2004:17 R
Survey of decisions and adjudications in disciplinary cases concerning students in higher education for 2003
BrödtextThis survey of decisions and adjudications reveals that 231 students were subject to disciplinary action during 2003. This is an increase of 43 per cent over 2002. Of these 231 students, 173 were suspended and admonitions issued to 58. Compared to 2002 the number of suspensions rose by 57 per cent and the number of admonitions by 12 per cent. Plagiarism and falsification were the most frequent reasons for invoking disciplinary action, accounting for 112 cases in which 93 students were suspended. In 2002 the number of students suspended on the same grounds amounted to 49, which means an increase of 90 per cent from 2002 to 2003. What is noteworthy here is that the number of students suspended has risen by 116 per cent compared to 2000, the year in which these surveys were initiated.
The aim of this survey is, as stated in the National Agency for Higher Education´s report Twenty Measures to Strengthen the Legal Rights of Students (HSV report 2001:27 R), to illuminate current practice. In this way the survey may prove valuable for both the institutions and for students.
The power to suspend students from programmes provides the higher education institutions with a major sanction. This means that the way in which disciplinary regulations are presented and applied is very important from the point the view of students´ legal rights. There is much therefore to suggest that at the beginning of every course clear and explicit information should be provided about the gravity with which the institution regards cheating and the serious consequences that suspension may entail for individual students. The National Agency considers that the higher education institutions should endeavour to present this information in as similar ways as possible.
Periods of suspension obviously vary depending on the gravity ascribed to the offence by the institution. In this year´s survey, the National Agency has observed that, irrespective of the nature of the offence, these periods vary in length from institution to institution. Where plagiarism is concerned, penalties range from 2 weeks to 4 months, although the most frequent period is 1-2 months. In cases involving illicit collaboration or the use of cribs the most usual penalty is suspension for 2 months. The National Agency has noted in previous surveys that the numbers of cases vary at the different institutions, even though student populations are similar. This difference is no longer as explicit. Certain institutions still, however, invoke remarkably few disciplinary measures.
A descriptive survey of this nature provides no basis for determination of how widespread cheating is at higher education institutions in Sweden. This would require the findings of studies such as investigations of the gravity with which students view cheating and whether they have ever cheated themselves. Nor is it possible to ascertain whether cheating has increased in recent years. No indication can be found either of whether the number of cases will continue to rise in the future. What can be determined, however, is that the number of cases leading to suspension or admonition has risen substantially in recent years. Some institutions have also indicated that the total number of disciplinary cases has continued to rise during 2004. There are reasons to believe, therefore, that, in the light of recent awareness of “Internet cheating", the higher education institutions have further intensified their vigilance in this respect. Combating cheating in programmes is also one way of guaranteeing their quality and helps to strengthen confidence in the Swedish system of higher education. In this context, the National Agency would like to stress that the increase in the number of cases at the institutions does not necessarily mean that there is more cheating or that it is particularly widespread, but rather that vigilance has improved
In this year´s survey, as in last year´s, the decisions have been divided into different categories for the sake of clarity. Decisions that have not led to any penalty are presented at the end of the each category. The decisions of the vice-chancellors and disciplinary boards in each category are presented in the order in which the institutions are listed in the annex to the Higher Education Ordinance (1993:100). If appeal has been made against a decision of a disciplinary board to a County Administrative Board or Administrative Court of Appeal, the adjudication is listed at the end of the survey. Page references are given to the appealed decision and the relevant adjudication. To safeguard their integrity, the names of the students involved in cases heard by the vice-chancellors or disciplinary boards have obviously been removed. Decisions in disciplinary cases are public documents to which everyone, in principle, therefore has access. In certain cases, however, for reasons of integrity, the decisions in this survey have been edited.
Cheating most often gives rise to disciplinary action
Of the students who were subject to disciplinary action, 221 had cheated in some way when their attainment was being assessed, and 10 had disturbed teaching or other activities (which includes computer trespass). Cheating led to suspension in 169 cases, and admonitions were issued in 52. Suspension was the outcome for 4 students who had disturbed teaching or other activities and admonitions were issued to 6.
There are several different ways in which students can cheat when their attainment is being assessed. We have opted to divide these cases into four separate categories:
- Cribs and other forms of illicit aids. This led to 58 cases in which 46 students were suspended and 2 admonitions issued.
- Illicit collaboration. This led to 46 cases, with 26 students being suspended and admonitions issued to 20.
