Universities have been reprimanded over unfair treatment of students accused of academic misconduct in a report by the higher education ombudsman for England and Wales.
The Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) said changes to assessments, accelerated by the Covid pandemic when university examinations moved online, had led to uncertainty among students about what is and is not allowed.
In one anonymised case, a university was ordered to make an apology and pay £6,000 compensation to a student for “severe distress” caused by the inappropriate handling of an allegation of academic misconduct in an online examination.
Suspicions were aroused after checks revealed the student had completed the assessment in less than four minutes. The student explained they had prepared draft answers and had been able to quickly adapt these during the assessment.
They were asked to do a mock exam on the spot by investigating officers, who decided the student had seen the questions in advance and applied a penalty. The student, who denied the allegation, was so distressed they sought emergency medical help because of suicidal thoughts. They also accused investigators of racism after noting that other accused students, who were white, received a lesser penalty.
There have been reports of an increase in the number of plagiarism and academic misconduct cases at universities since the introduction of online exams. Figures obtained by the Times indicate academic malpractice at some Russell Group universities has more than doubled.
The OIA, which acts as the final arbiter for student complaints, said it had not seen a significant increase in complaints over academic misconduct cases, but that issues and challenges arising in cases of suspected misconduct had “evolved”.
There were many examples of good practice in how universities addressed suspected academic misconduct, the OIA report said. “But we have also seen examples of processes that have not resulted in a fair outcome.
“Changes to assessment practices that were accelerated by the pandemic have probably contributed to uncertainty for some students about what is expected and what is permitted.”
The report also highlighted the variety of online tools and services available to students, free of charge or paid-for, which could be confusing. “Students may not see a difference between paying for access to a journal article behind a paywall, and paying for a sample of academic writing on the specific topic of a module assessment.
“Similarly, students do not always know whether they are permitted to use any proofreading, paraphrasing or translation assistance, or understand whether the service they have used has been inappropriate.”
Universities should help students by giving examples of legitimate approaches to research, or services students should not use, the report said. The OIA also suggested students keep drafts of early work as evidence of their own work in case concerns are raised later.
The independent adjudicator, Felicity Mitchell, said: “Higher education providers need to have in place fair processes to identify and address academic misconduct to help safeguard the value of the education they offer.
“But it’s important to set clear expectations of what is – and is not – allowed in assessments, and to remind students of these expectations during their studies. How providers address misconduct where it is suspected can affect both the fairness of the outcome and the wellbeing of the student involved.”
