Suspicion of cheating

How to report suspicions of cheating

Write a brief memorandum detailing the reasons for suspecting cheating and how information regarding the use of sources and referencing has been provided.

Please ensure you include:

• A copy of the student’s answer without indicating the plagiarised text.
• Copies of or references to the texts or sources that the student has either not cited or has insufficiently cited in their submission.
• Specific written guidance provided to students concerning the use of sources and referencing.
• Any other pertinent documentation.
• If the plagiarised content is uncovered using digital plagiarism detectors, please attach the results.

Forward all documents to the Appeals Committee.

Report suspicions of cheating

Suspicion without textual similarity

In cases of suspected unauthorised collaboration and/or use of unauthorised aids (such as applications) where there is no textual similarity (in subjects such as mathematics, economics and technical disciplines), the following procedure applies:

1. The examiner communicates the reasoned suspicion of cheating to the head of department. The report should address aspects like
   • Any striking similarities in answers between examination candidates, such as uncommon mistakes.
   • A reflection on whether the similarities may be due to causes other than collaboration between candidates during the examination.
   • The total number of candidates who provided similar answers or made the same mistake.
2. The head of department will usually appoint a second examiner to re-assess the examination results (using control questions and preferably within 14 days).
3. The head of department reports the suspicion of cheating to the secretary of the Appeals Committee.
4. The examiner will typically review and provide commentary on the candidate’s explanation before the Appeals Committee handles the case.

Procedures in the case of suspicion of cheating at UiA

Established by the University Director on 14.01.2009, with amendments by the University Director on 22.01.2016, 08.06.2018, 21.10.2020 and 13.12.2021.

Please note that the legal texts referred to are translations of legally binding documents originally written in Norwegian. If disputes arise as to the interpretation of these documents, the Norwegian version takes precedent. 

1. Introduction

Students at the University of Agder shall, as part of their education, be trained in active, critical and ethical source usage. In all written work, what each student has gleaned from sources and what comprises the student’s own analyses, interpretations and reasoning shall always be made clear.

The University of Agder has a duty to react to cheating and attempts at cheating. Cheating in itself is a gross breach of the university’s trust and an act of disloyalty to other students. Considerations related to general and specific deterrents call for strict and consistent reaction.

This document describes what cheating is and gives examples of it in different forms of assessment. Further, the consequences of cheating are outlined, what shall be done when the suspicion of cheating arises, and case handling in situations in which there is a suspicion of cheating.

Procedures shall be applied when there is suspicion of cheating on all exams and tests (“gateway tests”, obligatory submissions etc., which are prerequisites for sitting an examination in a course) up to and including at master’s level, and tests during the training phase of PhD programmes.

2. General information

In order to prevent cheating, it is important that the students gain clear and easily accessible information about which rules apply in the case of different forms of assessment.

Permitted resources and references must be written up clearly in connection with exams and tests with invigilation.

General information concerning source usage and references is important in consideration of students’ work with different assignments and home examinations. The university’s website about source use and the webpage kildekompasset.no provide important information about correct source usage/referencing in academic writing.

The departments are responsible for providing supplementary information concerning source use/referencing for their programmes and subjects insofar as it is necessary. Subject or programme-specific information shall be easily accessible for students, preferably via Canvas.

In connection with “Orientation Day”, which the International Office arranges for international students at the start of every semester, the Examination Office provides information about where the students can find relevant information about rules for source use/referencing, as well as the consequences of cheating.

In the case of home examinations, the assignment instructions must be clear as to whether papers are to be delivered individually or as a group submission.

Students are obligated to acquaint themselves with the rules for source use, for permitted resources and references and any other regulations concerning the exam in question. Lacking knowledge as to the rules concerning cheating/attempts at cheating, about permitted resources and references and rules for referencing do not nullify responsibility, provided that necessary information has been made available for the students.

The university uses text recognition tools in order to uncover cases of plagiarism.

3. What is cheating?

The Act relating to universities and university colleges § 12-4 stipulates that:

If a student, through dishonest conduct, has intentionally or grossly negligently gained access to an examination or compulsory activities, the examination or activity may be annulled.

If a student has intentionally attempted to cheat or has intentionally or grossly negligently cheated in connection with the completion of an examination or compulsory activities, or prior to the final assessment, the examination or activity may be annulled.

A student who has acted as described in the first or second paragraph may be suspended from the institution and deprived of the right to sit examinations at all universities and colleges for up to one year. In particularly severe cases, the student may be suspended for up to two years.

