Types of Incidents

Some types of misconduct can happen accidentally.  

• An unavoidable mistake might occur, such as a second person appearing in a Respondus recording because a student's roommate forgot their friend was writing an exam that afternoon.

• A well-intentioned student may have a knowledge gap, such as not understanding that using Generative AI “just to get ideas” is still misconduct, or that they can’t collaborate on papers with peers. This may occur if students don’t have previous experience with the Canadian educational system and the rules we consider “obvious.” This may be considered a learning skills issue, rather than an Academic Integrity issue.

• Some misconduct can genuinely happen without a student’s knowledge, like when a student lets their peer borrow their laptop, only to have their peer copy and submit their assignment.  

Unintentional misconduct might or might not need to be filed as an incident, depending on the context. If you do choose to file, the student's level of intentionality can influence penalty selection. 

Did the student undermine the assessment outcomes? In short, did the student gain any advantage over their peers by doing this?  

If the student’s peer stole their work without their knowledge, the student who wrote the work themselves did not gain any advantage on the assessment. 

If the student wrote their assessment in their first language then used Google Translate to convert it to English, and the assessment is not meant to test the student on their language or communication skills, then they did not gain any advantage on the assessment.  

If the student did gain an advantage, it’s also worth considering how much of an advantage they gained. For example, if a student wrote a 5-page paper legitimately and without misconduct, and then used a generative AI tool to write the 1-paragraph summary for their conclusion, they gained an advantage on only a very small portion of the assignment.  

Some situations may be considered misconduct regardless of intention or advantage. If a student fails to follow clearly-stated rules, particularly in a testing situation, then that failure to follow those rules can sometimes be considered misconduct.

For example, if students are clearly instructed that they may not have their phones out during an exam, and a student is caught with a phone in hand, that is misconduct even if the student is not seen using the phone to cheat and claims not to have known. The action is something a) they were clearly and repeatedly warned against, b) not covered by the rubric or assessment questions, and c) compromises the ability of faculty to accurately assess learning outcomes.

Failure to follow evaluation instructions supersedes intention or advantage.

If there was no intention and no advantage, misconduct likely did not occur.  You may have a learning skills issue (such as a gap in knowledge about citations, appropriate AI usage, or collaboration practices) that can best be addressed with student education.

If there is no intention and only minor advantage, this could be misconduct, but it may be better to deal with the issue through student education and in-rubric grade deductions.

For example, if a student wrote most of a paper themselves but used Generative AI to summarize the arguments for their conclusion, you might deduct grades for the rubric section that dealt with the summary, or deduct grades for the percentage of the assessment they did not write themselves, since it did not meet the assessment requirement for original thought. 

Or perhaps a student wrote a paper in their first language, then used Google Translate to translate their words into English. If there are only a few marks in the rubric for spelling and grammar, you could deduct just those marks, and invite the student in for a conversation about what technology is or isn't appropriate to use for your course.

If there is reasonable evidence of intention, or significant advantage was gained regardless of student intention, it is likely that misconduct occurred. Issues of misconduct should be dealt with by filing an academic incident.

Buying or selling academic work, with money, favours, or trades, is contract cheating. Contract cheating is a serious offence. It is impossible to contract cheat accidentally or with innocent intentions. Therefore, contract cheating can only be filed as an offence, and never as a warning.

New subcategories:

• Commission another person (with or without payment) to create or complete any part of an assessment and submitted as their own.

• Commissioned another person (with or without payment) for editing services that made substantial changes to an assignment to the point that it no longer represents the individual student's own capabilities.

Contract cheating cases may be complicated. The evidence can be challenging to collect and interpret, and the cases may have far-reaching implications for students. If you suspect that the case you are investigating involves contract cheating, we encourage you to contact the Academic Integrity Office. 

Incorporating and copying from others and submitting it as their own work.

New Subcategories:

• Copied work from another student in the preparation of an assessment.

• Copied answers from a student during a quiz, test, or exam.

• Presented the ideas or work of others as their own by failing to acknowledge (through citations/references or other means, e.g., a signal phrase such as “according to...”) multiple sources. (NOTE: this subcategory can only be filed as an OFFENCE)

•  Incorporated into their work the suggestions/work/ideas of another student.

The Plagiarism Decision Tree can be a useful tool in deciding whether to file an academic integrity violation.

The act of helping another student or students to commit an Academic Integrity Violation, intentionally or unintentionally. This includes giving answers to other students, posing as another student to complete an assessment, and uploading work to a website where another student took the work and submitted it as their own. 

New Subcategories:

• Left their computer, flash drive, or other materials unattended, allowing other students to copy the material and use it as their own.

•  Loaned all or part of their own assignment to a student who then uses any part of that material in their assignment.                  

• Gave another student testing material (questions or answers) from a course.

• Posed as another student to take an assessment or complete an online course. (NOTE: this subcategory can only be filed as an OFFENCE)

• Uploading testing materials to a third-party website (e.g., Course Hero, Chegg, etc.).

• Uploading material to a third-party website (e.g., Course Hero, Chegg, etc.) that contains Conestoga copyrighted material (e.g., instructions, templates, rubrics, outlines, etc.).

