There are academic and pedagogical reasons behind the requirement for students to write. Writing is not only a way to demonstrate what you have learnet; it is also a way to develop academic skills. Through language, students can better assess whether their own arguments and positions meet academic standards.
At the same time, large parts of these works will billed on the work of others – such as assessments, premises, factual foundations, and conclusions. When you build on someone else's work, you must show where it comes from.
The best advice is to be conscious about using work you have not produced yourself, and to reference in a way that is accepted within your academic field.
Cheating, citation, citation techniques and the use of AI
Academic cheating
You are cheating if you gain an unfair advantage in class or on an exam. You can be caught cheating even if you did not intend to cheat, as the requirement for avoiding this is high.
Cheating is a multifaceted concept, and it will usually fall into three main types:
- Plagiarism, which means not citing correctly according to academic standards.
- Illegal collaboration regarding, for example, submissions, and violations of rules or guidelines.
- Cheating, such as using slips or illegal aids.
Rules for what is legal to use as an aid in an exam can be found in the examination regulations of the faculty and in the course description. What is considered cheating may vary between faculty, field of study, course and teaching and examination format.
Sometimes it's straightforward to determine when the rules of collaboration or assistance have been broken. But digital tools like ChatGPT have made it more complicated.
Reuse of one's own work, often called "self-plagiarism", is a separate issue. Such reuse may be unproblematic, but can also negatively affect the grading, and in some cases it may constitute cheating. As a general rule, reuse of one's own text for which you have not received a grade, reuse of an introduction, or less central parts of a text, will not be considered cheating at UiB. If there is any doubt as to whether something is cheating, it should be decided by the academic community. If you are unsure, we encourage you to discuss the issues with your teacher or another professional.
What constitutes cheating can vary. You may be cheating if you:
- Do not cite sources.
- Refer to fictional sources.
- Do not mark direct quotes with quotation marks.
- Retrieve text from the web, artificial intelligence tools, or other places, and gives the impression that the text is your own.
- Use an answer that has been submitted before, even when it is your own work
Break the rules of cooperation. - Use illegal aids such as notes and sheets with academic content, mobile phones or smartwatches.
- Insert unapproved academic aids into approved aids.
- Have access to illegal aids, even if they are not used.
- Break the examination rules of the faculty in other ways.
Citation and citation techniques
A characteristic feature of many of the written works submitted during the course of study is that they are largely based on and build on texts and other materials that other people have produced and own the copyright to. Such texts are called sources, and they can be of different types, for example:
- textbooks
- magazine articles and other
- monographs, reports in various publications
- texts on the internet
- lectures and presentations
- photos, films and audio recordings
- conversations and discussions with teachers and students
- digital tools, including tools based on artificial intelligence such as chatGPT
In any case, the basic rule is the same: When you take facts, thoughts, ideas, viewpoints, and short or long quotes from a source and use them in your own work, it should be clear which sources you have used. In other words, you should not give the impression that other people's thoughts, ideas, viewpoints, and results are your own. Therefore, you must refer to, reference, and cite in a clear and sufficient manner every time you use a source.
Copyright Act and established academic norms
It is not only okay to use a basement, very often it is absolutely necessary. There are two formal sets of rules that secure the rights of the person behind the source (the originator). One is the Intellectual Property Act, which, among other things, states that it is permissible to quote from intellectual property as long as it is done "in accordance with good practice and to the extent that the purpose dictates" (§ 22). The second is established academic norms for source use and source references. The Copyright Act and the academic norms overlap and complement each other, and it is not always easy to say where the boundary between them is. Both sets of rules are important, and in an academic context it is not enough to refrain from doing something illegal, because one must also follow good academic practice.
Ultimately, inadequate citation can be considered cheating.
See how to cite in Søk og Skriv (Search and Write)
About the use of artificial intelligence (AI)
Generative language models such as ChatGPT and other generative tools, for example Image, raise questions related to both source use and claims for independence.
The University of Bergen allows different academic environments to assess the use of such tools differently. As a rule, there is a requirement that the answer to the exam is an independently produced text.
