Academic integrity policy in MH

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY POLICY AT HAMRAHLÍÐ COLLEGE (MH)

The school's mission is to support students' academic, personal, and ethical development in a student-centred learning environment. Academic integrity is a core part of this mission and is essential to creating a culture of trust, respect, responsibility, and authentic learning. All members of the school community, including students, teachers, administrators, and parents/guardians, share responsibility for promoting and upholding academic integrity.

WHAT IS ACADEMIC INTEGRITY?

The International Baccalaureate defines academic integrity as “a guiding principle in education and a choice to act in a responsible way whereby others can have trust in us as individuals. It is the foundation for ethical decision-making and behaviour in the production of legitimate, authentic and honest scholarly work” (IB Academic Integrity Policy, 2023). Academic integrity is more than following rules or avoiding academic misconduct. It is part of an ethical culture that should be embraced and fostered by the entire school community. It promotes fairness in assessment, respect for the work and ideas of others, and confidence that student achievement genuinely reflects individual learning and understanding.

Academic integrity includes, but is not limited to:

• Producing authentic and genuine individual and collaborative work.
• Acknowledging and appropriately referencing any ideas, words, data, images, or other material from external sources that are used in one’s work.
• Using AI, digital technologies, and other sources responsibly, ethically, and transparently.
• Demonstrating honesty and transparency throughout the learning and assessment process.
• Following examination and assessment regulations and contributing to a fair testing environment.
• Respecting the work, learning, and opportunities of other members of the school community.

By upholding academic integrity, students, teachers, and parents/guardians contribute to a fair learning environment in which achievement genuinely reflects students’ own learning, understanding, and effort.

WHAT IS ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT?

The International Baccalaureate defines academic misconduct as “deliberate or inadvertent behaviour that has the potential to result in the student, or anyone else, gaining an unfair advantage in one or more components of assessment” (IB Academic Integrity Policy, 2023). Behaviour that disadvantages another student or compromises the integrity of an assessment may also constitute academic misconduct.

Academic misconduct may occur before, during, or after an assessment and may be intentional or unintentional. Students are responsible for understanding and following academic integrity expectations and assessment requirements.

At its core, academic misconduct occurs when a student's work, contribution, or assessment performance is misrepresented, when the work or contribution of others is used without appropriate acknowledgement, or when a student gains or provides an unfair advantage. This includes the misuse of AI and other technologies, as well as more traditional forms of academic misconduct such as plagiarism, collusion, and unauthorised assistance.

Examples of academic misconduct include, but are not limited to:

• Misrepresenting sources or contributions, including plagiarism or presenting the ideas, words, research, data, images, code, or other work of another person as one's own without appropriate acknowledgement.
• Improper collaboration or assistance, including collusion, copying another student's work, allowing one's work to be copied, or having another person complete work on one's behalf.
• Misusing AI or other technologies, including submitting AI-generated or substantially AI-produced work as one's own, using AI beyond what is permitted for a particular task, or failing to acknowledge AI use where required.
• Gaining or providing unauthorised assistance, including using tutors, online services, peers, or other forms of assistance beyond what is permitted.
• Submitting work that has already been assessed, in whole or in part, for another assessment without explicit permission.
• Fabricating, falsifying, or manipulating research, data, results, records, reflections, or other evidence.
• Violating assessment or examination regulations, including possessing or using unauthorised materials or devices, communicating with other candidates, disrupting an assessment, or impersonating another candidate.
• Sharing or obtaining confidential assessment or examination information without authorisation.
• Engaging in unethical research or other behaviour that compromises the integrity of an assessment or gives a student or another person an unfair advantage.

These examples are intended as guidance and are not exhaustive. Any behaviour that compromises the authenticity, fairness, or integrity of learning or assessment may constitute academic misconduct

GUIDELINES ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AT MH

While the use of AI in education has raised legitimate concerns about authenticity and academic integrity, neither MH nor the IB prohibits its use outright. AI can be a useful educational tool when used critically, transparently, and responsibly.

Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini do not “know” or understand information in the way humans do. They generate responses by identifying patterns in the data available to them and can therefore produce inaccurate or misleading information. It is therefore essential to understand the subject matter, recognise the limitations of AI, and to approach its output critically.

Students and teachers at MH may use AI as a support tool unless otherwise specified, but not as a substitute for their own work. The final product must demonstrate that the work is the student’s or teacher’s own work, rather than the work of an AI tool. Students are fully responsible for their own work and must be able to demonstrate that it is their own.

As a general rule, AI should not be used as a secondary source. However, AI may be used to identify potentially useful sources. Any sources identified through AI and subsequently used in the student’s work must be independently verified, properly cited, and included in the bibliography.

