“By creating we think, by living we learn” Patrick Geddes
(Approved by Senate on 28 March 2012)
Also available to download as a .pdf file or .doc file
1. The conduct of examinations in the University is governed by decisions taken from time to time by Senate. In that regard, it has been agreed that one or more external examiner(s) must be appointed for all provision that leads to a higher education award.
2. This document sets out the role, powers and responsibilities the University assigns to its external examiners for undergraduate and taught postgraduate programmes and it is intended for their information, and also for Deans, staff involved in assessment and members of Boards of Examiners.
3. The primary role of the external examiner is to provide an external and unbiased perspective on the fairness and appropriateness of the University's student assessment processes as a key element of the University's procedures for the quality assurance of its academic programmes. In their performance of this critical role, external examiners form an integral part of the University's procedures to assure the security of the academic standards of its programmes and awards. Other specific roles that external examiners may be asked to perform are reported in paragraphs 55 to 58.
4. In accepting the role of external examiner, the University expects that the examiner has agreed with his/her own institution the time they need to fulfil their duties. Similarly, the University recognises the importance, and mutual benefit, of the work undertaken by its own staff as external examiners and requires that Schools agree with staff the time required to fulfil this role.
5. The University aims to comply with the indicators of sound practice described in Chapters B6 (Assessment of students and accreditation of prior learning) and B7 (External examining) of the QAA's Quality Code for Higher Education which is available at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/quality-code/Pages/Quality-Code-Part-B.aspx
6. The University's programmes take account of the relevant national subject benchmarking information (http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/subject-guidance/Pages/Subject-benchmark-statements.aspx) and the Scottish Credit & Qualifications Framework (SCQF, http://www.scqf.org.uk/) and it is in the context of these documents that external examiners are invited to make their evaluations.
7. Individuals who can demonstrate appropriate evidence of the following shall be eligible for appointment as external examiners:
8. The University has adopted an "Assessment Policy for Taught Provision" which is available from http://www.dundee.ac.uk/academic/assesspolicy.htm
9. Responsibility for the general management of the appointment of external examiners and the handling of external examiners' reports lies with the College offices of the University. The management processes are described in Appendix 1.
10. External examiners are appointed by the University Court on the recommendation of the relevant Dean endorsed by the appropriate Head of College.
11. Before making such a recommendation the Dean of the relevant School normally ascertains, by informal enquiry of the proposed appointee, that he/she is willing to serve as external examiner.
12. When a vacancy arises, a suitable external examiner is nominated by the appropriate Dean(s) normally after consultation with the School Board or Board of Studies. That nomination is submitted via the relevant Dean on a pro forma together with a brief c.v. and supporting information which confirms that the person nominated has the necessary seniority and experience and meets the other requirements set out in this statement.
13. External examiners are normally appointed for a period of three years in the first instance, with the possibility of an extension of one further year. External examiners may be appointed for no more than four years, although under exceptional circumstances (e.g. when a programme is coming to an end), a further one year extension may be considered to ensure continuity. No person who has held office for a continuous period of three or more years is eligible for reappointment until a period of five years or more has elapsed since their last appointment.
14. Former staff or students of the University shall not be eligible for appointment as an external examiner unless a period of five years has elapsed from the date of demitting office or graduation respectively, and all students taught by or with the external examiner have completed their programme(s).
15. A person appointed as external examiner may not normally hold simultaneously more than one other external examinership for undergraduate or taught postgraduate courses during the period of appointment as an external examiner in the University.
16. An external examiner shall not normally be appointed from a department of another institution in which a member of staff of the Dundee School is serving as an external examiner.
17. The external examiner should not succeed a colleague from the examiner's home department and institution.
18. More than one external examiner from the same department of the same institution should not be appointed.
19. Persons appointed as external examiners should not have any direct interests or ties to the University which might be sufficient to cast doubts upon their independence. Specifically, individuals in any of the following categories should not normally be appointed as external examiners:
20. Any request for the early termination of an external examiner's contract will only be considered in exceptional circumstances by the Director of Policy, Governance and Legal Affairs in consultation with the relevant Dean.
