Academic Integrity Policy Professional Development

In order to establish a respectful, supportive, and inclusive learning environment, Professional Development tutors outline housekeeping guidelines and a code of conduct at the beginning of every training programme.

1.0 Policy Statement

1.1 Assessment – general

Professional Development’s’ policy is to ensure that adequate and appropriate processes are in place to ensure fair and consistent assessment of its Learners, including the authentication and approval of Learner assessment results.

1.2 Academic Integrity

Assessment standards within Professional Development are maintained through the promotion of academic ethics and education in core values of academic honesty, respect, and individual Learner responsibility. Tutors and support staff will assist Learners by raising an awareness of the risks arising from academic malpractice, including plagiarism, contract cheating and the misuse of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, including AI-generated texts and images.

Learners will receive guidance on how to properly attribute assessment work to the original sources, using Professional Development’s Guidelines for Referencing and Bibliography (which is shared via Dropbox and by their Tutor).

Any work submitted for marking which gives rise to academic concerns amongst Tutors and/or Assessors (e.g.an assessment malpractice query) will be flagged and highlighted as a plagiarism concern before formal referral to the Quality Review Board. The use of plagiarism software may also be considered.

2.0 Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to provide Tutors, Assessors and Learners with guidance on the risks arising from academic misconduct, including plagiarism. Professional Development promotes best practice and proper academic and educational conduct in all its training and education activities, in line with its Policy Statement and its Protection of Academic Processes and Standards procedure.

All support staff, Tutors and Assessors are expected to use their best endeavours to ensure that high standards are maintained across all Teaching and Learning activities in order to protect the value of Professional Development’s training, including using the guidance issued by QQI and NAIN, the National Academic Integrity Network:

https://www.qqi.ie/what-we-do/engagement-insights-and-knowledge-sharing/national-academic-integrity-network

3.0 Scope

This policy has general application across Professional Development as a training provider but applies specifically to any Learner who is engaged on a study programme leading to a QQI award or other professional-type qualification, plus any Tutor involved in programme delivery.

The risk of academic misconduct has always featured across academic education, but this risk has multiplied with the rapid expansion of online learning. Academic misconduct has been defined as: “… any attempt by someone to seek unfair advantage in relation to academic activity or which facilitates others to gain an unfair advantage, or to profit”. (NAIN, Academic Integrity: National Lexicon of Common Terms).

Therefore, it is important that all Learners receive proper guidance to avoid the possibility of a charge of academic misconduct (including plagiarism) being levelled against them within a training course’s study and assessment process. This guidance forms part of a Learner’s study skills training so is expected to be addressed through:

• Tutor guidance during the introductory session on day 1.
• Inclusion as part of the course Assessment Brief.
• Learners being reminded by the Tutor prior to each assessment stage of the course module.
• This policy is also provided to Learners in advance of the course along with the rest of their course materials available in their drop box link.

4.0 Academic Misconduct: Examples and Definitions

Academic misconduct is now an extensive area so can be difficult to define. It essentially involves dishonest behaviour on the part of the Learner and can be divided into five broad categories:

• Plagiarism – using another person’s work.
• Fabrication - making up information.
• Falsification – presenting information inaccurately.
• Misrepresentation – where the Learner falsely represents themselves within a piece of work, e.g., a friend or relative writing up an assignment paper on behalf of the Learner.
• Misbehaviour – acting in ways contrary to accepted academic and educational standards of behaviour, including the improper presentation of information derived from generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) tools.

4.1 Plagiarism

Plagiarism is defined as: ‘the practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own’ (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com). Therefore, it may be applied to both materials used within coursework assignments and to the production of the work itself. Common examples of plagiarism may include:

• Directly copying and pasting text and other information from a course attendee who is attending the same course or has previously attended the course. This can be both deliberate and/or accidental copying.
• Directly copying and pasting text or other information from a course attendee who is attending the same course or has previously attended the course and making minor adjustments to the work and presenting as own. This can be both deliberate and/or accidental copying.
• Directly copying and pasting text and other information from the internet without acknowledging the source – this can be both deliberate and/or accidental copying.
• Copying words or phrases from a book or other text source without giving due credit to the author(s). Note that copying may also result in a breach of copyright.
• The improper use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) tools to include amongst others text, images, music, and video to create and present a written response to an assessment task.

It is recognised that the widespread use of the internet and the emergence of a digital generation of learners who are used to sharing online content may lead to inadvertent copying. However, this would still constitute plagiarism, so Learners need to be made aware of the risks involved in using the internet in their research and learn how to manage these risks appropriately.

Therefore, the definition of plagiarism can be expanded to include:

“Presenting work or ideas from another source as your own, with or without consent of the original author, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement. All published and unpublished material, whether in manuscript, printed or electronic form, is covered under this definition, as is the use of material generated wholly or in part through use of artificial intelligence [AI] … Plagiarism can also include re-using your own work without citation ….”