Any use of AI that contributes directly to work submitted for assessment must be acknowledged. This includes using AI to generate, substantially revise, translate, rephrase, analyse, or interpret material or data, as well as to create or modify other content. It also includes sources identified through AI that are subsequently used in the submitted work.

Limited use of AI for brainstorming and exploring ideas does not normally need to be acknowledged, provided that AI-generated content is not incorporated into the final submission and AI has not otherwise contributed directly to the submitted work.

AI use must be clearly acknowledged in the work and referenced in the bibliography using a recognised referencing system, such as MLA, APA, or Chicago, or the standard referencing style used in the relevant discipline.

Personal or sensitive information must never be entered into AI tools, including images of identifiable individuals. AI use also has an environmental cost, particularly for image generation, and should therefore be thoughtful and purposeful. Neither students nor teachers are required to use AI, and individual ethical or personal reservations about its use should be respected.

Above all, students and teachers are expected to use AI with professional judgement, academic integrity, and critical thinking.

Acceptable Uses of AI

Students may use AI as a support tool when explicitly permitted by their teacher and consistent with the requirements of the particular task. Examples of acceptable use include:

• To gather information, while critically evaluating the information provided and considering possible bias or inaccuracies.
• To brainstorm ideas and help get started on a task.
• To reflect on their own thinking and receive feedback.
• To obtain additional explanations or clarification of instructions or concepts.

Teachers may use AI responsibly and professionally to support their teaching and professional practice. Examples include:

• To generate ideas and explore different approaches to teaching and learning.
• To obtain suggestions, feedback, and alternative perspectives.
• To develop assignments, learning activities, and assessment materials, such as rubrics.
• To prepare and adapt lessons and learning materials.
• To improve clarity, accessibility, or language in teaching and learning materials, while reviewing and taking responsibility for the final product.

Unacceptable Uses of AI

Students may not:

• Use AI in ways that conflict with teacher instructions or task requirements.
• Submit AI-generated content, or lightly edited AI-generated content, as their own work.
• Use AI without acknowledging and appropriately citing its use.
• Upload personal data, identifiable information, or sensitive research data to AI systems.

Teachers may not:

• Present wholly AI-generated material as their own work without review, adaptation, or appropriate acknowledgement.
• Rely on AI-generated content without checking it for accuracy, relevance, bias, and appropriateness for their students.
• Upload personal data or sensitive research data to AI systems.
• Use AI to assess or grade student work.
• Require students to use AI tools in order to complete a task.

Teachers may require students to explain their work and disclose whether and how AI was used. This may include:

• An oral defence or discussion.
• Submission of AI prompts and interactions.
• Evidence of drafting and revision history.
• A declaration regarding AI use or non-use.

Teachers will determine appropriate expectations based on the nature of the task, and students are expected to follow those instructions. If there is reason to believe that AI has been used in an unauthorised manner, the matter will be addressed under the same procedures that apply to other forms of academic misconduct.

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT? 

Internal Procedures and Penalties for Students

First offence on minor assignments (such as homework, classwork, lab work, CAS entries, small projects and quizzes):

• The teacher makes the student aware of the gravity of the matter and the student is given the opportunity to respond to the charge.
• The student is reminded of the school’s Academic Integrity Policy.
• Where evidence is inconclusive, particularly in cases of suspected use of AI in an unauthorized way, the responsibility for demonstrating the authenticity of the work rests with the student.
• If the student is able to verify the authenticity of their work and the teacher is satisfied, the case is closed.
• If the student is unable to verify the authenticity of their work, the teacher may assign a mark of zero or allow the student to redo the work, potentially under supervised conditions.
• If the assignment contributes to the term grade, the teacher completes a report documenting the incident, Brot á akademískum heilindum, eyðublað and submits to authorized administrators.
• The student is made aware of the consequences of committing further offences of academic misconduct.

First offence on major components of MH course assessment[i] (such as midterm and final exams and major term assignments/papers/projects), OR major subject components completed outside the exam room before submission to the IB (such as the CAS portfolio, TOK essay, EE, or IA work), OR repeated offences on minor assignments which contribute to the term grade:

• The teacher informs the student of the seriousness of the allegation and provides an opportunity for the student to respond to the charge.

Admission of Misconduct

• If the student admits to the misconduct, the teacher notifies the DP Coordinator and submits any relevant statements and supporting evidence. The teacher also fills out a report of the incident (Brot á akademískum heilindum, eyðublað) and submits to authorized administrators.
• In consultation with the DP Coordinator, the teacher decides whether the student is given a zero for the work or whether the student is permitted to redo the work, possibly under supervision.
• The student is made aware of the consequences of any future academic misconduct.
• If the student is under 18 years of age, the DP Coordinator informs the student’s parents or guardians.

