Unauthorized use of electronic devices in invigilated exams
Introduction
In Summer 2023, over 16,000 exam sittings took place at the University of Exeter in invigilated sessions. Despite information provided in the exams handbook, signage in exam halls, invigilator announcements at the beginning of exams, etc., out of these thousands of sittings some students still received warning letters for minor misconduct, as well as some cases being taken to a Review Panel for students being found in possession of an unauthorised electronic device during an exam.
The University has a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to dealing with such cases so, although the numbers are relatively small, there still can be serious consequences at an individual level for students who are found guilty of Examination Misconduct due to being in possession of an unauthorised electronic device.
What is an unauthorised electronic device?
Unauthorised electronic devices include mobile phones, MP3 players, fitness trackers, any form of smart watch, and calculators that are not pre-approved for use in the particular exam sitting that are found on or near a student’s person during an exam, regardless of whether the device is switched on or off. Unauthorised electronic devices are typically detected when a student goes for a toilet break and empties their pockets etc., but also when a student has left the device on their desk and not surrendered it when the amnesty opportunity arose pre-exam. (Please note that the examples above are not exhaustive, especially as further devices employing new technology become commonplace.)
What penalties a Review Panel can apply
The tariff of penalties for Examination Misconduct is set out below; Review Panels can impose any penalty where exam misconduct is deemed proven from A (a warning letter), all the way up to G (expulsion from the University).
What this means
Being found in possession of an unauthorised electronic device during an invigilated exam is a strict liability offence. A strict liability offence is one that does not require the proof of mens rea (i.e. proof of intent is not required), and the act alone – in this case, being found in possession of an unauthorised electronic device – is punishable. As Examination Misconduct is therefore deemed proven in cases where an unauthorised electronic device is detected. As a minimum, a penalty of C from the tariff of penalties above is applied. Typically, where a student is found in possession of an unauthorised electronic device, one of the following penalties is applied:
- C penalty: Examination Misconduct, where the student has breached the guidance for candidates, but it is deemed they have not gained an advantage.
- A C penalty leads to the student being formally reprimanded, with a mark of zero being recorded for the examination in question. The candidate will have a right of referral, but the mark will be capped at the pass mark, or at the mark achieved at the first attempt – whichever is the lower of the two marks. This is to prevent a student from gaining an advantage from committing misconduct.
- D penalty: Severe Examination Misconduct, where the student has breached the guidance for candidates, and it is deemed they have gained, or had the opportunity to gain, an advantage.
- The student will either be given a D1 penalty where the student will be formally reprimanded and a mark of zero for the piece of work concerned with no right of referral for the piece of work (however, this will not affect the student's right to reassessment of the module where the module is reassessed by way of one 100% examination; however the student will only be able to be awarded the marks equal to the component where no misconduct was detected); or
- The student will be given a D2 penalty, where the student will be formally reprimanded and the module concerned will be given a mark of zero, and the student has a right of referral for the pass mark
Potentially, depending on a student’s individual circumstances, this could lead to non-progression, being transferred to an alternative exit route, or exiting with a lower award than that for which they were registered, e.g.
- A PGT student is found in possession of a smart watch on their desk which has been switched off. They are sitting an exam which is worth 100% of a non-condonable module. They would have achieved 34 in their exam if the misconduct had not been detected; they receive a C penalty and are referred in their exam and their mark is capped at the pass mark of 50 which they achieve in the referral – however, they receive 34 as this is the lower mark, and therefore fail the module and exit with a lower award than that for which they were registered
- During the Summer REF/DEF period, a UG student is found in possession of a smart phone which is switched on upon their pockets being checked at a toilet break, and they had the opportunity to gain an advantage prior to the discovery e.g. the ability to look up answers online. They are sitting a referred exam which is worth 50% of a condonable module, and they receive a D2 penalty. This means that they receive a mark of zero for the module. They have also failed other modules, and due to this level of failure it cannot be condoned for them to be able to progress, so the student is withdrawn from their programme due to academic failure.
Further information