IMPORTANT STUDENT INFORMATION

All students undertaking any module offered by the Centre for Forensic & Legal Medicine must read and be familiar with the following important regulations and requirements:

University Policy on Academic Dishonesty
University Senatus Academicus Regulations on Plagiarism & Academic Dishonesty
Submission of Assignments
Late Submission of Assignments
Marking of Coursework
The University Standardised Alpha-Numeric (15 point) Marking Scheme
Centre for Forensic and Legal Medicine Performance Descriptors

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 "Safe Assignment" (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 "Safe Assignment". 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 Academic Secretary. 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 Academic Secretary 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 Academic Secretary 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⁾

Each written assignment is accompanied by specific details of the required format, content, completion time, as well as the place of submission, and penalties for late submission.

LATE SUBMISSION OF ASSIGNMENTS

The departmental policy is that there are NO extensions for late submission of course work. Exceptionally penalties for late submission may be waived where written evidence is produced to support such a waiver. In the case of medical grounds this must take the form of a doctor's certificate indicating clearly the dates or period to which the medical condition applies. Doctors are unwilling to see patients for short-term minor illness such as colds or 'flu' for which there is no medical treatment in the ordinary case other than letting the illness take its course. Where a medical problem is more serious or more prolonged and requires prescribed medication, there should be no difficulty in getting either a medical certificate or an extension. In the case of a family bereavement a letter from the student or a member of the immediate family, clergy or doctor is acceptable. This should state as a minimum, date of bereavement, date of funeral, relationship of deceased to student. Only sickness or major life crises will be considered. Where such evidence is produced attached to the late submission the module organiser will refer the matter to the head of department who has the discretion to accept the late submission and reduce or waive the penalties. A note of the decision will be recorded and notified to: the student's file and the module organiser who will advise the student concerned. If late submission is wholly or partially waived, the student is advised that any mark given is provisional and subject to confirmation by the board of examiners. It should be noted that NO work can be accepted after the same has been marked and returned to the rest of the class. In such cases a zero must be awarded for the work and any extenuating circumstances can be brought to the attention of the board of examiners. No extensions will be granted for the literature review or research dissertations but any mitigating factors, again supported by appropriate medical or other certification, can be taken into account by the board of examiners.

MARKING OF COURSEWORK

CENTRE FOR FORENSIC & LEGAL AND MEDICINE PERFORMANCE DESCRIPTORS

Primary Grade	Primary Descriptors	Forensic Medicine Department Description
A Excellent	Excellent range and depth of attainment of intended learning outcomes demonstrated by a superior grasp of concepts; a clear evidence of deep learning; comprehensive command of relevant materials; superior analytical ability and critical thought; high proficiency in structuring and presenting answers.	Answers demonstrate a very full knowledge and understanding of the material and relevant interpretative and critical points.  Answers are well constructed with clear and logical conclusions supported by sound arguments.  Evidence of independent thought by means of arguments of his or her own or by making arguments from the literature using his or her own expression and organisation.  The student will show to a high degree the ability to apply scientific principles to the solution of problems and there will be good use of primary and secondary sources and proper reference to authority.
B Very Good	Conclusive attainment of virtually all the intended learning outcomes evidenced by a thorough grasp of concepts; close familiarity with a wide range of relevant materials; good understanding and appreciation of subject; clear ability in logical argument; proficiency in structuring and presenting argument; good use of examples, references, citations to support and justify answers.	Answers at this level will show a full knowledge and understanding of the material and of relevant critical and interpretative points,  They will be generally well constructed with clear conclusions supported by sound arguments, but the answers will show less independence of thought and mastery of detail and depth than those in the A band.  The student will show substantial ability to apply scientific principles to the solution of problems.  There will be substantial use of primary and secondary sources and proper referencing to authority.  There may be some minor errors or misunderstandings in relatively unimportant details.
C Good	Clear attainment of most of the intended learning outcomes, some more securely grasped than others demonstrated by a more limited grasp of materials and depth of understanding of the subject area; limited ability in logical argument; restricted proficiency in structuring and presenting answers; limited use of relevant examples; little evidence of wide reading beyond class material.	Answers will show a generally sound knowledge and understanding of the material and of relevant and critical and interpretative points.  Answers will be less clearly organised than those in the higher bands and there may be some significant errors, omissions or misunderstandings.  Students will show some ability to apply scientific principles to the solution of problems.  There should be some use of primary and secondary sources and reference to authority.
D   Satisfactory	Acceptable attainment of intended learning outcomes displayed by a qualified familiarity with a minimally sufficient range of relevant materials; a grasp of the analytical issues and concepts which is generally reasonable for the relevant level, even if insecure; little evidence of deep learning; failure to develop and illustrate points	Answers will show an adequate level of knowledge and understating of material but they are likely to be lacking in detail and to include significant errors, omissions and misunderstandings.  The grasp shown of critical and interpretative points may be insecure and the organisation of the answer may be weak.  The student should show an awareness of the need to refer to authority and a limited ability to apply scientific principles to the solution of problems.
MF   Marginal Fail	Attainment of intended learning outcomes is deficient and evidenced by failure to grasp concepts; weak deployment of argument; poor critical ability; lack of clarity in expression of ideas; poor structure of argument;	Answers show some understanding and knowledge of relevant materials but there are serious deficiencies including lack of detail, significant errors, omissions and misunderstandings.  Grasp of critical and interpretative points is poor and the answer may be badly organised and difficult to follow in places.  Ability to apply scientific principles to the solution of problems is limited.  The student may not show awareness of the need to refer to authority.
CF   Clear Fail	Attainment of intended learning outcomes is appreciably deficient in critical respects evidenced by a lack on a secure grasp of basic material; irrelevant or inadequate use of materials; failure to grasp concepts; major errors and misconceptions; poor expression	Answers at this level show very little knowledge of the relevant material and what is known may be seriously misunderstood or misapplied.  If there is any attempt at critical or interpretative discussion it will be inappropriate or badly confused. The student may be unable to apply scientific principles to the solution of problems or to select appropriate principles.  The student may not show awareness of the need to refer to authority.
BF   Bad Fail	No evidence of attainment of intended learning outcomes, with treatment of the subject being directionless and/or fragmentary; little or no understanding of the subject; inadequate and/or irrelevant content .	Answers at this level show very serious weakness.  Very little grasp of the relevant material, with serious omissions, misunderstandings and errors.  Answers may be badly organised and difficult to follow.  No attempt at critical or interpretative discussion.

Back to top