A further challenge with using these tools is that the text produced is not easy to read.
The way the tools are designed means that the text generated is statistically probable, and it is something completely different from fact-based, which is a requirement in academic texts. This means that the generated text can have made-up elements from tools like ChatGPT. This is often referred to as "hallucinations".
Jill Walker Rettberg, professor of digital culture at UiB, explains that hallucination is at the core of how the tool is designed here: Lystløgneren ChatGPT (Link to Ytring nrk.no). This aspect of generative language models actualises several elements of source criticism, namely how reliable the source is, whether the source is objective, and how accurate it is. This means that one must be very careful when using the tool as a source.
In general, reference should be made to all software used in academic work when the software affects the results, analyses or findings that are presented. Digital tools are no different. Such tools cannot be co-authored because authorship implies a responsibility for the work that the tools cannot assume.
A text generated by such digital tools is not possible for others to recreate. In academic work, one should therefore describe how the generator was used. This could include, for example, the time, scope, and how the result was included in the text. It is often relevant to describe what was entered into the chat (etc.). Be aware that there may be subject-specific guidelines for how the use should be documented.
Referencing text generated by digital tools
The example below shows how to reference text generated by digital tools in APA7:
In the text: text (OpenAI, 2023)
In the reference list: OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (April 20 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com
Detection, consequences, and rights in cases of academic misconduct
Detection
Cheating and attempted cheating may be detected in several ways. During written on-campus examinations and similar assessments, invigilators will ensure that the rules governing permitted aids and conduct are observed. Examiners are familiar with the subject area and syllabus, and may detect plagiarism or other irregularities. Suspicion may also arise from characteristics of a submitted script, such as inconsistencies in style, significant variation in academic quality, or deficiencies in the bibliography. In some cases, other students report suspected cheating.
Text-matching software
UiB also uses text-matching software. Examination answers and other submissions are checked against other students’ work, online content, and academic literature.
Serious consequences
Cheating and attempted cheating have serious consequences. It usually leads to the cancellation of the exam, and can mean exclusion from UiB and refusal to take exams at all universities and colleges for up to one year.
The right to cancel an exam does not expire. This means that the university can take up a case of cheating, even if the cheating happened a long time ago and you are no longer a student. If the course is part of the basis for a degree, the degree will no longer be valid, and you must return the diploma.
Procedure in cases of suspected cheating
When a suspicion of cheating arises, the department or faculty will conduct an investigation and then consider whether the case should be forwarded to The Committee for Student Affairs at UiB for a decision at first instance.
You have the right to access the case documents at all stages, and the right, but not the obligation, to explain yourself to the university in writing or orally. Throughout the process, you may be represented by a lawyer or another representative. UiB also has a student ombudsman who can advise you on your rights and obligations.
If the department or faculty decides to refer the case to The Committee for Student Affairs for a decision, UiB will cover your legal or representation costs from that point onward.
You also have the right to appeal the board's decision, and the appeals body is the Joint Appeals Board. The appeal deadline is three weeks from the date you have been informed of the decision in the first instance. Please note that in these cases the university does not cover legal fees if the decision in the first instance is not exclusion.
Processing of academic cheating cases at UiB
Case processing in cheating cases
In-person exams
When an invigilator suspects cheating, the head invigilator is called in. The head invigilator is responsible for recording the course of events, keeping any documentation, informing The Division of Student and Academic Affairs and writing a report about the incident. The Division of Student and Academic Affairs will send the report to the relevant faculty, and it is the faculty that will be responsible from then on for the investigation and possible submission to The Committee for Student Affairs at UiB.
The student will be allowed to complete the exam and will be informed that the case will be sent to the faculty.
Exam answers and plagiarism check
UiB uses plagiarism control programs that read through exam answers, and compare them with texts available for electronic searches online and in UiB's assignment database.
The program generates similarity reports that must be evaluated manually. It is during the manual check that suspicions of academic cheating may arise. Reports and hit rates alone never trigger suspicion, only if it raises suspicion in the person doing the checking.