A student who has intentionally contributed to conduct as described in the first and second paragraphs may be suspended from the institution and deprived of the right to sit examinations at all universities and colleges for up to one year.

Cheating is not defined in this Act. The regulations relating to study programmes and examinations at the University of Agder contain the following stipulations about what counts as cheating or attempts at cheating (§ 31.2): 

Cheating or attempted cheating in connection with examinations or compulsory activities in order to take an examination (cf. Section 1 f) is considered to include:

• having illegal assistance available during exams
• presenting other people's work as one’s own
• to cite sources or otherwise use sources in written works without sufficient source references
• naming fictitious sources
• presenting a work generated by chatbots (AI-based text generation functions) as one’s own work.
• to cite or otherwise use one’s own previously passed compulsory activities or examination work without sufficient source references
• having obtained admission to the examination by cheating on compulsory activities that are a condition for taking the examination, or by having received approval for attendance at the compulsory teaching on incorrect grounds 

Examples of cheating in the context of different forms of assessment

a) Examples of cheating during an examination or test with invigilation: 

• The student has unauthorised resources and references on the examination premises (loose crib sheets, reading list books and similar if these are not authorised as resources and references, memory sticks, mobile telephones/smartwatch, calculators or computers of another kind/with other content than that which is permitted, etc)
• The student has unauthorised resources and references available outside the examination premises (eg. in the toilet)
• The student has written in authorised resources and references
• The student communicates with other students during the examination, either directly or via mobile phone or computer
• Another person takes the examination in the student’s place
• The student has unauthorised resources and references available during an oral examination or a test, or during “organised” preparations for the oral examination or test

b) Examples of cheating during an examination or test without invigilation:

• The student makes use of material from other sources, quoted directly or paraphrased, without referring to the original source(s) and/or direct quotes are not marked as such (through the use of inverted commas, italics etc.)
• The student submits an answer/product that is completely or partly written or made by others
• The student submits an answer paper, or an excerpt from an answer paper, that they have submitted previously as an examination answer without providing a source
• Unauthorised collaboration whereby students or groups submit completely or partly identical answers

Both fully-fledged cheating and attempts at cheating are subject to the provisions of the Act. Having unauthorised resources and references available during the examination can be counted as fully-fledged cheating even if it cannot be proved that the student has actually used them.

Attempts at cheating will, for example, be considered in cases where a student places an unauthorised resource or reference with the intention that it should be available during the exam, but this is discovered before the exam starts. Cheating which is revealed during book inspection prior to the start of the exam is, however, to be regarded as fully-fledged cheating, cf. The regulations relating to study programmes and examinations at the University of Agder § 31 (3).

In order to determine the reaction to cheating, cheating must have occurred, seen objectively, and there is a requirement for subjective fault in the sense that the student has acted wilfully.

The requirement that there be gross negligence means that there is a qualified instance of blameworthy behaviour which provides the basis for a strong reproach for a lack of due care, whilst wilful intent is evident in cases where a person has acted deliberately. It is, nonetheless, unnecessary to establish a motive if it is to be defined as wilful intent.

4. Aiding and abetting cheating 

If a student has aided and abetted cheating, they can themselves be excluded, cf. Act relating to universities and university colleges § 12-4 (4). The criterion of guilt for aiding and abetting cheating is wilful intent, and this is applied more strictly than in cases where students cheat on their own examination answers. Aiding and abetting cheating could, for example, involve a case in which a student sends their own answer to a fellow student in order to contribute to that student’s answer.

5. Consequences of cheating and aiding and abetting cheating

In addition to the annulment of the examination or test, cheating can also result in exclusion from the institution for up to one year and loss of the right to sit examinations at the University of Agder and other Norwegian universities and university colleges for the duration of the period of exclusion, cf. Act relating to universities and university colleges § 12-4 (3):

A student who has behaved as described in § 12-4 , first or second paragraph, if the board itself or the institution’s Appeals Committee so decides, cf. § 12-4 (5), , may be excluded from the institution and deprived of the right to sit examinations at institutions under this Act for up to one year. The Ministry issues specific provisions concerning information routines, etc.

A condition of the resolution regarding annulment and exclusion is that the student has acted wilfully, or with gross negligence. Attempts at cheating and aiding and abetting cheating mean that the conditions have been met with regard to whether or not the student has acted wilfully.

The usual reaction in cases of grossly negligent cheating is the annulment of the exam/test and exclusion for one semester. The usual reaction for wilful cheating is the annulment of the exam/test and exclusion for two semesters.

