master by coursework candidate: (i) the Faculty Board of the Faculty to which the candidate is or may be attached; or (ii) where the Faculty Board has established a committee with specific responsibilities for honours and master by coursework candidates - that committee; and (b) in relation to research and doctoral candidates, the Committee designated by the Academic Board to carry out this role; "Director means the Director, Student Services Centre, or the successor to that position or a person acting in that position or his or her nominee; “examination” means any invigilated form of assessment contributing marks towards the final result in a unit; “General Misconduct” has the same meaning as in the General Misconduct Rules (Students); “Head of School” means a person appointed to or acting in the position of Head of the School either (a) offering the unit which is the subject of an allegation of Academic Misconduct; or (b) in which the candidate whose thesis is the subject of a Thesis Examiner’s Report made under sub-Rule 3(2) is enrolled as a student “interview” includes a meeting conducted by telephone, teleconference or videoconference, or other such media; “Invigilator” means any person, including a member of the academic or general staff of the University, employed by or acting on behalf of the University to attend examinations and/or supervise students who are undertaking examinations conducted by or on behalf of the University (including where examinations are conducted by other national or international educational institutions); “plagiarism” means to knowingly or unknowingly present as one’s own work the ideas or writings of another without appropriate acknowledgment or referencing. This includes, but is not limited to: (a) paraphrasing or copying text without acknowledgment of the source; and/or (b) copying, whether identically or in essence, the text of another student’s assignment or other students’ assignments; and/or (c) copying, whether identically or in essence, of visual representations (for example cartoons, line drawings, photos, paintings and computer programs); “student” means an enrolled student as prescribed in the Admission, Enrolment and Academic Progress Rules at the time of any alleged misconduct; “Student Appeals Committee” means a committee established in accordance with Rule 5 of the Admission, Enrolment and Academic Progress Rules; “thesis” means written material to be submitted by a candidate for assessment in respect of the research part of a course; “Thesis Examiner” means any person who has been formally appointed to act in the position of thesis examiner to a student; 3. Procedure for Reporting Alleged Acts of Academic Misconduct (1) Where an Invigilator has reasonable grounds to believe that a student has committed an act of Academic Misconduct, the Invigilator shall provide a written report of the alleged offence (“Invigilator's Report”) to the Director. (2) Where a Thesis Examiner has reasonable grounds to believe that a student has committed an act of Academic Misconduct, the Thesis Examiner shall provide a written report of the alleged offence (“Thesis Examiner’s Report”) to the Committee. Upon receiving a Thesis Examiner’s Report, the Committee must: (a) dismiss the matter or permit the student to submit a revised thesis if following a consideration of all relevant circumstances surrounding the alleged act of Academic Misconduct, the Committee believes (i) there has not been an act of Academic Misconduct; or (ii) there is insufficient evidence that there has been an act of Academic Misconduct; or (iii) the act of Academic Misconduct was minor or unintentional; or (b) if, in the Committee’s opinion, the student has committed a serious and/or intentional act of Academic Misconduct, the Committee shall provide a written report of the alleged offence (“Committee Report”) to the Head of School. (3) Where an academic staff member has reasonable grounds to believe that a student has committed an act of Academic Misconduct other than in an examination, the academic staff member must investigate the matter in whatever manner, and to whatever extent he/she considers appropriate. The academic staff member must take reasonable steps to contact the student to request the student to attend an interview with that academic staff member for the purpose of discussing the alleged act of Academic Misconduct. Following the investigation, the academic staff member must: (a) dismiss the matter if the academic staff member believes (i) there has not been an act of Academic Misconduct; or (ii) there is insufficient evidence that there has been an act of Academic Misconduct; or (iii) the act of Academic Misconduct was minor or unintentional; or (b) provide a written report of the alleged offence (“Academic Staff Member’s Report”) to the Head of School. (4) Allegations of Academic Misconduct from other persons may be made in writing to the Director, who may report the matter to the relevant academic staff member to be dealt with under sub-Rule 3(3) or deal with the matter under sub- Rule 4(1). 4. Investigation of Allegations of Academic Misconduct (1) In the case of alleged Academic Misconduct in relation to an examination, after full consideration of an Invigilator's Report made under sub-Rule 3(1) or a report from another person made under sub-Rule 3(4), the Director must: (a) dismiss the matter if the Director believes (i) there has not been an act of Academic Misconduct; or (ii) there is insufficient evidence that there has been an act of Academic Misconduct; or (iii) the act of Academic Misconduct was minor or unintentional; or. (b) seek evidence from such sources as the Director considers appropriate. If, in the opinion of the Director after full consideration of the circumstances, there has not been an act of Academic Misconduct or the act of Academic Misconduct is unintentional or minor, the Director may dismiss the matter without requiring the student to attend an interview with the Director (2) Subject to sub-Rule 4(1), before determining what action, if any, will be taken concerning the alleged act of Academic Misconduct, the Director shall take reasonable steps to contact the student to request the student to attend an interview with the Director. (3) Following an investigation conducted under the sub-Rule, the Director must: (a) dismiss the matter if the Director believes (i) there has not been an act of Academic Misconduct; or (ii) there is insufficient evidence that there has been an act of Academic Misconduct; or (iii) the act of Academic Misconduct was minor or unintentional; or (b) at the Director’s sole discretion, but following such consultation as the Director considers appropriate, impose any one or more of the following penalties if in the Director’s opinion the act of Academic Misconduct is serious and/or intentional: (i) give the student a written warning; (ii) deduct marks in line with the seriousness of the act of Academic Misconduct; (iii) disallow any mark awarded for the examination in which the act of Academic Misconduct occurred (iv) require the student to complete another