Academic misconduct and consequences

WHAT IS ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT?

The International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) defines academic misconduct as“behaviour that results in, or may result in, the student or any other student gaining an unfair advantage (or a behaviour that disadvantages other students) in one or more assessment components” (2016, p.12). It should be noted that academic misconduct includes both deliberate and unwitting behaviour. Not knowing what constitutes academic misconduct does not acquit one from its consequences and penalties.

According to theIBO’s General Regulations: Diploma Programme (2016), academic misconduct includes the following categories and definitions (p.12-13):

a. Plagiarism: this is defined as the representation, intentionally or unintentionally, of the ideas, words or work of another person without proper, clear and explicit acknowledgment

b. Collusion: this is defined as supporting academic misconduct by another candidate, for example, allowing one’s work to be copied or submitted for assessment by another

c. Duplication of work: this is defined as the presentation of the same work for different assessment components and/or DP core requirements

d. Misconduct during an IB examination (for example, taking unauthorized material into an examination, behaviour that disrupts the examination or distracts other candidates, or communicating with another candidate)

e. Unethical behaviour such as the inclusion of inappropriate material in any assessment materials or the breach of ethical guidelines when conducting research

f. Any other behaviour that gains an unfair advantage for a candidate or that affects the results of another candidate (for example, falsifying a CAS record, disclosure of information to and receipt of information from candidates about the content of an examination paper within 24 hours after a written examination via any form of communication/media).

Other examples of academic misconduct include:

• Copying the work of another candidate or allowing one’s work to be copied by another candidate
• Completing an assignment for another student
• Submitting the work done by another student, parent, friend or private tutor
• Not acknowledging sources, whether deliberately or unwittingly
• Falsifying data used in an assignment
• Falsifying CAS records and journals
• Falsifying lab data or work
• Stealing examination material and/or exam papers
• Bringing unauthorized material into the examining room such as unauthorised software on a graphic calculator, smart phones, smart watches, laptops, tablets, wireless headphones, and other electronic devices
• Disrupting an examination or failing to comply with the rules set by the invigilator
• Impersonating another candidate
  
  

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Recent technical advancements in AI tools, such as ChatGPT, have raised concerns in MH and the broader educational community as students have the potential to use these tools to produce assignments and essays.

Why not ban the use of AI?

Neither MH nor the IB bans the use of AI software. According to the updated IB Academic Integrity Policy, “The simplest reason [for not banning AI tools] is that it is the wrong way to deal with innovation. Over the next few years, the use of this kind of software will become as routine as calculators and translation programs. It is more sensible to adapt and teach students how to use these new tools ethically” (2023, p.53). MH takes a similar stance on the use of AI software. The school acknowledges that AI technology will inevitably be commonplace, and instead of banning its use, recognizes its potential as a learning tool and encourages its use in a critical, transparent, and ethical way, not least to foster academic integrity among students as they learn to make ethical and critically-minded decisions in the construction of knowledge and production of authentic academic work.

Is AI reliable?

It is crucial that students understand that AI is subject to bias and error and does not constitute a reliable source. Students should not rely on AI for accurate answers and must verify AI generated answers using other knowledge and methods. Students should be reminded that texts currently produced by AI tools are biased and often inaccurate, repetitive, and formulaic.

What constitutes misuse of AI?

While the IB does not ban the use of AI software, it does stipulate that the use of AI tools should be in line with the IB's academic integrity policy (See: Statement from the IB about ChatGPT and artificial intelligence, 2023). Similarly, at MH, the use of AI is governed by the same rules as the use of other sources and assistance in learning and the same rules apply to the misuse of AI as other forms of academic misconduct. Students should be aware that any work produced—even if only in part—by such tools is not considered their own and needs to be properly credited and referenced. Using AI software to produce an assignment or essay (or part of an assignment or essay) without properly acknowledging, quoting and citing one’s source in the body and bibliography of the assignment/essay, is equivalent to PLAGIARISM and constitutes a form of academic misconduct subject to the same consequences as other forms (see below). Moreover, it is crucial that students follow the rules and guidelines of individual instructors on whether AI can be used to complete an assignment or examination. AI should not be used on assignments or examinations when the use of assistance or aid material is not permitted, such as IB examinations. Rules and guidelines will differ between instructors and assignments. When in doubt, students should always consult individual instructors on whether they can use AI in a particular way on an assignment or examination.