Exam answers that raise suspicion are sent to the department/faculty, or to an academic cheating committee if one exists, where the matter is investigated and possibly forwarded to The Committee for Student Affairs at UiB.
Written work, teachers and examiners
It is possible to cheat in all written work. When an examiner or teacher suspects cheating or plagiarism, it is important to immediately preserve the basis for the suspicion as documentation for further reporting and handling of the case. The documentation is presented to the academic coordinator and the head of administration, who is responsible for an investigation. The usual grading should also proceed as normal for all students. In the case of plagiarism, it is particularly important that UiB's assessment is anchored in the academic community.
Referral to the Central Appeals Board
Before submission, the department and faculty must decide whether there is grounds for a cheating case. In cases of doubt, there will be a comprehensive assessment of the exam answer against academic standards.
The decision maker should consider these elements, where relevant:
- The extent of textual coincidence.
- Lack of source references.
- Lack of reference list.
- How close to the source the written text is.
- Whether the student has tried to hide the possible cheating.
- Where in the course of study the student is.
- Whether there is a history of cheating. Multiple previous cases count negatively.
Content of the submission to the Committee for Student Affairs at UiB
The Committee for Student Affairs at UiB normally addresses these elements, and can therefore be used as a guideline for the content of the submission.
Proof
- What does the documentation show?
- What does the student say?
- What else is known about the actual circumstances?
Objective assessment
- What has the student done within the scope of academic dishonesty?
- Subjective guilt.
- Has the student acted with gross negligence or intentionally?
- Misunderstanding about the rules.
- Is the student familiar with the rules on academic dishonesty?
- What was the student's thought process regarding the events that led to suspicion?
- Has the university communicated clearly about academic standards?
Response options
What conditions call for a strict or mild reaction?
Proof
It is often relatively easy to determine what has happened, because the text that has been submitted provides a good picture of it, and there is rarely any doubt that it is the student in question who has created or submitted it. The student should still be asked how he or she worked on the text, and how he or she views the basis for the suspicion of cheating.
If two or more students have collaborated on texts that are supposed to be individual, one must consider how the collaboration has been. Have they worked on separate parts, have they worked together on everything, or have they worked in other ways?
Objective assessment
The borderline cases for the objective assessment of whether something is cheating may be that the student has submitted text that the person concerned has submitted previously, or when it has been cited incompletely. There may also be textual similarity to a lesser extent.
Subjective guilt
The law requires that the act of academic cheating must have been either intentional or executed with with gross negligence. The Standing Committee of the Storting has expressed its views on what this entails in Recommendation No. 221 L (2013–2014) page 3, where 'the Committee emphasizes that students have a strict duty of attention during examinations'. The Supreme Court stated in its ruling HR-2015-1875-A that the quote applies to the duty of care requirement in the cheating provision (paragraph 54).
Relevant factors to consider at this point are whether text similarity is due to carelessness, whether the student has worked in a way that poses a high risk of text similarity or the like and taken a chance, or whether the student has copied knowingly. Due to the high duty of attention, misunderstandings will rarely argue against academic cheating, but this will vary from case to case and is something that the case officer must decide upon. It may also have significance for determining the response.
Determination of the response
There are a number of factors that may be relevant to determining the response, including:
- Is the student new to the program or a graduate?
- Have long sections of text or shorter sections been copied together with your own independent work?
- Has the student abused the trust of other students or employees?
- Degree of guilt.
The faculty or department must make an assessment of the seriousness of the incident, even if it does not have to recommend a specific response.
Referral to the Committee for Students Affairs
If the department has concluded that the case should be referred to The Committee for Students Affairs, it will first be sent to the faculty. The faculty will quality check the referral and assess whether there is a basis for a cheating case. This must be handled within a short time.
When the case has been sent to The Committee for Students Affairs, the secretariat will check that the case is complete. The secretariat will notify the student that the case has been received, including the opportunity to make their views clear to the board. The secretariat will write a case note for the board to decide on, together with all other documents in the case. The Committee will make a decision in its own meeting. The student will be informed of the decision from the secretariat.
At each of these stages, the department or faculty may be asked for additional documentation or assessments.