Case Summaries

The student agreed that the AI material was not referenced. Although the provider asked students to declare any use of AI when submitting their dissertation and to provide a short description of how it had been used, the student had not acknowledged their use of AI on the form. The provider convened a panel. It decided that the student had committed academic misconduct and gave a mark of zero.

The student appealed on the grounds that there had been a material irregularity in the conduct of the academic misconduct process. The provider rejected the student’s appeal.

The student complained to us. They were disappointed that they received no credit for being honest about using AI in the viva, or for the time and effort they invested in their dissertation.

We did not uphold the student’s complaint (we found it Not Justified).

We could see that the provider had considered an appropriate range of evidence. This included the student’s disclosure and responses during the viva, their draft notes, and their responses to the allegations in writing and in person. It had also considered whether the student’s use of AI amounted to academic misconduct under its AI policy, which outlined both acceptable and improper uses of AI and made clear that failing to properly reference use of AI was academic misconduct. It was satisfied that the student’s attention had been properly drawn to this information, including via a previous academic misconduct process.

We decided that the provider’s final decision was reasonable because it had followed its procedures, and fairly applied its academic judgment. We concluded that the student was given a fair opportunity to respond to the case against them and that the penalty applied was proportionate and in line with its procedures.