Case Summaries
Back to Case SummariesAI and academic misconduct - CS072502
Case summary July 2025 | Justified
An international student was invited to attend a viva because Turnitin had identified that their coursework contained substantial amounts of AI-generated content.
After the viva the provider decided that the student had not shown a good understanding of the work submitted and that the student had not shown that they had written the work themselves. The student received a mark of zero and was required to resubmit. The student appealed saying that a significant period of time had elapsed between the original submission and the viva which had affected their recall. They said that they had used Grammarly but believed that this was permitted because English was not their first language.
The provider rejected the student’s appeal on the basis that ‘the grounds had not been met’.
The student complained to us. We upheld the student’s complaint (we decided it was Justified).
We didn’t think the student had been given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations. None of the evidence relied upon by the provider was shared with the student ahead of the viva. They had also not been invited to provide mitigation in writing or to discuss the allegation in person, despite a requirement to do this within the provider’s procedures. The viva exam explored the student’s knowledge of the subject but did not give the student an opportunity to also explain how they had worked on the assignment.
In relying on the outcome of the viva alone, we thought that the decision-makers had not considered all the information necessary to decide whether misconduct had occurred. The provider had not adequately explained why it had decided that misconduct had occurred or why it chose the penalty it did rather than any other possible sanctions. The provider’s response to the appeal also didn’t show any meaningful consideration of the student’s concerns, including about the use of Grammarly, or why it had dismissed the appeal.
We recommended that the provider offer to reconsider the assessment offence afresh. We also recommended that the provider review its procedures to make clear that students should have the opportunity to respond to academic misconduct allegations and present any relevant mitigating evidence.