21. External examiners are full members of the relevant Board(s) of Examiners
Information required on appointment
22. The relevant College office issues the letter of appointment for new external examiners reporting the conditions of their employment together with copies of this Policy and Code of Practice and the University's assessment policy for taught provision.
23. On appointment, Schools are expected to send external examiners full information on the courses which are to be examined including: programme and module specifications; course aims and objectives; syllabuses; copies of examination papers from previous years (if appropriate); details of methods of assessment including the way in which the results of individual papers or other unit of assessment are aggregated, averaged or profiled to produce an overall result; details of any exemption schemes; proposed dates for meetings of the Board(s) of Examiners; and a statement of the School's examination procedures. Such information should be updated as necessary during the period of appointment. Schools may wish to provide external examiners with copies of the relevant QAA ELIR reports, if available, and any internal programme and module review documents which may be deemed helpful. Schools should provide the opportunity for new external examiners to have a face-to-face briefing with the Convener of the Board of Examiners/Programme or Module Leader.
Approval of examination papers
24. All examination papers must be approved by the external examiner(s).
25. Draft examination papers should be sent to the external examiners in sufficient time for them to be able to propose changes and for discussion of the proposed changes to take place where necessary; before draft papers are sent to external examiners they should be checked for typographical errors and should be produced in the University's standard format. Where appropriate, draft papers should be accompanied by model answers or solutions and a marking scheme for each paper.
26. External examiners may be invited to submit questions for inclusion in examination papers.
Written examinations and coursework contributing for final assessment
27. All examination scripts and other coursework that contributes to final assessment should be made available to external examiners.
28. Appropriate scripts and other coursework should be sent to external examiners in advance of the meeting of the Board of Examiners. Schools should agree in advance with external examiners what constitutes 'appropriate scripts and other coursework' in accordance with the guiding principle that externals should receive sufficient evidence to enable them to determine that internal marking has been appropriate and consistent. The normal expectation would require external examiners to be sent a spectrum of scripts drawn from the top, middle and bottom of the mark range including all scripts of borderline candidates (either pass/fail in examinations). In addition, for Honours, all scripts of candidates assessed internally as first class or as fail should also be either be sent to external examiners or made available to them during their visit to the University.
Oral, practical and clinical examinations
29. External examiners may be required to conduct oral examinations and, in cases where only a proportion of candidates are chosen for oral examinations, should agree in advance with the School(s) the principles governing the selection of candidates.
30. External examiners should, where possible, have the same degree of involvement in both the content and the marking of practical examinations as they have for written papers.
31. Wherever practicable external examiners should take an active part in clinical examinations.
32. External examiners may meet students on programmes they examine with the agreement of the School concerned.
33. The University's revised policy on Honours Classification, which Senate approved at its meeting on 1 June 2005, is attached at Appendix 2.
Procedures for reporting undergraduate module results and degree award classifications
34. The Registry has issued guidelines regarding procedures for reporting undergraduate module results and degree award classifications. These guidelines are attached as Appendix 3.
Meetings of Board of Examiners and the final assessment
35. External examiners should be invited to all meetings of the Board(s) of Examiners for the courses which they examine. External examiners should normally attend the main meeting of the Board of Examiners for each programme usually held in May/June for undergraduate programmes.
36. Examination Boards for undergraduate programmes must be held at the end of the second semester and following the resit examinations. They may also be held at the end of the first semester. If an Examination Board is not held at the end of the first semester, any notification of assessment results to students must include the warning that "This result is provisional and may be changed following moderation by the Board of Examiners in the second semester, after which final results will be notified to students". Such provisional results must however include the normal process of internal moderation. If an Examination Board is held at the end of the first semester, it must include participation by the External Examiner in the moderation process.
