5034CMD Digital Reality Emerging Technologies CW2 Integrity Case Record Form

College / Subsidiary:

CEES

Course Title:

Games Technology

Course Code:

EECU177

Course Stage & Start (e.g. level 4, Sept start; level 7, Jan start)

Study Level: Level 5

Month start: September

Module Title:

Digital Reality Emerging Technologies

Module Code:

5034CMD 2425SEPJAN

Coursework / Exam description:

Coursework Assignment: Create an XR application in accordance with a design specification

Submission status

(first attempt, R1, R2/final attempt):

Second (R2)

Date case referred:

17/04/2025

Type of allegation:

plagiarism

Explanation for referral (e.g., observations from Turnitin report, areas of matching, referencing).

For the coursework assignment, students have to submit a codebase for an XR application (either AR or VR) created using the Unity3D game engine. In addition, students must submit a critical report that should explain and justify the technology selection and development process.

As part of the report, students are expected to present an analysis of the game scenario provided for the application design. This analysis should be incorporated throughout the critical report.

The student has submitted two separate reports (Scenario and Critical) along with a zip-file containing the Unity project. Below I will present the evidence for both the reports and the Unity project code.

Scenario Analysis Report

An analysis of the references and usage within the text shows a lack of familiarity with the referenced material. The analysis presented in the report lacks depth, presenting only surface details included in the assignment brief, thereby suggesting the usage of Generative AI which would only have access to the brief.

In addition, some of the references in the reference list are falsified, seemingly due to generative AI.

The reference:

Statista. (2024). Virtual reality (VR) gaming market size worldwide from 2017 to 2024. 

Links to a statista page showing the “Number of recorded cases of child abduction within armed conflict in selected countries in 2023” as recorded by the United Nations.

The reference:

Zhao, L., Pyae, A., & Koivisto, A. (2020). Exploring user experience of virtual reality games: A mixed-method approach. Entertainment Computing, 35, 100373.

Links to the paper “A novel hybrid bidirectional unidirectional LSTM network for dynamic hand gesture recognition with Leap Motion” on ScienceDirect.

Critical Report

An analysis of the references and usage within the text shows a lack of familiarity with the referenced material. The analysis presented in the report lacks depth, presenting only surface details included in the assignment brief, thereby suggesting the usage of Generative AI which would only have access to the brief.

In addition, some of the references in the reference list are falsified, seemingly due to generative AI.

The reference:

Zhao, Y., et al. (2020). Exploring diegetic interfaces in VR: Immersive health bars and HUD elements. Proceedings of CHI Play, 341-354. 

Links to the paper “Game Atmosphere: Effects of Audiovisual Thematic Cohesion on Player Experience and Psychophysiology” on ACM.

Unity Code Project

In the Unity project, most of the submitted code appears to have been taken from other places.

Firstly, a simple Google search of a folder within the project “Lets Make a VR Game” reveals a YouTube tutorial series of the same name, which makes the completed project assets available for download.

YouTube Tutorial Link: Lets Make a VR Game

For the assignment, students were permitted to use non-code assets such as 3D models and sound effects but were required to write the code for the application themselves.

The screenshots below show that the student has imported the Player controller from the YouTube tutorial into the project without any reference to the source. The “REFERENCE LINKS.docx” file provided by the student provides links to the non-code assets but not to the code assets that have been used.

The screenshots show that the player controller is identical in both projects, with the blue objects being the thumbs of the virtual hand models that the player controls while playing the game.

YouTube Video Screenshot:

Student Unity Project Screenshot:

Submission of code

In scripts including “Enemy.cs” the student has made use of the Singleton design pattern (shown in the screenshot below), but this has not been covered in the module.

In the virtual environment, the student has made use of tools and techniques that have not previously been covered in the course. The screenshot below shows the student has used “Reflection Probes” within the scene to create more realistic reflections in surfaces such as the car body as shown below. This is an advanced feature of Unity that has not been covered in the course and is far outside the knowledge and understanding that has been demonstrated by the student.