- Plagiarism and falsification. Disciplinary measures were invoked in 112 cases on these grounds, 93 of the students were suspended and admonitions issued to 9.
- Altering marks awarded for an examination. This led to 5 disciplinary cases with 4 students being suspended and one admonished.
- Students can also disturb teaching or other activities. Here we have made a distinction between cases involving computers and the rest:
- Disturbing teaching or other activities. This led to disciplinary action for 6 students, of whom 2 were suspended and 4 admonished.
- Computer trespass. Disciplinary action was invoked against 4 students, 2 were suspended and admonitions issued to 2.
The reason for the survey
The aim of this survey is, as stated in the National Agency for Higher Education´s report Twenty Measures to Strengthen the Legal Rights of Students (HSV report 2001:27 R), to illuminate current practice. In this way the survey may prove valuable for both the institutions and for students.
The National Agency for Higher Education considers that is important from the point of view of legal security to ensure that the outcome of cases involving disciplinary measures does not depend on where students are studying. The higher education institutions have declared that they find it positive to be provided with information about how disciplinary cases have been dealt with elsewhere so that they can compare their own experiences. The National Agency for Higher Education therefore hopes that this survey, like last year´s, will provide one more stage in the process of standardising practice throughout Sweden.
Students must be provided with clear and explicit information
The power to suspend students from programmes provides the higher education institutions with a major sanction. This means that the way in which disciplinary regulations are presented and applied is very important from the point the view of students´ legal rights. There is much therefore to suggest that at the beginning of every course clear and explicit information should be provided about the gravity with which the institution regards cheating and the serious consequences that suspension may entail for individual students. The National Agency considers that the higher education institutions should endeavour to present this information in as similar ways as possible.
Variation in penalties and the numbers of cases between the institutions
Periods of suspension obviously vary depending on the gravity ascribed to the offence by the institution. In this year´s survey, the National Agency has observed that, irrespective of the nature of the offence, these periods vary in length from institution to institution. Where plagiarism is concerned, penalties range from 2 weeks to 4 months, although the most frequent period is 1-2 months. In cases involving illicit collaboration or the use of cribs the most usual penalty is suspension for 2 months. The National Agency has noted in previous surveys that the numbers of cases vary at the different institutions, even though student populations are similar. This difference is no longer as explicit. Certain institutions still, however, invoke remarkably few disciplinary measures.
Increase in the numbers of cases heard by disciplinary boards
A descriptive survey of this nature provides no basis for determination of how widespread cheating is at higher education institutions in Sweden. This would require the findings of studies such as investigations of the gravity with which students view cheating and whether they have ever cheated themselves. Nor is it possible to ascertain whether cheating has increased in recent years. No indication can be found either of whether the number of cases will continue to rise in the future. What can be determined, however, is that the number of cases leading to suspension or admonition has risen substantially in recent years. Some institutions have also indicated that the total number of disciplinary cases has continued to rise during 2004. There are reasons to believe, therefore, that, in the light of recent awareness of “Internet cheating", the higher education institutions have further intensified their vigilance in this respect. Combating cheating in programmes is also one way of guaranteeing their quality and helps to strengthen confidence in the Swedish system of higher education. In this context, the National Agency would like to stress that the increase in the number of cases at the institutions does not necessarily mean that there is more cheating or that it is particularly widespread, but rather that vigilance has improved
The organisation of the report
In this year´s survey, as in last year´s, the decisions have been divided into different categories for the sake of clarity. Decisions that have not led to any penalty are presented at the end of the each category. The decisions of the vice-chancellors and disciplinary boards in each category are presented in the order in which the institutions are listed in the annex to the Higher Education Ordinance (1993:100). If appeal has been made against a decision of a disciplinary board to a County Administrative Board or Administrative Court of Appeal, the adjudication is listed at the end of the survey. Page references are given to the appealed decision and the relevant adjudication. To safeguard their integrity, the names of the students involved in cases heard by the vice-chancellors or disciplinary boards have obviously been removed. Decisions in disciplinary cases are public documents to which everyone, in principle, therefore has access. In certain cases, however, for reasons of integrity, the decisions in this survey have been edited.
Print
Swedish National Agency for Higher Education Visting address: Luntmakargatan 13 Box 7851, 103 99 Stockholm
Phone: 08-563 085 00 Fax: 08-563 085 50 Email: hsv@hsv.se
Phone: 08-563 085 00 Fax: 08-563 085 50 Email: hsv@hsv.se