37. In the case of meetings of Boards of Examiners for subjects at sub-honours level, final assessment may not take place unless an external examiner is present or concurs in writing with the assessment proposed by the internal examiners.
38. In the case of Honours candidates, no meeting of the Board of Examiners may be held and no final assessment may take place without the presence of an external examiner.
39. For the degrees of MBChB and BDS, where contributing subjects have been assessed by a Board comprising internal and external examiners, the final assessment may be made at a meeting of the Board of Examiners in the absence of an external examiner. Wherever possible, however, it is highly desirable that at least one external examiner should be present.
40. The external examiner(s) shall normally have the final right of decision in the assessment of a candidate subject to the Senate's right to review that decision in cases or irreconcilable dispute between internal and external examiners and subject to the normal provisos in relation to the University's obligations in rectifying administrative or procedural error.
41. In relation to the conduct of Boards of Examiners, the following minimum procedures are mandatory:
(i) a formal minute of the meeting must be kept;
(ii) that minute should include:
Absence of external examiner due to unforeseen circumstances
42. If an external examiner is unavailable due to illness or any other unforeseen circumstance, the relevant Head of College following consultation with the Dean and Director of Policy, Governance and Legal Affairs, has the authority to appoint a replacement.
Plagiarism and academic dishonesty
43. The University has a policy and regulations on Plagiarism and Academic Dishonesty (Appendix 4) which are available from the relevant Dean, the Director of Policy, Governance and Legal Affairs or from http://www.dundee.ac.uk/academic/plagiarism.htm. External examiners may be consulted in cases of suspected academic dishonesty but the nature and extent of any such consultation shall be determined on a case by case basis by the Director of Policy, Governance and Legal Affairs.
44. External examiners are required to report to the Principal annually on a pro forma provided by the University. The pro forma follows the recommendations of relevant sections of the QAA Quality Code and includes questions on the following issues:
The pro forma includes invitation to comment on the following areas:
45. Reports are passed to the Director of Policy, Governance and Legal Affairs for comment who returns them to the Deputy Principal (Learning and Teaching) with a note drawing attention to specific points of concern raised by external examiners. The Deputy Principal responds to the external examiner noting points of concern and sends copies of the report and his response to the relevant College Vice Principal for transmission to the School. Deans are expected to make examiners' reports and associated correspondence available to the relevant teaching staff and student representatives.
46. Schools are expected to discuss issues where remedial action is required or recommended, and expected to report to the College's relevant body for monitoring academic standards and to communicate outcomes to the external examiners on the action taken within six months of receiving the report.
47. The Senate Learning and Teaching Committee considers annually an overview of external examiner reports.
48. Payment of the external examiner's fees is authorised on receipt of the report.
49. External examiners' reports and related correspondence are used extensively as part of the University's annual programme monitoring process and periodic programme reviews as well as in the external processes of quality enhancement.
50. External examiners may also submit confidential reports raising any matter of serious concern to the Principal if they so wish, to which a response detailing the actions taken will be made within three months of receiving the report.
51. Should serious concerns relating to systemic failings with academic standards of a programme or programmes fail to be addressed by internal procedures of the University, including the submission of a confidential report to the Principal, external examiners may invoke the QAA's concerns scheme: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/complaints/concerns/pages/educational-oversight.aspx
52. The names, positions and institutions of external examiners should, where possible, be provided in course/programme handbooks, and made available to students.
53. Students may view external examiners reports, with the exception of confidential reports made directly and separately to the Principal. Schools are responsible for retaining external examiners reports and making them available to students on request.
54. Student representatives should be invited to contribute to Schools' consideration of external examiners' comments and recommendations.
Consultation with external examiners on other matters
55. External examiners may be consulted on any existing exemption schemes and on any proposal to introduce an exemption scheme.