See: https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/guidance/skills/plagiarism

4.2 Academic Dishonesty

Academic dishonesty is defined as any act that enhances a Learner’s grade unethically and unfairly. Examples of academic dishonesty might include (but are not limited to):

• Cheating - copying another Learner’s work.
• Allowing one’s own work to be copied.
• Procuring, promoting, or participating in paid-for assessment writing services (often called ‘essay mills’ or ‘contract cheating’) where the Learner pays for professional assignment writing or other cheating services, presenting this material as the Learner's own work. In Ireland, facilitating contract cheating has been illegal since 2019 and Professional Development reserves the right to report any concerns in this area directly to QQI for investigation and possible prosecution.
• Recycling - submitting one’s own work which has previously been submitted and graded for an earlier course.
• Fabrication – ‘making things up’ such as inventing sources, quotes etc.
• Collusion/unauthorised collaboration – working with other Learners and submitting work as own. All work submitted for marking must be the Learner’s own work.
• Impersonation – pretending to be someone else or producing assessment work/ carrying out an assessment task/exam on behalf of another Learner.
• Plagiarism (as defined above) - coursework is expected to be the original assessment work done specifically by the Learner for that course, with proper referencing and attribution (see below) of all relevant information gathered from published sources, including the internet.

Therefore, to avoid the risk of academic dishonesty the Learner should be clear in the methods adopted to address an assessment task, demonstrating transparency in the sources used, and display evidence of critical thinking in framing their responses.

5.0 Study Skills Development

Learners are expected to engage with the teaching and learning process within their course with Professional Development and follow their Tutor’s guidance in making full use of the available learning resources (e.g., course notes, slides, reading text sources, video resources, etc.).

The Learner is encouraged to reflect on teaching and learning resources in demonstrating their own critical thinking and developing their own knowledge and skills in response to the course content and tuition. Proper engagement in this manner will allow a Learner to show their learning achievements through their response to the course’s specific assessment tasks.

6.0 Citing Sources and Harvard Referencing

As part of their study skills development the Learner is expected to show appropriate judgement in how they use different sources of information. Learners must use quotation marks and proper citation when quoting from sources, using the Harvard Referencing method, as shared in Professional Development’s Guidelines for Referencing and Bibliography (which is made available via Dropbox and by their Tutor at the start of their course).

Learners need to be aware that the following is regarded as unacceptable conduct:

• Using / tweaking and presenting someone else’s work as their own, including recycling their own work from a previous assignment submitted for marking.
• Copying text directly from the course materials and presenting as own without providing a reference to the source.
• Direct copying from a website or improper use of AI sources.
• Using another person’s ideas without providing a reference to the source.
• Displaying a lack of original thinking on the Learner’s part, e.g., overreliance on the use of a few quoted sources.

All Learners will receive information on referencing conventions within their class notes, with the Harvard Referencing system being used within Professional Development. Tutors will outline Harvard Referencing during the course and will support Learners in this area as part of the course delivery and individual study skills development.

7.0 Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Resources

Generative AI (GenAI) is an artificial intelligence (AI) technology which is having a significant impact on all areas of training and education.

AI programmes apply machine learning and natural language processing technologies to interact with text and visual data in answering prompts set by the individual user. AI then automatically generates content in response to these prompts, presenting these in natural-language conversational formats. This is very different to an internet search response (e.g., a search request on Google) as, rather than simply curating existing webpages and drawing on existing internet content, AI produces new content. However, whilst AI can produce new content, it cannot generate new ideas or solutions to ‘real-world’ problems as it does not understand real-world objects or the social relations that underpin language. Moreover, despite its fluent and impressive output, GenAI cannot be trusted to be accurate. (UNESCO, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386693 )

Professional Development has adopted the view that Learners should be made aware of the risks and limitations of AI resources:

• Ethical principles in relation to training and education remain the same, including plagiarism. The Learner cannot pass off the work of others (including AI-sourced materials) as their own. Placing too much reliance on AI may lead to instances of academic misconduct, both deliberate and / or unintentional on the part of the Learner.
• Tutors are also required to explain to Learners that AI has significant limitations, including:
• Accuracy – Generative AI tools do not assess whether the answer to a prompt question is correct or not. This is because AI generates what it thinks is the most likely string of words to answer that prompt. The response may be factually wrong, or it may omit information, make things up or misinterpret the user’s input instructions and produce a misleading answer.
• Bias - AI tools are trained on data and other inputs created by humans so will reflect human biases. Unlike human intelligence, AI tools cannot reason with the material to create new knowledge so that AI cannot reliably distinguish between biased and unbiased material when using information to construct a response to the request from the user.
• Time limitations - AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) are trained on data but this harvesting of data will have a cut-off date, so inevitably information may become outdated, and AI answers may not reflect the latest information on a subject area.
• Intellectual Property (IP) – some AI-generated materials may be the result of unauthorised data harvesting of books, journals, etc. by AI providers and so may be in potential breach of copyright and IP laws.
• Personal Privacy and Security – Learners should be aware that AI resources may use personal information and other data for the AI platform’s own purposes, e.g., there is a risk that any data submitted to an AI platform or other app may be used by it in further developing the AI tool.
• AI cannot replicate critical and creative thinking, involving the application of the learning to the Learners own environment. Professional Development regards these as essential aspects of learning that form part of a Learner’s assessment tasks as set out in the briefs.
• Referencing rules will still apply so Learners should keep a record of notes and drafts arising from the use of AI resources, including the prompt question or phrases used to generate an AI response. Therefore, in common with proper referencing criteria as outlined above, the use of AI-generated content must be referenced and attributed in the same way as any other source used in responding to an assessment task.