Permission to annul the examination does not expire.

Aiding and abetting cheating does not result in the annulment of an examination/test unless the individual in question has cheated him/herself. Aiding and abetting cheating can lead to suspension for up to two semesters.

6. Procedures in the case of suspicion of cheating

a)  Examination/test with invigilation

In cases where there is a suspicion of cheating during written examinations or tests with invigilation, the Examination Office must be contacted immediately. Any unauthorised resources or references (crib sheets and the like) are to be confiscated if this is possible. Any unauthorised mobile telephones/smartwatches are to be removed/confiscated for the rest of the student’s exam time. Contact with the student is to be of such a nature as to result in as little disturbance for the student and fellow students as possible. The student is to be given the opportunity to complete the examination/test. The invigilator/Examination Office will write a short memorandum in which the course of events is described. All case documents are to be sent over to a case worker for the Appeals Committee.

If, during the marking of the written examination or test, suspicion arises regarding cheating, for example if two answers are completely or partly identical, or if there are quotes from unauthorised resources and references, the case is to be handled as described under point 6b.

b) Examination/test without invigilation

In cases such as these, there is often doubt as to whether cheating is apparent or not. The doubt might, for example, concern whether the reference list is sufficient, and if the scope of the text without referencing is large enough to warrant a report regarding suspicion of cheating. If the subject teacher/examiner believes that the referencing is insufficient, the case will be sent on in the system unless the scope of the text without sufficient referencing is insignificant. The case can also be discussed with the course or programme coordinator or the head of department before it is taken further.

It is not possible to determine absolute boundaries with regard to scope since an overall evaluation must always be carried out where factors other than the scope of the plagiarised text alone might be of significance.

If the suspicion applies to two answers where there is the suspicion that a fellow student’s work has been submitted, or that unauthorised cooperation has taken place, then the normal course of action is that suspicion of cheating is reported for both candidates.

When reporting cases pertaining to cheating, the following must be sent:

• A short memorandum with a description detailing why there is a suspicion of cheating and how information has been provided regarding source use/referencing.
• Attachments with the memorandum:
  • Copy of the student’s answer without indicating the plagiarised text.
  • Copy of/reference to copied texts or sources to which the student has failed to refer/refer sufficiently in their answer.
  • Written, specific information provided to the students concerning the use of sources/source references.
  • Any other documentation.
  • If plagiarised text is uncovered with the help of digital tools for plagiarism control, the result of this should be attached.

All the case documents are to be sent to the case officer for the Appeals Committee.

Suspicion of other types of cheating that do not involve plagiarised text, such as help from others or the use of prohibited digital tools (examinations regarding topics such as mathematics, economics, science): 

1. The examiner communicates the suspicion of cheating in writing to the Head of Department. Make sure to mention relevant aspects such as:
   • any striking similarities in answers between examination candidates, for example, uncommon mistakes.
   • a reflection on whether the similarities may be caused by other conditions than collaboration between candidates during the examination.
   • the total number of candidates who answered in a similar way/by making the same mistake.
2. The Head of Department will usually appoint a second examiner to re-assess the examination result through control questions (preferably within 14 days).
3. The Head of Department reports the suspicion of cheating to the Secretary of the Appeals Committee.
4. The examiner will typically review and comment on the candidate’s explanation before the Appeals Committee handles the case.

c) Grading

An answer paper from a written examination/test with invigilation is to be graded as usual, except in those cases where unlawful means have been confiscated, and it is clear that these are relevant to the current examination.  

The paper from the examination/test without invigilation is also to be graded as usual. The examiner(s) must provide a professional assessment in order to decide if, and in which case how much, the student shall be penalised for a lack of independence and/or referencing. This could form the basis of a fail, but this is not to be an automatic assumption.

The grade will be suspended until the cheating case has been concluded. See The regulations relating to study programmes and examinations at the University of Agder § 31 (6): 

If there is suspicion of cheating at an examination or compulsory activity, grading will be withheld until the cheating case is finally settled.

Grading will be suspended both regarding examinations and tests. In the case of a test, the student is not to be allowed to submit a new test and will thereby be barred from sitting an examination in the course. If the examination/test is annulled, the student will not be informed about the grade.

If there is suspicion of cheating at a test where the result is to be registered in the Fagpersonweb, the current student should be registered with ‘not approved’. 

The executive officer of the Appeals Committee informs the examination office that there is a suspicion of cheating so that the grade may be barred.

If the test is not annulled and the student should have been allowed to sit the examination, a new examination must be arranged for the student.