56. External Examiners may be consulted on any penalty points scheme for the late submission of coursework.
57. External examiners may be consulted by Schools or Boards of Studies on proposals for the introduction of new programmes or modules within their area of expertise and on substantial changes to the programmes which they examine.
58. External examiners may be consulted by Schools in connection with internal programme reviews usually carried out on a five-yearly cycle.
59. The Higher Education Academy (http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/home) provides resources, links and events to support external examining.
Management Processes for External Examining of Taught Programmes
1. Proposal of candidates
a) Deans on behalf of their Schools shall submit formal proposals for appointments to their relevant Head of College, in accordance with the standard pro forma (Appointment form available as .pdf file and .doc file.
b) In doing so, Deans will ensure that the prospective appointment fulfils, as far as possible, the criteria set out in the University's Policy and Code of Practice on External Examining of Taught Programmes; where the candidate does not, Deans will provide an accompanying statement of case.
2. Approval of appointment & setting appropriate fees
a) Heads of College may approve appointments, agree fees and issue letters of appointment on behalf of the Court; provided that, in all cases where a proposed appointee does not fulfil all of the University's stated criteria for appointment, or where there is some other uncertainty, advice and endorsement shall be sought from the Director of Policy, Governance & Legal Affairs (PGLA).
b) Colleges shall be free to determine the fee levels to be paid to individual external examiners appointed by them, but the Director of PGLA shall publish guideline minimum fees, following consultation with the College Secretaries.
3. Recording data
a) The details of each appointment, including the fee to be paid, shall be entered into the relevant module of SITS, to which access will be given to appropriate staff in each School Office (following a period of transition during which the Registry will continue to record this information).
4. Annual examiners' reports
Report forms available as .pdf file and .doc file.
a) All annual reports shall be submitted in the first instance to the Director of PGLA, who will update the Deputy Principal (Learning and Teaching) on any relevant feedback, and prepare a letter of thanks to the External Examiner, on behalf of the Deputy Principal (Learning and Teaching).
b) The Director of PGLA will then pass the report to the relevant Head of College and Dean of School.
c) On receipt of the report from the Director of PGLA, Schools should proceed to payment of the annual fee and any outstanding expenses. The Dean of the School should then ensure discussion within the School of the contents of the report, paying particular attention to any areas highlighted by the Director of PGLA.
d) The Head of College may direct that issues of serious concern become a matter for the College Head of Learning & Teaching or equivalent or for the College Learning & Teaching Committee or equivalent.
HONOURS CLASSIFICATION
1. The Honours classification spectrum (see below) represents the minimum criteria to establish consistency for the award of a particular class of Honours degree across the University. It does not reduce the responsibility of Colleges and their boards of examiners to devise their own marking and assessment schemes and to justify on academic grounds and record clearly the exercise of proper academic judgement and discretion.
2. For every Honours programme the College will specify the modules and the examinations which contribute to the final Honours classification, and the basis of classification. This information must be made available to all students prior to their selecting honours options and commencing study of any Honours components.
3. Each School will specify the weighting given to each module and examination or other form of assessment which contributes to the final Honours classification and make that information available to its Honours candidates at the start of their Honours programme.
4. Each School will establish more detailed descriptors additional to the basic University descriptors for the award of grades and classes of degree and make that information available to students at the start of their Honours programme.
5. Final Honours classification should be based upon performance across the Honours programme as a whole. (Honours programme meaning that part of a degree programme which contributes to Honours classification.)
Honours classification spectrum
| Grade | Description |
|---|---|
| 1st | grades at A3 or above in at least 50% of total assessment |
| grades at B3 or above in at least 75% of total assessment | |
| grades at C3 or above in 100% of total assessment | |
| 2/1 | grades at B3 or above in at least 50% of total assessment |
| grades at C3 or above in at least 75% of total assessment | |
| grades at D3 or above in 100% of total assessment | |
| 2/2 | grades at C3 or above in at least 50% of total assessment |
| grades at D3 or above in at least 75% of total assessment | |
| 3 | grades at D3 or above in at least 75% of total assessment |
6. In addition, the overall average grade (calculated via the aggregation scale) for each class of Honours must be equal to or higher than one grade below the class boundary: that is B1 for a first, C1 for an upper second, D1 for a lower second and E for a third.
