Regulations Cheating 2547

This translation is for the convenience of those who prefer to have access to the regulations in English. The official form of the document is the Thai version. Please refer to that version in case of disputes. The original version begins with items 1-4 which are legal descriptions and definitions. This translation summary begins with item 5.

Section 1 

Proctors and Committees

5.  The proctor (invigilator) as specified in these regulations has responsibility to inspect, seize, and impound any items or documents as may be necessary in cases of suspected cheating during examinations. The proctor should make a report immediately with signatures of at least two proctors as evidence. Then the incident should be reported following the university’s procedures.

6. When a student has been accused of cheating in an examination the university should appoint a committee to process the matter within seven days. The committee will consist of five instructors with one serving as chair and another serving as secretary. The committee will follow the regulations as outlined herein. The investigation should take place after the student has completed all other examinations.

Section 2

Determining Appropriate Punishment

7. Cheating in an examination is defined by the university as any behavior which supplies or uses information for answering examination questions by any means which does not follow the honest and normal methods for answering the questions. Examples include asking other students for help, looking at the work of others, taking notes fro outside the examination room, exchange of information in any form between those who enter the examination and others in other places; use of tools or equipment of any kind; bring documents, technological equipment or communication devices into the examination room (whether they were actually used or not), o any circumstances which might reasonably be an unfair advantage; other cheating includes posing as someone else in order to take an examination; creating or sending any signals by any means to convey information during an examination, or any behavior which is in preparation for cheating.

8. When it has been clearly demonstrated that there has been cheating or evidence of cheating to the satisfaction of the committee  (in item 6) the following punishments may be considered:

8.1 Giving an F for the course in which the cheating took place.

8.2 Giving an F for the course as well as W for every other course the student was taking that semester.

8.3 Giving an F for the course as well as suspending the student for one semester.

8.4 Giving an F for the course as well as a W for all other courses students was taking that semester, as well as suspending the student for one semester.

8.5 Giving an F for every course the student was studying for that semester.

8.6 Giving an F for every course for which the student was registered that semester as well as suspending the student for one semester.

8.7  Expelling the student from student status.

9. In cases in which the examination was taken by someone who was not the student registered for the course and entitled to take the examination, both students will be expelled. If the one who took the examination is not a Payap University student that person will be prosecuted according to law.

10. One semester suspension will start from the beginning of the following semester. Undergraduate students in the regular program, if the cheating has occurred during the second semester, will not be allowed to register for the summer term and the one-semester suspension will begin with the first semester of the following school year. In the case of special students the suspension will start in that summer semester.

11. The level of punishment will be determined by the nature of the cheating, the degree of intent, the material evidence of witnesses, and other circumstances surrounding the incident.

12. The committee will report the results of their investigation and their recommendation for punishment to the president within seven days after the investigation is finished.

13. The president will authorize the punishment within fifteen days from the day that the committee report is sent to the president, and the president will notify the student and those in charge.

Section 3

Appeals and Processing of Appeals

14. If a student wishes to appeal the decision on the grounds that the judgment was unfair the student should submit a letter directly to the president or by registered mail to the president within fifteen days of the day when the student receives the judgment.

15. The president shall appoint an appeals committee with a vice-president as its chair and four other instructors as committee members at least one of whom has a degree in law, and at least one other with experience in academic administration. One of the committee members will serve as secretary. The appeals committee [may be a standing committee] will be appointed for a maximum term of two years.

16. The appeals committee may, by a majority vote, has the authority to amend the judgment or propose a different punishment from the one proposed by the committee that investigated the incident.

17. The appeals committee will consider the appeal based on the documentation and reports of the investigation. The appeals committee may requests that the original investigating committee seek additional facts and/or supply other documents, as well as to summon other witnesses, in order to insure a fair judgment.

18. The appeals committee should conclude their deliberations within thirty days. If they need an additional thirty days they may request one extension (to a maximum of 60 days).

19. After completing their deliberations the appeals committee should submit their report to the president within seven days.

20. The president should validate the appeals committee report and within fifteen days of receiving the report should send a response to the appeal to the student who made the appeal and to the supervisor of the student.

Section 4

Reconsideration of Cases

21. If new facts come to light which show that the judgment was carried out in violation of any of these regulations and that the resulting judgment was unjust, the president should issue an order to invalidate the judgment in whole or in part and initiate a new process of deliberation in whole or in part.

22. The new deliberation has no influence on those involved in the original investigation. A new committee, however, should be appointed consisting of persons who were not on the original committee. The report of the new deliberation should be submitted to the president for a final decision.

23. The president of the university is responsible for the administration of these regulations and has the final authority in their implementation.

Dated May 8, 2547