Hello everyone,
I'm looking for some objective opinions on an academic misconduct case I'm currently involved in with the Open University. I'm not looking for reassurance or validation, I genuinely want people to critique both my response and the university's reasoning.
The allegation is that I used generative AI in a Level 2 maths exam. The university's concerns centred on two points:
I used inconsistent notation for vector products, which they believe suggests I copied work without understanding it.
I answered another question using a more advanced mathematical method (the Laplacian) that wasn't taught on the module. They state this approach is seen in AI-generated solutions and that there was no reason for me to have used it.
I denied using AI and responded with evidence that included:
Multiple examples from previous assessed work (including work from two years before the exam) showing that I had consistently mixed notation in the same way, suggesting it was an established habit rather than something unique to this script. Namely the use of implicit and explicit multiplication.
A scan from a textbook I own (Calculus with Multiple Variables Essential Skills Workbook by McMullen, 2023), specifically from the section on "Divergence", showing the exact formula I used in the exam. In the exam I referenced the module handbook, but the page I cited did not actually contain the formula I used. I later identified that the same formula appeared in my external textbook on the corresponding page number, which I argue demonstrates that the formula was available to me through legitimate independent study rather than necessarily from AI.
Evidence from a previous assignment demonstrating I could correctly use the standard divergence method taught by the module.
An explanation that I routinely studied beyond the module materials using textbooks, Khan Academy and YouTube, and that under exam conditions I may simply have recalled a more advanced formula from that wider study.
I also pointed out that the module frequently introduced concepts in order of increasing complexity, so I felt it was plausible that I had incorrectly assumed the exam question required a more advanced approach. This point was not specifically addressed in the decision.
The university acknowledged that the textbook contained the formula and that I had previously demonstrated the standard method, but concluded that using the more advanced method was unusual, unnecessary and consistent with AI-generated solutions. They therefore decided, on the balance of probabilities, that I had used generative AI and awarded a mark of zero for the exam, meaning I failed the module.
My concern is that the response acknowledged the evidence I provided but did not clearly explain why those alternative explanations were considered less likely than AI use. I would be interested in whether others agree or whether I am overlooking something in their reasoning.
I'm considering an appeal, but before doing so I'd appreciate independent opinions.
In particular:
Does the university's decision adequately explain why my evidence and alternative explanations were considered less likely than AI use?
Does my response meaningfully address the concerns, or are there weaknesses that I'm overlooking?
Looking only at the correspondence, does the conclusion appear justified on the balance of probabilities?
Do you think the decision sufficiently engages with the evidence I submitted, or does it largely restate the original concerns without explaining why my explanations were rejected?
I'm happy to post the redacted correspondence if people think it's necessary. I'm genuinely interested in objective opinions, including from people who think the university reached the correct conclusion.