The classification criteria above shall be those normally applied. In exercising judgements at the margins, Boards of Examiners may take account of the following advice:
· markedly improved performance in final year may be taken into account where a contribution from an earlier year is an approved element of Honours classification;
· compensation between high and low classes should not necessarily be applied mechanically to candidates with very good first class modules nor to candidates with clear or bad fail modules;
· non-completion of an element of Honours assessment without good cause should result in a grade of N being used in the classification process.
7. Where level 3 (SCQF Level 9) modules or level 4 (SCQF Level 10) modules taken in the third year of study count towards Honours classification, any passing grade achieved at a re-sit or re-submission will be considered as a D3 for Honours aggregation purposes.
8. However, boards of examiners retain the final discretion in the award of an Honours class. This discretion includes compensation for, or condonement of failing grades where a board of examiners is satisfied that programme level intended outcomes have been achieved. (See sections 11-14 below regarding policy for compensation and condonement. If, exceptionally, discretion is exercised then good and clear reasons for so doing must be identified and recorded in detail in the Minutes of the Board of Examiners since such decisions may subsequently be challenged in judicial fora.
9. In cases where programmes are aligned with PSB requirements, compensation and condonement may not be appropriate depending upon the nature of the requirements of the PSB.
10. Re-sits are not allowed for final year modules that count towards Honours classification.
11. The University definitions and interpretations of the terms "compensation" and "condonement" are noted below. These have been informed by external references.
Compensation is defined here as the process by which a board of examiners may decide that a strong performance by a student in one part of the curriculum may be used as the basis for the award of credit in respect of a failed performance elsewhere.
Condonement is defined as the process by which a board of examiners, in consideration of the overall performance of a student, decides that without incurring a penalty, a part of the programme that has been failed need not be redeemed.
12. Boards of examiners, may exercise compensation or condonement based on discretion informed by professional judgment and specific information relating to each case. The following procedures must be applied in any case of compensation or condonement:
· each case must be considered on an individual basis;
· the external examiner(s) must agree with each proposal;
· individual decisions, and the basis of justification, must be recorded in the minutes of the board of examiners;
· the "original" grade (i.e. the mark allocated to the module prior to any discussion of compensation or condonement) will be reported to the Registry, with a suffix "flag" indicating compensation / condonement.
13. The student's transcript will show the "original" grade plus suffix "flag", and the award of credit for the relevant module, with a footnote explaining that credit was awarded by compensation/condonement within the University's Assessment policy;
14. In considering approaches to compensation and condonement, examination boards should also consider any accreditation requirements of relevant professional or statutory bodies (PSBs) regarding compensation or condonement. These may:
· restrict or prevent application of compensation or condonement;
· or require additional procedures, e.g. submission of additional, specific information to the board of examiners.
15. In relation to the conduct of Boards of Examiners the following minimum procedures are mandatory -
(i) a formal minute of the meeting must be kept;
(ii) that minute should include:
- a note of members present;
- a record of any declaration by those members of any personal interest, involvement or relationship with a student being assessed;
- the final decisions taken;
- the extent, in specific cases, to which medical evidence or extenuating circumstances were taken into account;
- any general comments made by external examiners; and
- in the case of Examination Boards for Joint Honours programmes, the final decision on Honours degree classifications must be agreed by all of the external examiners involved in that programme.
Procedures for Reporting Undergraduate Module Results and Degree Award Classifications
Module Results (All modules, including Honours)
Once module results have been entered for each item of assessment, including where appropriate the final exam, Schools should run the appropriate process on the SAS screen of the system in order to calculate the overall module result.
School administrators may then print the module sheet showing the calculated grades against students on the module.