Denial of Misconduct / Inconclusive Evidence

• If the student denies the allegation, and the teacher is not convinced but evidence is inconclusive (particularly in cases involving AI-generated work), the teacher consults with their Subject Coordinator (fagstjóri).
• The Subject Coordinator (fagstjóri) assigns another teacher to review the case independently.
• The student is given the opportunity to do so in the presence of both teachers. The burden of proof lies with the student to demonstrate the authenticity of their work.
• If the student is able to verify the authenticity of their work and the teachers are satisfied, the case is closed. If the student verifies the authenticity of their work but the citations or references are incomplete, they will be required to make the necessary corrections and include proper citations.
• If the student is unable to verify the authenticity of their work, the student’s subject teacher informs the DP Coordinator and submits a report of the incident (Brot á akademískum heilindum, eyðublað) to authorized administrators.
• In consultation with the DP Coordinator, the teacher decides whether the student is given a zero for the work or whether the student is permitted to redo the work.
• The student is made aware of the consequences of any future academic misconduct.
• If the student is under 18 years of age, the DP Coordinator or Principal informs the student’s parents or guardians.

Resubmission (redo) of major assessment components

• If a redo is permitted and the student again fails to establish the authenticity of their work, the teacher notifies the DP Coordinator and submits all relevant statements and supporting evidence.
• The teacher also completes a report of the incident (Brot á akademískum heilindum, eyðublað) and submits it to the authorized administrators.
• The student receives a zero for the assignment and is not permitted further resubmissions.
• The principal is informed and determines whether additional disciplinary action is warranted, including removal from the course, suspension or removal from the program.
• If the student is under 18 years of age, the DP Coordinator or Principal informs the student’s parents or guardians.

Second or repeated offences involving assessment components that contribute to a student’s term grade at MH or final IB grade

• When a student is flagged in the tracking system for repeated offences (more than one), the DP Coordinator consults with the Principal and/or Vice-Principal to determine the appropriate disciplinary action.
• Each case is considered on an individual student basis. Possible consequences include a zero for the assessment component in question with no opportunity for resubmission, removal from the course, and/or further disciplinary action, such as removal from the IB program at MH or expulsion from the school.
• The final decision on disciplinary action is determined by the DP Coordinator and Principal and/or Vice-Principal, taking into account the nature and severity of the offences.
• The DP Coordinator and the Principal and/or Vice-Principal meet with the student to discuss the consequences of the academic misconduct. If the student is under 18 years of age, a parent/guardian is informed and may be present at the meeting.

External Procedures and Penalties

This section applies when questions arise about the authenticity of a candidate’s work after it has been submitted to the IB for assessment (such as IA, EE, TOK essay, CAS portfolio or final exams) or when a concern about academic misconduct arises during or after a final IB examination. In such cases, the school will follow the procedures established by the IB and cooperate fully with any investigation.

• The school will investigate suspected academic misconduct and provide the IB with relevant statements, documentation, and other evidence concerning the case.
• Students suspected of academic misconduct will be given an opportunity to provide a written statement to the IB addressing the concern. If a student declines to do so, the investigation will proceed.
• The school will cooperate fully with any investigation conducted by the IB and provide any additional information requested.
• The IB will determine whether academic misconduct has occurred and, where applicable, will apply a penalty proportionate to the nature and severity of the offence.
• Depending on the circumstances, penalties may include loss of marks, no grade in the subject(s) concerned, or additional sanctions for repeated, multiple, or serious offences. The IB will also determine whether a student may retake an assessment and when this may occur.
• If academic misconduct is established after results have been issued, the IB may withdraw the student’s grade and, where applicable, the IB award.

For further details on investigation procedures, penalties, and retake opportunities, please refer to the IB Academic Integrity Policy, 2023, including its appendices and penalty matrices.

[i] What constitutes minor and major components of course assessment is ultimately determined by the teacher in light of both term assessment and IB subject assessment. However, anything worth 20% or more of the term evaluation can be considered a major component.

The rights of the student, if suspected of a breach of academic integrity

Students who face severe consequences for academic transgressions, such as a fail grade for a whole course, expulsion from the DP or expulsion from the school, have the right to have a parent or another advocate present for discussions about their case. Before a decision is taken regarding suspension or expulsion from the school, and in accordance with article 13 of the Icelandic Administrative Procedures Act (stjórnsýslulög 13.gr.), the student and/or their guardian/advocate have the right to review all evidence relating to the case and to put forward any objections or recommendations.    