• Uploading work (e.g., assignment, test, exam, etc.) to a third-party website (e.g., Course Hero, Chegg, etc.); another student took that work and submitted it as their own.

Students may not understand that the use of third-party websites (CourseHero, Chegg, etc.) can lead to an academic integrity violation if other students use their work inappropriately. As always, use the metric of intentionality to help guide filing decisions and penalty selection.

If faculty discover work related to their course on a file-sharing website, they can contact the Document Takedown Team at AcademicIntegrityTakedownRequest@conestogac.on.ca to request assistance. For material owned by the faculty or the college, removal on the grounds of copyright will be requested. Current students will be contacted and advised to remove their own materials to avoid future academic integrity violations.

Actions and behaviours that violate testing instructions or compromise the integrity of the assessment, such as having and/or using a phone, causing distractions, and taking photos of the testing materials.

New Subcategories:

• Having an electronic device (e.g. phone, tablet, smartwatch, laptop, or other device) within reach when none are allowed.

• Using electronic device (e.g. phone, tablet, smartwatch, laptop, etc.) or other device when none are allowed.

• Caused an intentional distraction in a testing situation, which prevented the proctor or teacher from observing other students. (NOTE: this subcategory can only be filed as an OFFENCE)

• Taking a photograph of the testing material. (NOTE: this subcategory can only be filed as an OFFENCE)

• Refused to follow directions (e.g. to not share writing utensils, to not talk to anyone in the halls during bathroom breaks, to complete a Respondus room scan, to be alone in the testing room) from a teacher/professor/instructor, proctor, or exam supervisor.

Actions which are inherently cheating, such as the use of a cheat sheet or being caught exchanging answers with another student, are better filed under the more specific category of “unauthorized aids and assistance.” 

Having another person write a test on their behalf is better filed under either “contract cheating”.

Fraudulent behaviour or intentional acts of data falsification that are not more specifically addressed in other categories. All misrepresentation and fraud can only be filed as an offence, never as a warning. 

New Subcategories:

• Changed the wording, answer, or score of an assignment after it was returned.

• Misrepresented the reason for an absence or extension request on a test or assessment.

• Knowingly altered or invented facts, data, or references in an assessment or academic work.

• Altered or falsified documents or records related to academic work (e.g., WIL, co-op., etc.).

Using fraudulent sources hallucinated by a gen AI tool (i.e., ChatGPT or Co-Pilot) is better dealt with under “unauthorized aids and assistance”. The student presumably believed the source data was accurate, so they did not intentionally falsify anything; however, the student still committed an academic integrity violation by using a tool they were not permitted to use.

While posing as another student is lying about identity, claiming another student’s work as your own is lying about authorship. Issues of inauthentic authorship, such as a student posing as another student or claiming another student’s work as their own, can usually be more specifically addressed under “facilitated academic misconduct” or “contract cheating.”

Using tools, resources, devices, or past work that was not permitted to be used in the completion (in part or in whole) of their assessment. Generative AI tools are the most used unauthorized tool, but depending on the context, this can include paraphrasing tools, translation tools, or even spelling and grammar editors. It is not misconduct to use a tool that the student has permission to use, or that does not undermine the learning outcomes of the assessment.

New Subcategories: 

• Used unauthorized aids, materials, or software (excluding Generative AI software) during the preparation of an assignment, which undermined one or more learning outcomes.

• Used unauthorized aids, materials, or software (excluding Generative AI software) during a quiz, test, or exam. (NOTE: this subcategory can only be filed as an OFFENCE)

• Used unauthorized Generative AI (e.g. ChatGPT, DALL-E, Copilot,etc.) in the preparation of an assignment, which undermined one or more learning outcomes.

• Used unauthorized Generative AI (e.g. ChatGPT, DALL-E, etc.) during a quiz, test, or exam. (NOTE: this subcategory can only be filed as an OFFENCE)

• Intentionally gained unauthorized access to testing questions. (NOTE: this subcategory can only be filed as an OFFENCE)

• Used one’s own previously completed academic work when instructions clearly stated that this was not permitted.

• Used an authorized tool in an unauthorized way (i.e., allowed to use Generative AI to brainstorm, but used the tool to write the assessment).

Re-using one’s own previously completed work is only an academic integrity violation if the student does not have faculty permission to re-use work. Resubmission (with or without edits) may sometimes be appropriate, with your permission. Please be aware that resubmitted work may result in a Turnitin Similarity Score of up to 100%. To avoid questions of authorship, ask students for a copy of the old work at the point where you grant permission so that you can compare it to the version that they will submit.

Submitting work prepared with another person or persons, when the assessment should have been prepared independently. Incidents should be filed for all students who worked together.    

If one student took an assignment from another student, but they did not mutually assist each other, the incident is better filed under “Copying from Others (Plagiarism).

New Subcategories:

• Worked on a take-home or online quiz/test/exam with others when it should have been completed independently.

• Worked on an assessment with others that should have been completed independently, resulting in significant overlap of output.