This should then be presented to the examination board for approval, indicating where alterations have been made and duly signed by the authorised signatory (Examination Officer or Dean).
These signed sheets should be returned to Registry where the marks/grades will be agreed (finalised) and any alterations made to the final overall module result entered on the system.
Award Classification (Honours only)
Schools are expected to download, prior to the examination board, a cognos report listing all students expected to complete an honours programme. Two formats are available-list and cross-tab.
This should be presented to the examination board, along with the classification sheet as supplied by the Registry.
The final classification awarded should be entered against each student on both the cognos report and the classification sheet provided.
These should then both be signed by the authorised signatory (external examiner and School's Examinations Officer).
Any changes made to module marks for the previous (3rd) year of an honours programme should be notified separately to the Registry to allow the system to be updated.
These signed reports and classification sheets should be returned to the Registry as soon as possible after the examination board and not later than a date specified by the Registry.
Additional Information
Students graduating with an Ordinary Degree, Diploma or Certificate of Higher Education should continue to be reported to the Examinations Office section of the Registry.
The Registry will notify all students of their examination results and degree classifications. Final academic transcripts will be produced for all graduates (except for the College of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing).
Code of Practice on Plagiarism & Academic Dishonesty (under review, see Paper B1 presented to the Learning and Teaching Committee at the meeting of 29 September 2011)
1. Preamble
1.1 Plagiarism and other forms of academic dishonesty are particularly unpleasant forms of intellectual deceit, especially as they are more difficult to detect than the more usual forms of cheating which arise under the tighter security of written examinations. There are greater opportunities and temptations for students to engage in these activities in assessed coursework, whether that be essays, computer programmes, laboratory or practical work or undergraduate and postgraduate dissertations and theses. Therefore prevention is particularly important and demands the active participation of all teaching staff. Where academic dishonesty nevertheless takes place, all parties, both staff and students, should be clear that the University regards it as an extremely serious offence of equal import to cheating in written examinations, and that it will be dealt with accordingly.
1.2 Examples of Academic Dishonesty
Common forms of academic dishonesty are:
(a) collusion - the representation of a piece of unauthorised group work as the work of a single candidate
(b) commissioning - submitting an assignment done by another person as the student's own work
(c) duplication - the inclusion in coursework of material identical or substantially similar to material which has already been submitted for any other assessment within the University
(d) false declaration - making a false declaration in order to receive special consideration by an Examination Board or to obtain extensions to deadlines or exemption from work
(e) falsification of data - presentation of data in laboratory reports, projects, etc based on work purported to have been carried out by the student, which have been invented, altered or copied by the student
(f) plagiarism - the unacknowledged use of another's work as if it were one's own. Examples are:
(i) inclusion of more than a single phrase from another's work without the use of quotation marks and acknowledgement of source;
(ii) summarising another's work by changing a few words or altering the order of presentation without acknowledgement;
(iii) copying another's work;
(iv) use of another's ideas without acknowledgement or the presentation of work as if it were one's own which is substantially the ideas of another.
Note: In cases of plagiarism it is important to try to distinguish between those in which failure to follow standard conventions of citation and ascription indicate ignorance, carelessness and/or ineptitude and those in which there is evidence of dishonesty. Plagiarism is the practice of presenting thoughts, writings or other output of another or others as original, without acknowledgement of their source(s). The key word here is "work". It includes all material whether that is traditional printed text, web based material or resources from another electronic media.
2. Prevention
2.1 All members of staff must explain to their students at the start of session that plagiarism and other kinds of academic dishonesty are unacceptable forms of cheating which will be penalised severely. Such warnings should be repeated during the session and are especially necessary where dissertations, projects or coursework are substantial elements of the curriculum. Every opportunity should be taken to reinforce this message by incorporating it in published material such as course guides and, in the case of postgraduate research students, by its inclusion in the "Code of Practice for Supervised Postgraduate Research".