8.0 Learner Verification and Authenticating Assessment

8.1 Learner Verification

Learners attending Professional Development programmes in person will be required to sign in on Attendance Sheets. For online courses, Learners check in with their Tutor at the start of each session and the Tutor updates the Attendance Sheet. It may be necessary to formally request proof of identity (ID) from a learner prior to a skills demonstration as part of the authentication of the assessment stage. Such ID may include one of the following:

• Public Services Card
• Passport
• Driving Licence

8.2 Authenticating Assessments

Principles of academic integrity require that each Learner submits assessment work that is entirely their own. The cover page for each assessment task will include a Declaration of Authenticity which must be signed and dated by the Learner when submitting work for assessment.

Following on from the above, every Learner is expected to abide by the following assessment principles:

• Read, understand, and agree to the assessment and related procedures as outlined in the Professional Development’s Learner Handbook.
• Follow the Harvard Referencing system, as outlined in Professional Development’s Guidelines for Referencing and Bibliography (which is shared via Dropbox and by their Tutor at the start of each module).
• All assessment tasks must be the Learner’s own work.
• Formal assessment tasks must be conducted without any external assistance (unless this is authorised in writing prior to the event as part of any Reasonable Accommodations procedure).

9.0 Tutors and Assessors

Every Tutor is provided with Professional Development’s Tutor Handbook and must agree to read this, confirm their understanding of its provisions, and comply with both its requirements and Professional Development’s policies and procedures. As part of the Professional Development’s academic integrity procedures, a Tutor must notify the Director of Training of any concerns in relation to plagiarism or other forms of academic misconduct.

Assessment procedures include a Learner completing a Declaration of Authenticity for each piece of work handed in for marking and grading. It is important that the Tutor ensures the maintenance of a robust and effective assessment framework by following all assessment procedures. These are supported by the related Internal Verification, External Authentication and Results Approval Panel procedures which act as a further quality check on potential academic misconduct in assessment submissions.

Tutors and Assessors are expected to act as a community of learning in relation to academic integrity matters, communicating any concerns in relation to a particular Learner’s work to the Director of Training to assure the overall integrity of the assessment process and support quality across Professional Development’s training provision.

Tutors and Assessors must pay careful attention to the risks of academic misconduct and potential indicators include (but are not limited to) the following:

• Where a significant difference arises in Learner marks between written assessments and skills demonstrations.
• Learner behaviour and conduct during live online training or in-person training sessions, e.g., inconsistency in the level and quality of questions being asked of the Tutor.
• Failure to cite sources or adopt and use the Harvard referencing system and supporting tools in the correct manner or making no serious effort to engage with referencing skills.
• Learner attendance at live online or in-person training and/or failure to comply with online etiquette procedures, e.g., switching their camera off during live online training.

10.0 Dealing with suspected cases of Academic Misconduct

10.1 Breaches

Each case will be examined by Tutor/ Assessor and/or the Director of Training based on the available facts and the principles of natural justice will apply.

In cases of plagiarism and /or academic misconduct, the details should be recorded by the Tutor/ Assessor, highlighting text to draw attention to the suspected plagiarism. If possible, the plagiarised source should be noted (including a web reference, if relevant) to assist with further investigations.

If the Tutor / Assessor considers that a breach of academic integrity has arisen, then they will refer the case to the Director of Training. Having considered this, the case will be reviewed by the Quality Review Board. The Assessments team will then formally advise the Learner(s) citing examples of Academic misconduct. They will be offered an opportunity to resubmit their work in line with academic integrity standards. During this time, the assessment process is paused pending the response and the work is flagged for ‘potential academic misconduct’ and the marking sheets are placed in quarantine.

In the event that the Learner refuses to accept the offer of resubmission and does not reply within the allocated timeline, the work will remain on hold in quarantine until such time as the Learners engages and responds in writing.

In the event that the Learner confirms that plagiarism and/ or academic misconduct has taken place either advertently or inadvertently, they will be offered one opportunity to re-submit within a narrow deadline of no more than 3 days. In the event that the plagiarism / academic misconduct is restricted to a small section(s) of the work, the Learner might opt to be marked on the remaining elements of their work for assessment. In this case, all sections where plagiarism / academic misconduct is suspected with be marked as Zero.

Professional Development reserve the right to allow a learner to resubmit the work for grading, subject to reduced maximum mark available of Pass grade.

All examples of suspected plagiarism / academic misconduct will be included in the IV Report and will be presented and discussed at the Results Approval Panel meeting. Further, the findings will be reported to the Director of Training, Quality Review Board and Professional Development management as part of the overall governance and academic oversight arrangements.

It should also be noted that, as contract cheating is now a statutory offence, then it may be reported to QQI as the body responsible for monitoring this area.