examination;; (v) cancel or deprive the student of all or part of the credit for the relevant unit; (vi) record a Fail by the student in the relevant unit; (vii) suspend the student from the University for such period of time as may be determined by the Director, such period not to exceed twelve months; (viii) expel the student from the University. (4) In the case of alleged Academic Misconduct in relation to a unit or thesis, on receiving a Committee Report or an Academic Staff Member's Report, the Head of School may seek evidence from such sources as the Head of School considers appropriate. If, in the opinion of the Head of School after full consideration of the circumstances, there has not been an act of Academic Misconduct or the act of Academic Misconduct is unintentional or minor, the Head of School may dismiss the matter without requiring the student to attend an interview with the Head of School. (5) Subject to sub-Rule 4(4), before determining what action, if any, will be taken concerning the alleged act of Academic Misconduct, the Head of School shall take reasonable steps to contact the student to request the student to attend an interview with the Head of School. (6) Following the investigation, the Head of School must: (a) dismiss the matter if the Head of School believes (i) there has not been an act of Academic Misconduct; or (ii) there is insufficient evidence that there has been an act of Academic Misconduct; or (iii) the act of Academic Misconduct was minor or unintentional; or (b) at the Head of School’s sole discretion, but following such consultation as the Head of School consider appropriate, impose any one or more of the following penalties if in the Head of School’s opinion the act of Academic Misconduct is serious and/or intentional: (i) give the student a written warning; (ii) require the student to rewrite or redo and resubmit the offending work or prepare an assignment on a new topic; (iii) deduct marks in line with the seriousness of the act of Academic Misconduct; (iv) disallow any mark in relation to the offending work; (v) cancel or deprive the student of all or part of the credit for the relevant unit; (vi) record a Fail by the student in the relevant unit; (vii) suspend the student from the University for such period of time as may be determined by the Head of School, such period not to exceed twelve months.; (viii) expel the student from the University. (7) Any previous findings of Academic Misconduct and any penalties imposed for that Academic Misconduct must be considered by the Director or the Head of School respectively in deciding the penalties to be imposed under sub-Rules 4(3) and 4(6). (8) The student must be notified in writing of the reasons for the decisions and the actions taken by the Director or the Head of School under these Rules. (9) (a) If a student is dissatisfied with a decision made by the Director or the Head of School under sub-Rules 4(3) or 4(6), the student may appeal against that decision to the Student Appeals Committee in accordance with sub-Rules 58(2) – (14) (inclusive) of the Admission, Enrolment and Academic Progress Rules. (b) The only grounds for an appeal to the Student Appeals Committee under sub-Rule 9(a) are one or more of the following: (i) the student did not have sufficient opportunity to present his or case to the decision maker; (ii) the decision-maker was affected by bias; (iii) the process was not carried out in accordance with these Rules; (iv) the decision was made contrary to the evidence provided; or (v) the penalty imposed was excessive or otherwise inappropriate. (10) (a) The interviews referred to in sub-Rules 3(3), 4(2), and 4(5) must be held as soon as practicable following the occurrence of the alleged act of Academic Misconduct and after giving adequate notice to the student. (b) The interviews may, at the discretion of the academic staff member, the Director or the Head of School (as the case may be), be conducted by telephone, teleconference or videoconference or by other such means, provided that the preference of the student is taken into account when making that decision. (11) If, after reasonable steps to contact the student have been made, the student fails to attend any interview held under these Rules, the academic staff member, the Director or the Head of School (as the case may be) may proceed to investigate and make a decision with respect to the alleged offence without having interviewed the student. (12) Neither the student nor the University nor any other person participating in any interview held under these Rules shall be entitled to legal representation. (13) The student may be accompanied at any interview held under sub-Rule 3(3) by any person other than a lawyer or a person who is legally trained. Any person accompanying the student at any interview held under sub-Rule 3(3) shall not have the right to act as the student’s advocate but shall be entitled to attend solely for the purpose of providing support to the student. (14) The student may be accompanied at any interview held under sub-Rules 4(2) or 4(5) by any person other than a lawyer or a person who is legally trained. Any person accompanying the student at any interview held pursuant to sub-Rules 4(2) or 4(5) shall have the right to act as the student’s advocate. (15) Nothing in these Rules is intended to exclude or limit the provisions for cancellation of enrolment or expulsion of the student under the Admission, Enrolment and Academic Progress Rules. 5. Service of Documents (1) Where a notice or other document is permitted or required by these Rules to be given or served, service of the notice or document may be effected on the person to be served: (a) by giving the notice or document directly to that person; (b) by sending, as an email message, the notice or document to that person’s last known ECU email address; (c) by sending, in the body of an email message to that person’s last known ECU email address, a URL (uniform resource locator) link to the notice or document, together with notification that the person is required to download the notice or document; (d) by posting the notice or document as a letter to that person’s last known address; or (e) by leaving it for that person at their last known place of abode. (2) Where the notice or document is sent in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of sub Rule 5(1), service is deemed to occur at the time of sending the message. (3) Where the notice or document is posted in accordance with paragraph (d) of sub Rule 5(1), service is deemed to occur at the expiration of 5 working days from the time of posting. Misconduct Rules (Students) Approved by Council on 7 December 2006 under Amending Rule No 3 of 2006. Effective from 16 March 2007, the day Amending Statute No 4 of 2006 (Statute No. 22 – Student Conduct) was published in the Government Gazette. Amended by Council: Amending Rule No 1 of 2012 (3 May 2012) For further information contact: Janice Tracey Council Secretary Edith Cowan University Telephone: 6304 2453 Facsimile: 6304 2661 Edith Cowan University Academic Misconduct Rules (Students)