ACADEMIC MALPRACTICE AND MALADMINISTRATION POLICY  

Academic malpractice consists of those acts which undermine the integrity and validity of  assessment, the certification of qualifications; and/or damage the reputation or credibility of  LEICAD.  

This policy aims to ensure that:  

∙ The risk of academic malpractice by staff or students is identified and minimised.  ∙ Any incident of alleged academic malpractice is promptly and objectively responded to. ∙ Appropriate sanctions are imposed on students or staff where incidents (or attempted  incidents) of academic malpractice are proven.  

∙ Conflict of interest in relation to assessment and/or examination practice is avoided.  Staff responsibility  

All members of staff are required to work within the terms of this Policy to ensure the integrity  and validity of assessment, the certification of qualifications and prevent damage to the authority  of those responsible for conducting the assessment and certification.  

Staff must ensure that they:  

∙ Are aware of and comply with the Awarding Organisation and Institute requirements for  internal and external assessment including access, examination and invigilation  arrangements.  

∙ Comply with Awarding Organisation administration processes and report any instances of  maladministration.  

∙ Take part in induction and assessment updating activities.  

∙ Inform students of the Academic Malpractice and Maladministration Policy.  ∙ Design assessment opportunities that limit the opportunity for academic malpractice. ∙ Check the validity of students work.  

∙ Declare any conflict between personal, professional or business interest that will  influence assessment practice.  

∙ Co-operate fully with an enquiry into an allegation of academic malpractice.  Tutor responsibility 

∙ Seek to avoid potential academic malpractice by using the induction period and published  information to ensure students are aware of and understand the policy on academic  malpractice and the penalties for attempted and actual incidents of academic  malpractice.  

∙ Show students the appropriate formats to record cited texts and other materials or  information sources. 

∙ Ask students to declare that their work is their own and wherever possible submit work  through software that checks for plagiarism.  

Investigating alleged academic malpractice  

Any alleged incident of academic malpractice will be investigated in line with the relevant  Institute policies relating to student or staff behaviour.  

The Institute will:  

∙ Conduct an investigation in an open, fair and equitable manner. This will be conducted  by a manager ideally from the curriculum area if they do not form part of the  allegation. If this is the case, the Head of Quality Improvement will allocate the case  to an independent manager to oversee this process.  

∙ Make the individual fully aware at the earliest opportunity of the nature of the alleged  academic malpractice and of the possible consequences should academic malpractice  be proven.  

∙ Give the individual the opportunity to respond to the allegations made.  ∙ Inform the individual of the appeals process against any judgment made.  ∙ Document all stages of any investigation.  

∙ Report suspicions or actual incidents of academic malpractice to the Awarding  Organisation within the specified timeframe as per their policy.  

∙ Where academic malpractice is proven, the Institute will apply sanctions in  accordance with the Awarding Organisation and/or the Institute's procedures. 

Definition of Academic Malpractice by Students 

This list is not exhaustive and other instances of academic malpractice may be considered:  

∙ Plagiarism – the presentation of another person‘s work by another, or using the work of  others without properly acknowledging the source, with or without their permission. ∙ Cheating – obtaining access to the work of another person by deceitful means for use in  examination or other assessment.  

∙ Collusion – the unauthorized and unattributed collaboration of students or others in a  piece of assessed work.  

∙ Falsification – an attempt to present fictitious or distorted data, evidence, references,  experimental results or other material contributing to a piece of assessed work. • Deceit  – seeking to gain an advantage through the misrepresentation or nondisclosure of  relevant information.  

∙ Commissioning – using a person or persons to undertake an assessment which is then  submitted in whole or part of a submission.  

Definition of Academic Malpractice by Staff

This list is not exhaustive and other instances of malpractice may be considered:  

∙ Improper assistance to students.  

∙ Inventing or changing marks for internally assessed work where there is insufficient  evidence of the students’ achievement to justify the marks given or assessment decisions  made.  

∙ Failure to keep student coursework/portfolios of evidence secure.  

∙ Fraudulent claims for certificates.  

∙ Inappropriate retention of certificates.  

∙ Failure to follow Awarding Organisation policies and procedures for administrating the  internal or external assessment processes.  

∙ Assisting students in the production of work for assessment, where the support has the  potential to influence the outcomes of assessment, for example where the assistance  involves staff producing work for the student.  

∙ Producing falsified witness statements, for example for evidence the student has not  generated.  

∙ Allowing evidence, which is known by the staff member not to be the student's own, to  be included in a student's submitted work.  

∙ Facilitating and allowing impersonation.  

∙ Misusing the conditions for special student requirements. 

∙ Falsifying records/certificates, for example by alteration, substitution, or by fraud. ∙ Fraudulent certificate claims, that is claiming for a certificate prior to the student  completing all the requirements of assessment.  

∙ Failing to keep assessment and/or examination papers secure prior to the  assessment/examination.  

∙ Obtaining unauthorised access to assessment and/or examination material prior to an  assessment and/or examination.  

∙ Failing to report any known issues of potential malpractice during examinations.