The student also used UI Canvas to provide a user interface within the 3D environment. This requires a considerable degree of configuration to achieve the resulting behaviour, with knowledge of many complex subsystems within the engine. This has not been covered in the course and is far outside the knowledge and understanding that the student has demonstrated.

In the “PanelControl.cs” the student has made use of more advanced programming and Unity techniques. On the programming side, the student has made use of C# preprocessor directives to conditionally include namespaces into the script. This has not been covered in the course and is far outside the knowledge and understanding that the student has demonstrated.

Furthermore, the student has implemented code in the “Start” method to dynamically register click listeners on UI buttons at runtime. This has not been covered in the course and is far outside the knowledge and understanding that the student has demonstrated.

Name of ACO/E Assigned:

Ade Shonola

Date case received:

16/05/2025

Level of severity based on available evidence for this case only:

Serious

Refer to tutor to mark as normal (for cases deemed ‘no case to answer’):

☐ Yes                         ☒ No

Refer to tutor to mark on academic merit (for cases deemed ‘poor academic practice’/’minor’):

☐ Yes                         ☒ No

Student invited to viva voce (ACV):

☒ Yes                         ☐ No

Student invited to meeting with ACO/E:

☒ Yes                         ☐ No

Please indicate preferred date, time and place (campus, online) for ACM/ACV if required

Note: Registry must give student a minimum five working-days’ notice

28^th July 2025 at 10am online via MS Team

Forward to ACP (for complex cases or cases deemed very serious):

☐ Yes                         ☒ No

Date and time of meeting:

28/07/2025 Time: 10am

How is the meeting being conducted?

☐  Face to face        ☒  Online

Attendees:

Nanxi Wang & Ade Shonola

Summary of main points discussed (e.g. how student approached/constructed assignment; recognition of errors; advice & educational recommendations) - please invite all to comment:

The meeting started as expected at 10am and ended at 11am. Here is summary of discussion:

1. During the conduct of the Viva Voce, I was able to establish that the student did some of the work in the assessment by himself but also, he sought some solutions to part of the assessment from the internet. Thus, the viva voce was followed by ACO conduct immediately.

2. The student admitted to the use of materials from the internet to complete parts of the assessment but deny the use of generative AI.

3. The student admitted to having used wrong/incorrect references, in particular (Statista. (2024)) to push up the number of materials on the reference list and also deny the use of generative AI for reference.

4. Based on points 1 –3 above, a case of plagiarism was established, and the student was found quilt of using online materials to complete part of his assignment.  

5. Towards the end of the meeting, the student pointed out that he contacted his ML who hinted him on proposed ACO case. Based on the response from the ML, he claimed that he has already resit this assignment and passed it. His claim needs to be verified though.

Confirmed level of severity of this case only:

Serious

Justification for the decision on level of severity:

Based on the outcome of the meeting as stated above

If level has changed from initial decision, please provide justification:

NOTE: Major change requires referral to ACP

N/A

Refer to ACP Yes/No:

NOTE: ACP meeting minutes should be appended to this Case Record once the ACP has heard the case

☐ Yes                         ☒ No

Confirmed academic outcome based on case status:

Zero for the Whole Module 

Confirmed disciplinary outcome based on case status:

Final Written Warning

ACO/E confirms within the meeting that (check the points that apply):

• I have explained the process for dealing with academic integrity cases to the student
• I offered the student the opportunity to present their position on the case
• The student is clear about the outcome and requirements following the meeting
• The student has been told about any academic conduct training they are required to attend
• All participants have been invited to provide feedback, and this has been recorded above

Verified Academic Outcome:

Zero for the Whole Module

Verified Disciplinary Outcome:

Final Written Warning

Dear student:

Final Written Warning

The Chair of the Academic Conduct Panel has determined that this letter should serve as a Final Written Warning to you regarding your future conduct. It appears that you are not benefiting from the support and guidance provided for you. You are mandatorily required to complete the education advised to you, including ‘Academic Integrity: A Fundamental Introduction’ online workshop (link for booking in the Required workshop section below). Any further upheld allegation of either academic or disciplinary violations is likely to result in you being excluded from the University. Should you need additional help and support on personal problems or on any aspect of your student journey, then please find useful contacts here (Health and wellbeing portal)

Required workshop attendance

‘Academic Integrity: A Fundamental Introduction’ online workshop. You should attend this workshop within 4 weeks of this notification.

To book your place on the workshop, go to the Centre for Academic Writing’s booking page 

and search for ‘Academic Integrity’ from the list of workshops.  

It is important that you use your University email address (not a personal email address) when attending the workshop.

Additional Training

Library Workshops

Centre for Academic Writing Workshops

Date this Case Record is sent to the student:

26/09/2025

Information for students about the appeal process

If you wish to appeal this decision, the grounds on which an appeal may be made and the procedures to be followed are outlined in paragraph 1.10.2 of Appendix 1 to the General Regulations (below). Any appeal must be submitted within ten working days of the date of this letter, and addressed to the Registrar (College / School / Subsidiary), using the email you received this case record from.

1.10.2 The only grounds for appeal which may be considered are that:

a) the procedures were not followed correctly prior to decisions being confirmed;

b) the nature of the academic misconduct does not justify the severity of the sanction;

c) there is evidence of severe mitigating circumstances that could not have been made available to be considered as part of the primary process. The mitigating circumstances must have been so severe as to have prevented the student from making an informed decision at the time as to whether to attempt an assessment or to apply for a deferral.

SCALE OF OUTCOMES TABLE FOR ACADEMIC INTEGRITY BREACHES

Severity of this Case

Column i

Column ii

Column iii

Column iv

Preliminary Case

First Case

Second Case

Third or Subsequent Case

Academic Outcome

Disciplinary Outcome

Academic Outcome

Disciplinary Outcome

Academic Outcome

Disciplinary Outcome

Academic Outcome

Disciplinary Outcome

No case to answer

If an allegation about academic misconduct is not upheld, the student will be sent a letter to say that no evidence was found to support the allegation, and no record will be kept of the case. The work will be marked on merit, there is no detriment to the student and no penalty is incurred.

Poor Academic Practice

Very minor infringements, typically poor referencing, are not recorded on the student record and do not count as an upheld Case. The work will be marked on merit and, importantly, the marker must ensure that relevant Mandatory Training is provided to improve the student’s academic skills.

Minor

Mark on merit; Mandatory Training 

Local advice letter

Mark on merit; Mandatory Training

Local advice letter

Mark on merit; refer for guidance

Formal warning letter *

Mark on merit; refer for guidance

Final Written Warning *

Moderately Serious

Zero mark for this assessment; Mandatory Training

Local advice letter

Zero mark for this assessment; Mandatory Training

Formal warning letter

Zero mark for the component; refer for guidance

Formal warning letter *

Zero mark for the whole module; refer for guidance

Final Written Warning *; for 4^th case, Temporary or Permanent exclusion from the University

Serious

Zero mark for this assessment; Mandatory Training

Formal warning letter

Zero mark for the component; Mandatory Training

Formal warning letter

Zero mark for the whole module, refer for guidance

Final Written Warning *

Zero mark for the whole module; refer for guidance

Temporary or Permanent exclusion from the University

Very Serious

Zero mark for the component; Mandatory Training

Formal warning letter

Zero mark for the whole module; Mandatory Training; refer for guidance

Final Written Warning

Zero mark for the whole module; refer for guidance

Temporary or Permanent exclusion from the University

Zero mark for the whole module; refer for guidance

Temporary or Permanent exclusion from the University