2.2 The LEU is working to bring together the many aspects of plagiarism related support provided by the University. This will include reference to current central and School policies, staff tuition and guidance for setting assessments, student guidance on plagiarism (comprehensive and online), as well as the safe detection system SafeAssign (detailed further below at 2.5).
2.3 Warnings on plagiarism and other kinds of academic dishonesty should be accompanied by specific advice from departments about what constitutes plagiarism and academic dishonesty: for example, where a particular discipline draws the line between legitimate and illegitimate drawing on acknowledged or unacknowledged sources; what is regarded as acceptable collaboration between students undertaking joint project work; and what is expected of a dissertation or thesis: is it an original contribution to knowledge or a critical survey of published material? Training students to make such fine distinctions is part of the academic process and should be formally and publicly acknowledged as such, especially since some of the cases which arise, stem from genuine ignorance on the part of students who have never received guidance on how to acknowledge sources properly.
2.4 Scrutiny of academic work should be sufficiently arranged to ensure that signs of plagiarism or unacceptable levels of cooperation, whether intentional or not, are detected at an early stage and brought to students' attention through tutorial guidance and in some cases perhaps by written warning. Of equal importance is to try to avoid the situation arising where a student gets so far behind with coursework that he or she succumbs to the temptation to cheat as the only means of catching up. A further essential issue is the need for supervision arrangements for theses and dissertations to be set out clearly. Students should know how the choice of a dissertation subject is made; they should know how much guidance in planning the dissertation will be available to them and what assistance can be expected during the preparation stage. It should be a matter of departmental policy to provide basic instructions about the extent to which primary sources are to be used in essays and dissertations; how and when to use references and what form they should take; the need for full bibliographies and/or lists of sources including those quoted and those which formed part of background reading.
2.5 Plagiarism detection software
The University of Dundee use plagiarism detection software called SafeAssign. Each student's submissions are checked for plagiarism using this tool against all internet sources and electronic journals. The plagiarism detection software is accessed by instructors through any module within My Dundee.
3. Procedure at Assessment
3.1 The primary responsibility for detecting plagiarism and academic dishonesty, which admittedly may often be extremely difficult, has to lie with teaching staff, though on occasion it may be detected or substantiated by an external examiner. Where a substantive case is detected, an examiner should proceed within the terms of the regulations governing Plagiarism and Academic Dishonesty which provide a graduated set of explicit sanctions to be invoked by Boards of Examiners(1), thus avoiding the commonly extreme reactions of excessive leniency or draconian punishment. Extremely serious cases should be referred by the Board of Examiners(1) to the University Committee on Academic Dishonesty for decision and the results of the assessment should be suspended in those cases until that Committee has made a judgement.
3.2 In the case of a report to a Board of Examiners(1) in the context of Regulation 3(2) it is incumbent upon the Convener of the Board(1) to inform the candidate in writing of the allegation and to provide an opportunity for the candidate to respond to that allegation prior to any penalty being considered by the Board. Thereafter if a penalty is imposed under the terms of Regulation 4(1) the Convener(1) must inform the candidate of that penalty and the reasons for it and copy the letter to the Director of Policy, Governance and Legal Affairs. If the candidate is aggrieved by the decision taken, it is open to him or her to request a review of the action taken by the Board of Examiners(1) by the University Committee on Academic Dishonesty. Such a request should be made in writing to the Director of Policy, Governance and Legal Affairs stating the reasons for the request.
3.3 If a Board of Examiners(1) refers a serious and substantial case of academic dishonesty (in the context of Regulation 3(3)) to the University Committee on Academic Dishonesty under the terms of Regulation 4(2), the Convener of the Board(1) should simply inform the student concerned in writing that that action has been taken and that he or she will be contacted by the Director of Policy, Governance and Legal Affairs in due course with information on the procedure to be followed by the University Committee in its investigation.
