Academic Integrity and Policy 71 for Instructors

The best time to deal with academic integrity matters is before they happen. Consider the following to promote academic integrity among your students.

• Help students understand why academic integrity matters to you. Why do you want the student to complete the assigned work independently (or with the degree of independence that you expect)?
• Explain to the students what you believe they will learn by completing the assigned task. Evidence has shown that if the students see a task as meaningless that they are more likely to cheat.
• Provide the class with clear expectations on how to handle citations, collaboration with their peers, and examinations.
• Consider the examination environment and take actions that may reduce misconduct opportunities (e.g., multiple versions of the exam, assigned but random seating, and enough seats for good spacing).

Additional recommendations and resources are available on the Integrity for Instructors, TAs, and Staff resource page.

Despite proactive efforts to promote academic integrity, instances of academic misconduct may still occur. If you suspect that one or more students in your course have committed academic misconduct, there are two available resolution paths: informal and formal. It is not necessary for all students involved in the same incident to follow the same resolution path.

It is important that you report academic misconduct as soon as possible to determine appropriate next steps for several reasons:

• Policy 71 explicitly requires it.
• The Engineering Integrity office checks for previous offences. Second offences use the formal process and attract a more severe penalty.
• The Engineering Integrity office records the penalty and places the student on disciplinary probation so that future offences are treated formally.

Regardless of the chosen path, it is essential to uphold the principle of procedural fairness: students are presumed innocent until a finding of responsibility is made. Accordingly, students must not be prevented from continuing their academic progress while an investigation is ongoing, unless their other earned grades generate an academic standing that does not allow them to proceed.

The Informal process can be used when:

• The offence is minor enough that informal penalties are appropriate.
• The student has no previous offences.
• The instructor is comfortable investigating the case.
• The student agrees to an informal resolution process.

You are encouraged to (but not obligated to) reach an informal resolution with students when appropriate. The informal process is normally faster than the formal process. Within 5 business days of the discovery of an offence made by a student, send an email to the Engineering Academic Integrity office indicating you would like to proceed with the informal process.

Your email to engineering.integrity@uwaterloo.ca must contain the following information:

• Student name
• Student ID
• A detailed summary of the allegation

You may suggest a penalty after reviewing the Guidelines for the Assessment of Penalties, or you can ask for a recommended penalty.

• A common penalty for a first offence is a grade of zero on the assessment (i.e., assignment, lab, report) plus up to additional five marks off the final grade.
• You can suggest a more lenient penalty for an informal resolution if the student accepts responsibility, and you feel that this penalty is too harsh (e.g., zero on the assessment, or the affected portion of the assessment, and less than five marks off the final grade).
• You may consider waiving the five-mark deduction if this would cause a student who has otherwise demonstrated at least marginal competence to fail the course. Any such departure must be consistent with principles of justice, fairness, and equity and should be applied uniformly in comparable cases.
• The Engineering Academic Integrity office can provide guidance on proposed deviations.

Once the Engineering Academic Integrity office approves an informal resolution and the suggested penalty, meet with the student(s) individually.

• If the student admits to the offence and accepts the penalty, send an email confirmation to the student asking for written confirmation of their acceptance of the outcome.
• Forward the written confirmation to the Engineering Academic Integrity office.
• The Engineering Academic Integrity office will send the student a letter summarizing the case and penalty.

When discussing an informal resolution, the student may request to view copies of the evidence. If the evidence is material from another student, all reasonable steps should be taken to make the source anonymous (i.e., remove names and references that could be traced).

If a student becomes aggressive or threatening during the discussion, disengage from the conversation, take appropriate action to ensure your safety, and report these actions to the Associate Dean, Undergraduate Studies.  

The following circumstances require the case to be resolved through the formal process:

• The Engineering Academic Integrity office does not approve the informal process (e.g., the student has a prior offence).
• The student requests the formal process.
• The student denies the offence.
• The student does not accept the informal resolution.

Formal resolutions are required if:

• The Engineering Academic Integrity office does not approve the informal process (e.g., the student has a prior offence).
• The offence is serious, such as cheating on a midterm or final examination, or theft of intellectual property (usually in addition to plagiarism).
• Either you or the student requests the formal process; the student does not accept the informal resolution; or the student denies the offence.

To initiate the formal process, notify the Engineering Academic Integrity office within five (5) business days of the discovery of an offence made by a student.

Email engineering.integrity@uwaterloo.ca with the following information:

• Student name
• Student ID
• Detailed summary of the allegation
• Link to the course outline (outline.uwaterloo.ca)
• All available evidence (e.g., a copy of the assignment/test/exam questions with all instructions and evidence of cheating).

Once the email is received, the Engineering Academic Integrity office proceeds as follows:

• The student course grade is set to Under Review (UR) pending the outcome of the investigation. You will not be able to upload grades for students until the UR is removed.
• The student is sent an allegation letter and is invited to provide a response to the allegations within 5 business days.
• After receiving the student response, or after five (5) days, the Director of Academic Integrity, Engineering proceeds with the investigation.
• Once a finding of guilty or not guilty is determined, the student is sent an outcome letter describing the findings and detailing any associated penalty.
• You will be notified of the outcome and provided instructions for adjusting the course grade as applicable.

