Joe
at Hull our Plagiriasm code is just over a year old, and
the "cheating" code currently being drafted. Both refer to
our standard appeal regulations which allow appeal on one
of two grounds:
"procedural irregularities"
"circumstances affecting the candidate's performance of
which the Board was not aware" (provided it was not simply
a case of the candidate "not bothering" to make known the
circumstances until after the Board had met.
We make clear in the Appeals code of practice that goes
with the regulations that appeals are concerned with the
process of decision making and not the substance or
merits of the decision - the area of "academic (or
professional) judgment" is reserved for the Board and
cannot be questioned. This is re-inforced by a "filter"
system, whereby the Chair of the University Student
Progress Committee must rule that the appellant has
demonstrated prima facie grounds for appeal before there
can be an appeal hearing. In practice very few appeals get
past this hurdle, although a number are resolved
internally. Having said that we have had only two potential
plagiarism appeals, both of which were filtered out.
My advice therefore is
i) restrict the grounds to procedural matters (similar to
the concept of Judicial Review in English Public Law) not
the merits/substance of the decision
ii) introduce a filter for a designated person to "weed
out" the weak/spurious cases.
I would be interested in a copy of your regs on
cheating/plagiarism if you have a spare? We are attempting
to define "cheating" in much wider terms to catch
unacceptable conduct outside the examination room,
something such as "unfair means".
Best wishes
Tim
On Fri, 27 Nov 1998 11:15:18 +0000 (GMT) Joe Taylor
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
| Do any mailbase members have any advice or comment to offer
| on the following issue?
|
| The University's regulations concerning cheating in
| exams/plagiarism allow students who are found guilty by the
| Senate Investigating Committee which considers such cases a
| right of appeal to an ad hoc appeal committee appointed by
| the Senate. The current regulations, though, do not
| elaborate upon the grounds for an appeal, and this has led
| to some students lodging appeals which have turned out to
| be no more than re-trials going over the same evidence and
| arguments as in the original hearing. Unsurprisingly this
| has given rise to some expressions of dissatisfaction on
| the part of those members of staff obliged to serve on the
| appeal committees.
|
| So there seems to be a clear need to expand the regulations
| to make clear acceptable grounds for appeal. These could
| obviously include the presentation of new evidence not
| available to the original Investigating Committee, or any
| evident procedural failing on its part. Has anyone any
| further comments or suggestions, or lessons to pass on from
| experience?
|
| Many thanks for any replies received.
|
| Joe Taylor
| Assistant Registrar
| Academic Office
| University of Warwick
----------------------
Tim P Burton
Administrative Assistant
Student Services Division
Academic Office
University of Hull
HU6 7RX
Tel: 01482 4666589
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|