Case Summaries

The student said that they had not used AI to write their essay. They provided details of their essay preparations, planning and notes. The student noted that they had anxiety and depression and had experienced a recent bereavement and so would not be able to attend a disciplinary panel.

A disciplinary panel considered the student’s written evidence and also compared the essay to some other examples of the student’s work. It decided that academic misconduct had occurred. As a penalty, the student received a mark of zero with any reassessment capped at a pass.

The student appealed. They raised concerns about the reliability of AI detection software used by the provider. The student explained that the detection software had previously flagged another essay they had written for suspected use of AI but in that case it had been agreed that the student had not used AI. This suggested that the detection software was biased against their writing style. They also said that the provider had not properly considered all the evidence they had submitted. 
The provider rejected the student’s appeal.

The student complained to us. We upheld the student’s complaint (we decided it was Justified).

We were satisfied that the panel had engaged with the substance of the student’s essay, and not only relied on the AI detection software report. However, it didn’t properly consider all the points the student raised or the evidence they presented, including their essay planning and preparation. The student had not been given a fair opportunity to comment on how this essay compared to their other essays because some of the evidence the panel relied on had not been shared with them. We concluded that the panel had not given sufficient reasons for the decision it had reached, and it had not explained why the penalty it chose was the appropriate one.

We recommended that the provider reconsider the case. We also recommended that the provider review its regulations and procedures to ensure AI-related offences are included in core policy, and that formal notifications specify which offence(s) students are thought to have committed and why.

The student let us know that when the provider reconsidered the case, it decided that there had not been any academic misconduct.