How is AI use detected in assignments?

While there is no software that can definitively identify text that has been generated by AI, there are applications and detector tools, which examine texts for specific patterns and attributes indicating the probability of a text being AI generated. The school currently has access to the online plagiarism detection service Turnitin, which shows the percentage of text that has likely been generated by an AI writing tool and highlights the segments that seem to be AI authored. Students and teachers are expected to use Turnitin for essays and assignments (see Use of Turnitin section below). Teachers are encouraged to use other AI detector tools if they suspect a student’s work of being AI generated without permission or proper referencing of sources. If a student is suspected of misusing AI, the same school rules and procedures on academic misconduct will apply.

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT?

Internal Procedures and Penalties at MH[1]

Internal procedures and penalties are those enforced by the school for incidents of academic misconduct relating to homework, classwork, lab work, essays and internal exams which do NOT include final work submitted to the IBO towards completion of the Diploma Programme (such as final exams, Written Assignments, Individual Orals, the CAS project and portfolio, Comparative Study and Process Portfolio, the TOK essay and the Extended Essay), but may include drafts of such work. 

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 and the IB categories of academic misconduct.
• Where evidence is inconclusive, particularly in cases of suspected AI use, 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, they may or may not be given the opportunity to re-do the work in question (this decision is made at the discretion of the teacher).
• If the student is not given the opportunity to re-do the work, then the student receives a zero for the given work.
• The teacher fills out a report of 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[2] (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 IBO (such as the CAS portfolio, TOK essay, EE, or IA work), OR repeated offences on minor assignments:

Initial Discussion

• 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 re-do the work.
• The teacher may require that the re-submission be completed 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 burden of proof lies with the student to demonstrate the authenticity of their work.
• The student is given the opportunity to do so in the presence of both teachers.
• 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, the teacher may require the student to make the necessary corrections and include proper citations.
• If the student is unable to verify the authenticity of their work, the two teachers jointly determine whether academic misconduct has occurred.
• If the student is found guilty of academic misconduct, the student’s teacher informs the DP Coordinator and submits all relevant statements and evidence.
• The teacher also fills out a report of the incident (Brot á akademískum heilindum, eyðublað) and submits to authorized administrators.
• The principal is informed and determines whether additional disciplinary action is warranted, such as suspension or removal from the course.
• 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 re-do 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 (re-do) of major assessment components

• If a re-do 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 major components of MH course assessment or IB work intended for eventual submission to the IBO (e.g. CAS portfolio, TOK essay, EE, Written Assignments, and other IA work):

• When a student is flagged in the tracking system for repeated offences (more than one) on major assessment components, the DP Coordinator consults with the Principal and/or Vice-Principal to determine the appropriate disciplinary action.
• If a student’s first offence occurs in one subject (e.g. Chemistry) and subsequent offences occur in another subject (e.g. Psychology), disciplinary consequences are applied in relation to the subject in which the most recent offence occurred.
• Each case is considered on an individual 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 inform them of the findings. If the student is under 18 years of age, a parent or guardian is informed.

External Procedures and Penalties

If questions arise about the authenticity of a candidate’s final submission of work towards completion of the diploma programme (such as IA, WA, EE, TOK essay, CAS portfolio or final exams) the school will follow IBO procedures as outlined in Article 21 of General Regulations: Diploma Program (2016) and Academic Integrity (2019).

• The school will conduct an investigation and provide the IB with statements and other relevant documentation concerning the case.
• The DP coordinator will lead the investigation and collect all relevant statements and documentation from parties involved, i.e. the teacher or examiner and the student.
• In such cases, the student must be invited to present a written statement that addresses the suspicion of academic misconduct.
• The majority of cases of suspected academic misconduct will be presented to an IB sub-committee of the Final Award Committee. If the sub-committee decides that a case of academic misconduct has been established, a penalty will be applied in the subject(s) concerned.
• If no grade is issued for a subject that contributes to a candidate’s IB Diploma, no IB Diploma will be awarded to the candidate.

For a detailed account of IB investigation procedures and penalty matrices for both school maladministration and student academic misconduct, please consult the appendices of the IBO’s publication Academic Integrity (2019).