For all formal investigations, the Director of Academic Integrity, Engineering will decide whether the evidence is sufficient to support a finding of guilt. You may be asked to provide additional documentation. Some examples include:

• Source-code sharing: Provide the source code of each student involved. If matching code appears online, include that material as well. If the similarity was detected with MOSS, attach the generated HTML report. Briefly explain why the material constitutes plagiarism (e.g., “the only differences are comments, spacing, and variable names,” or “both files contain the same unique error and follow an unorthodox solution strategy.”)
• Plagiarized written assignment: Supply PDFs of the assignments in question and explain why you suspect plagiarism.
• Missing citations: Provide the student’s submission together with the uncited source text.
• Examination or assessment breaches: State which regulation was breached and present the supporting evidence.
• Unauthorized resubmission of work: Include both the original submission and the allegedly resubmitted version.

Try to identify a university policy or regulation, or course policy or regulation that was explicitly breached. Most course policies or regulations should be found in the course outline. A comprehensive list of academic offences is available in Policy 71.

After an informal resolution, you can adjust the student grade(s) based on the agreed upon penalty. After a formal resolution, you will be informed of the penalty so it can be applied to the student grade(s).

If the case is resolved after the grade submission deadline, the Engineering Academic Integrity office will ask you for the final grade and contact the Registrar’s Office directly.

You may be asked for an interim grade, prior to resolution, for the purposes of academic progression. Any interim grades should be provided through the Engineering Academic Integrity office.

In both informal and formal resolutions, the student will be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of their time in an undergraduate program at the University of Waterloo. This means that a note will be placed in their file but there will not be any indication of this on any transcript, nor will any advisor or employer be aware of this information.

Probation carries no immediate academic penalty; its effect is that any subsequent allegation of academic misconduct must proceed through the formal process, and any future finding of guilt will attract more severe sanctions, potentially suspension.

Disciplinary Probation is checked for some student activities (e.g., Academic Exchange, Student Leadership Positions). Normally a first offence will not prohibit a student from participating in these activities, however serious or multiple offences are considered on a case-by-case basis.

If a student is found guilty of an academic offence, the student may appeal the decision first at the faculty level and subsequently at the university level. During a faculty-level appeal, the appeals committee members will be members of the Faculty of Engineering. At the University level, however, the appeals committee will almost certainly include members from different faculties on campus. Accordingly, you should be prepared to present the evidence in a manner that is clear and accessible to colleagues whose areas of expertise may differ markedly from your own.

The organizations related to Policy 71 include:

• The Senate is the primary academic policy-making body at Waterloo. It is responsible for establishing and approving academic discipline policies, including Policy 71.
• The Office of Academic Integrity offers support, oversight, and resources for handling academic misconduct cases across all faculties. Typically serves as a first contact for students and instructors outside of the Faculty of Engineering on questions related to misconduct, appeals, or interpretation of Policy 71; although its staff are also available for confidential consultations, procedural guidance, template letters, workshops, and liaison services with faculty committees—providing hands-on assistance that complements the extensive resources already available online.
• The Director of Academic Integrity, Engineering is housed within the Engineering Undergraduate Office and manages academic integrity within the faculty, including:
  • Advising on informal and overseeing formal resolution processes.
  • Ensuring engineering-specific cases follow the standard guidelines and timelines.
  • Receiving and reviewing formal allegations of non-academic misconduct.
  • Conducting investigations or delegating fact-finding as needed.
  • Making determinations of responsibility based on the evidence.
  • Imposing penalties in accordance with university guidelines and the severity of the offence.
  • Communicating outcomes, e.g. probation vs. suspension, with relevant departments.

Policy 71 sets out the framework for handling both academic and non-academic misconduct by students. Its objectives are to:

• Define what constitutes misconduct, ranging from cheating and plagiarism to disruptive behaviour.
• Detail the process for reporting, investigating, and adjudicating these offences, ensuring fairness, presumption of innocence, and appeal rights.
• Prescribe potential sanctions—letters of reprimand, grade penalties, probation, suspension, and more—based on severity and recurrence.
• Ensure consistent record-keeping and opportunities for appeal via established university channels (e.g., University Committee on Student Appeals).

Policy 71 is university-wide but applies discipline within faculties through associate deans, with additional guidelines for engineering.

Policy 71 includes several additional items, including:

• Appendices A through D which describe the procedures for academic discipline, the procedures for non-academic discipline, guidelines when criminal proceedings have been initiated against a student, and glossary, respectively.
• A set of guidelines for the assessment of penalties.
• Frameworks for the assessment of undergraduate plagiarism, the assessment of unauthorized collaboration involving undergraduate students, and the assessment of graduate plagiarism.
• Guidelines on faculty, staff and students entering relationships with external organizations offering access to course materials.

In University of Waterloo disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The Director of Academic Integrity, Engineering must be persuaded that it is more likely than not (i.e., probability > 50%) that the alleged misconduct occurred. Normally, we aim for greater confidence than a bare 51%; for example, asking is it reasonably certain, and would a reasonable, unbiased student regard the decision as fair and just.

For example, suppose a first-year student who has struggled throughout a programming course suddenly submits an exam or project featuring sophisticated data structures, algorithms, or libraries, yet continues to perform poorly on written, no-computer assessments. Even without direct proof of unauthorized tools, it is reasonable to infer reliance on generative artificial intelligence or other outside assistance, constituting a breach of project requirements or exam regulations. By contrast, a fourth-year student—even one with weak exam scores—may legitimately apply advanced techniques acquired during co-op terms or independent study; thus, the mere presence of sophisticated code would not, on its own, meet the balance-of-probabilities threshold for misconduct.