HOW TO PROMOTE ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AND AVOID ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT?

Academic integrity is a shared responsibility of all members of the school community. Students, teachers, school leaders, and parents all play a role in fostering a culture of honesty, fairness, trust, respect, and authentic learning.

Students are expected to:

• Produce authentic work that reflects their own learning and understanding.
• Acknowledge and reference sources appropriately, including the use of AI.
• Follow assessment and examination regulations.
• Use technology, social media, and AI responsibly and ethically.
• Seek guidance from teachers when unsure about appropriate academic practices.

Students are responsible for understanding and following this Academic Integrity Policy. A lack of knowledge of the policy does not exempt a student from responsibility.

Teachers are expected to:

• Model and promote academic integrity.
• Teach research, referencing, and responsible use of AI within their subjects.
• Design learning experiences and assessments that support authentic student work.
• Provide opportunities for students to demonstrate their skills and understanding through supervised writing, discussions, presentations, reflections, and other forms of authentic assessment.
• Address and report suspected or confirmed cases of academic misconduct through the school's centralized reporting system.

Academic Integrity Team and School Leadership

The school's designated Academic Integrity Team (which includes the DP Coordinator), is responsible for:

• Overseeing the implementation of this policy.
• Providing guidance and training for students and staff.
• Maintaining records of academic integrity concerns and reported cases.
• Ensuring consistency, fairness, and due process in responses to suspected misconduct.
• Reviewing and updating procedures and guidance as needed.

Parents and guardians are encouraged to support students in developing independent learning habits and responsible academic practices while ensuring that work submitted for assessment remains the student's own.

Authenticity and Verification

The school uses a range of measures to support academic integrity and verify the authenticity of student work. These may include supervised writing, oral discussions, presentations, review of drafts and revision history, and the use of academic integrity software.

For major assessments, including the Extended Essay (EE), students are expected to maintain evidence of their learning and writing process. Final versions of extended written work required by the IB must be submitted through Turnitin or another approved platform.

However, teachers should not rely solely on Turnitin or other software/AI detection tools when determining the authenticity of student work. Professional judgment, familiarity with a student's abilities, and evidence gathered throughout the learning process remain central to establishing authenticity. Students may be asked to explain or defend their work. When concerns arise, students will be given an opportunity to demonstrate authorship and understanding.

When evaluating the use of artificial intelligence, the school follows a principle consistent with IB guidance: AI may be used to support learning, understanding, and the development of ideas, but it must not be used to misrepresent a student's learning or contribution. Staff and students are encouraged to consult the IB resources such as Evaluating 13 Scenarios of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Student Coursework for further guidance.

Education and Support

The school recognises that academic integrity is a learned practice and an ongoing process. Students receive guidance throughout the IB programme on ethical academic practice, research skills, citation and referencing, and the responsible use of technology and AI.

This learning is embedded across the programme, including:

• Pre-IB Life Skills, where students are introduced to academic integrity, ethical research practices, and basic citation and referencing.
• Theory of Knowledge (TOK), where students explore questions of knowledge, evidence, sources, and the responsible use of information.
• Subject courses, where students learn and apply the citation and referencing conventions appropriate to their particular academic disciplines.
• The Extended Essay (EE) process, which includes explicit guidance on academic integrity, citation and referencing, source evaluation, and the ethical use of AI and other external resources.

Students receive ongoing support from teachers, EE supervisors, librarians, and the DP Coordinator. The aim is not simply to teach students a set of rules, but to develop the understanding, judgement, and habits needed to act with academic integrity independently and consistently.

Policy Review

This Academic Integrity Policy will be reviewed regularly and updated as necessary to reflect developments in IB regulations, educational practice, and emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence.

Sources and Acknowledgements

In developing this policy, the team consulted the International Baccalaureate Organization's Academic Integrity Policy (2023) and Reykjavík University's Guiding Principles for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Teaching and Learning.

References

International Baccalaureate Organization. (2023). Academic integrity policy. https://ibo.org/globalassets/new-structure/programmes/shared-resources/pdfs/academic-integrity-policy-en.pdf

International Baccalaureate Organization. (2024). Evaluating 13 scenarios of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in student coursework.

Reykjavík University. (2026). Guiding principles for the use of artificial intelligence in teaching and learning at RU. Reykjavík University: Guiding Principles for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Teaching and Learning

AI use in preparing this policy

AI tools were used during the editing process to assist with language, clarity, and consistency. The content, principles, and final wording were reviewed and approved by the policy team, who retain responsibility for the final document.