7. Further case handling in cases pertaining to the suspicion of cheating

Case officers, lecturers, examiners, invigilators and any others involved in the case of suspected cheating have the duty of confidentiality.

After the case documents have been sent, the case officer on the Appeals Committee has responsibility for the further processing of the case, including all contact with the student. There will, in the first stage, be an assessment of the case on the basis of previously handled cases before a decision will be made regarding whether it will be pursued further.

If the decision is indeed to pursue the case further, the student will be contacted in writing and asked to provide an explanation. The student will also be invited to a dialogue meeting and oriented about their right to the representation of a lawyer or another authorised agent, cf. Public Administration Act § 12. If there are grounds to suspend the student, then a legal case pertaining to a suspension will be opened, and the student will be notified of their right to the representation of a lawyer, paid for by the university, cf. the Act relating to universities and university colleges § 12-9.

8. Treatment of cases pertaining to cheating by the university’s Appeals Committee

The decision-making authority regarding annulment and suspension is delegated from the Board to the university’s Appeals Committee.

The student alone, or together with their lawyer, has the opportunity to meet in the Appeals Committee to put forward their case. The possibility to participate in the Appeals Committee’s treatment of the case is not, however, open.

During the consideration of the case, the Appeals Committee will assess to what extent cheating is deemed to have taken place, viewed objectively, to what extent the student has acted wilfully or with gross negligence, and if there is excusable ignorance of the regulations.

The usual reaction in the case of grossly negligent cheating is the annulment of the examination/test in question, and suspension for one semester. For wilful cheating, the reaction is the annulment of the examination/test in question, and suspension for two semesters.

Decisions regarding annulment are made with a common majority. Decisions regarding suspensions require a 2/3 majority. 

If the case in question concerns a group work, it should be emphasised that that group is jointly responsible for the whole answer paper, while at the same time the question of cheating is considered individually for each student, cf. forskrift om studier og eksamen ved Universitetet i Agder § 31 (5):

Suspicion of cheating or attempted cheating during a group examination where the same mark is given for the entire group is evaluated individually for each group member. The assigned mark is valid for students who have not cheated or attempted to cheat. 

Any complaints regarding decisions pertaining to annulment and suspension are to be discussed first by the university’s Appeals Committee. If the decision is upheld, the complaint is to be sent on for treatment by the Joint Appeals Committee appointed by the Ministry.

9. Administrative follow-up of decisions regarding annulment and suspension

The case officer for the Appeals Committee will send the committee’s decision to the student with a copy of the decision of annulment/exclusion to the Examination Office, relevant faculty and the individual who brought the case. If the case applies to a student teacher, a copy is also to be sent to the Teacher Education Unit. The International Office is to be informed about the decision if the case applies to exchange students or international degree students.

• The faculty/department is responsible for providing necessary information to the various academic personnel that might require this (for example practicum coordinators, supervisors etc).
• The Examination Office is responsible for registering necessary information in FS and on the grade sheets.
• The case officer for the Appeals Committee contacts the student regarding the return of certificates if this is relevant. If this does not occur on a voluntary basis, the execution and enforcement commissioner is to be contacted for the enforcement of this pursuant to the Act relating to universities and university colleges § 12-1 (5).
• The Examination Office is to ensure that the student ID is deactivated for the duration of the period of suspension.
• The case officer for the Appeals Committee registers the decision concerning the suspension in RUST (the register of excluded students).

Relevant regulations – follow-up of cheating cases

The following stipulations in the Regulations relating to study programmes and examinations at the University of Agder are also relevant in following up cheating cases:

§ 26.1.h)  Examination candidates who do not pass new or postponed examinations do not have the right to demand to sit new examinations again before the next ordinary examination. 

§ 26.1.i) Exam candidates who are suspected of cheating are not given access to ordinary, new or rescheduled exams in the course until the cheating case has been deliberated. Exam candidates who have had an exam or compulsory activity annulled due to cheating or attempted cheating can, at the earliest, retake the exam or compulsory activity after an eventual period of exclusion. 

§ 26a.5: An examination candidate who has had their bachelor’s thesis, master’s thesis or another major written work annulled due to cheating, is not allowed to submit an improved version of the work with an identical research question. In special cases, the faculty board may permit the candidate to use already existing data as basis for a new thesis with a new research question. 

§ 38.3: For appeals of assessment of group assignments where the examination assessment is annulled for one or more of the group members due to cheating or attempting to cheat, the appeal examiners shall be informed of the basis for annulment.