4. Senate Committee on Academic Dishonesty
4.1 The Senate has established a Committee comprising senior members of Senate and the Students' Assessor to investigate serious cases of academic dishonesty. The Committee may recommend to the Senatus that the award of a degree or other qualification be refused and further recommend the exclusion of a student from the University(2).
UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE
SENATUS ACADEMICUS
REGULATIONS GOVERNING PLAGIARISM AND ACADEMIC DISHONESTY
{Note: these Regulations apply to all undergraduate and postgraduate degrees, diplomas and certificates}
1 The University's degrees and other academic awards are granted in recognition of a candidate's personal achievement.
2 Any action on the part of a candidate which involves plagiarism (defined as the unacknowledged use of another's work as if it were one's own exemplified by copying from a source without acknowledgement of its origin) or other form of academic dishonesty, in work which may be assessed as part of the requirements for an academic award, will be regarded as a serious offence.
3 Where a substantive case of academic dishonesty or plagiarism is detected by an examiner, a written or oral report shall be made to the Board of Examiners(1) concerned, along with one of the following recommendations:
(1) that the examiner is satisfied that the matter should be noted but requires no further action by the Board(1) because it involves no more than a single lapse or a very few minor lapses which have been taken into account in the examiner's assessment of the work; or
(2) that the nature of the academic dishonesty is such that in the examiner's opinion it is appropriate to reduce the candidate's mark for the work in question by a specified amount to reflect the examiner's assessment of the extent of the cheating; or
(3) that the nature of the academic dishonesty is such that in the examiner's opinion it is appropriate to reduce the academic rating of a candidate's whole module by a specified amount to reflect the examiner's assessment of the extent or seriousness of the cheating; or
(4) that the nature of the academic dishonesty, and/or its extent, is so significant that the examiner is unable to penalise the work or the module adequately by a reduction in marks either by way of Regulation 3(2) or Regulation 3(3) above and that the Board of Examiners(1) should consider it as a serious case of cheating.
4(1) In the case of a recommendation from an examiner in terms of Regulation 3(2) the Board of Examiners(1) has the discretion to adjust the marks and results up to the point where the academic rating for the piece of work in question is reduced to zero with whatever consequences would normally follow from such performance, including loss of class in the case of honours examinations, or failure in the case of other examinations.
4(2) In the case of a recommendation from an examiner in terms of Regulation 3(3) the Board of Examiners(1) has discretion to adjust the marks and results up to the point where the academic rating for the candidate's whole module is reduced to zero with whatever consequences would normally follow from such performance, including loss of class in the case of honours examination, or failure in the case of other examinations.
4(3) For the avoidance of doubt a Board of Examiners(1) also has power to make an adjustment to marks and results by way of penalty in terms of Regulation 4(2) where the recommendation from the examiner is in terms of Regulation 3(2)
Where a Board of Examiners(1) believes the extent of the dishonesty in terms of Regulation 3(4) to be such that sanction over and above the disallowance of the piece of work or the module is appropriate, a detailed report of the circumstances of the offence should be sent to the Director of Policy, Governance and Legal Affairs who will arrange for it to be considered along with his recommendation concerning the subsequent action which might be taken by the University Committee on Academic Dishonesty. In such a case, any decision by the Board of Examiners(1) concerning that particular student shall be suspended pending the decision of the Committee.
4(4) The decision of the Committee on Academic Dishonesty shall be final except in those cases where the Committee believes refusal to award a degree or other qualification or exclusion from the University is appropriate. In such cases the Committee shall make a recommendation to the Senate.
October 2006
(1) or the head of department or Dean of School in cases where academic dishonesty or plagiarism is detected in coursework undertaken during the academic year. This is to ensure that matters may be dealt with expeditiously in the interests of the students concerned rather than having to wait for the annual meeting of the Board of Examiners in June.
(2) Any such decision of the Senatus is subject to the provision of Statute 9(5)(b).
del.icio.us
digg
reddit
facebook
stumbleupon