• Section 1 - Purpose
• Educative response
• Section 2 - Definitions
• Section 3 - Guidelines
• Behavioural Thresholds
• Academic Integrity
• Generative AI
• Placement Behaviour
• Section 4 - Procedure
• Stage 1: Educating Students about Behavioural Expectations
• Academic Integrity
• General behaviour
• Behaviour on placement
• Stage 2: Inappropriate Behaviour observed.
• Stage 3. Subject Coordinator recommends educative action(s).
• Stage 4. First Educative Action.
• Stage 5. Second Educative Action.
• Stage 6: Third and final Educative Action 3.
• Stage 7: Monitoring and Notification
• Part A - Schedule A: Inappropriate behaviour, evidence and recommended educative actions.

Section 1 - Purpose

(1) The Inappropriate Behaviour Guidelines (IBG) establish the framework and processes for responding to concerns about inappropriate behaviour that are more effectively addressed through educative and remedial responses.
 

(2) Inappropriate behaviour is any conduct by a student, staff member or affiliate that is unreasonable, unwelcome, or inconsistent with the standards of behaviour expected within the Western Sydney University (the University) community.  It includes behaviour that undermines a safe, respectful, inclusive, or productive learning and working environment. Such behaviour may occur in teaching, research, administrative, residential, or social settings, including online or digital environments connected to the university.

(3) Inappropriate behaviour includes conduct that:

1. breaches university policies such as the Student Code of Conduct or undermines academic integrity standards outlined in the Assessment Policy and the Placement Policy.
2. disrespects the dignity, rights, or wellbeing of others within the university community.
3. disrupts teaching, learning, research, or university operations.

(4) These Guidelines focus on three types of behaviour:  academic, general, and placement, while recognising that other behavioural issues may arise within the University context.

(5) Inappropriate behaviour is not misconduct and is managed by Schools in accordance with these Guidelines.

(6) These guidelines apply to:  

1. all enrolled students, regardless of where, or the context, in which the conduct occurs.
2. Student's conduct always and is not limited to campus locations or University related activities. It extends to conduct in off campus, online, residential, or social settings, and to conduct connected to a student’s enrolment, including activities undertaken as part of, or in representation of, the University (such as placements and fieldwork).
3. Consistent with the National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence 2025 - Federal Register of Legislation the University’s responsibilities extend to gender based violence involving students and staff wherever and whenever it occurs, including outside University activities.

(7) University staff should apply these guidelines using informed professional judgement aligned with accepted disciplinary standards, methods, and teaching goals, ensuring decisions follow procedural fairness, are appropriately documented in the Complaints and Misconduct Management System (CMMS), and are applied consistently, transparently, and defensibly.

Educative response

(8) The University adopts an educative approach in response to inappropriate behaviour allowing students up to three opportunities to remediate their conduct before a misconduct allegation is reported.  This approach aims to resolve issues early, ensures responses are fair and proportionate, encourage accountability, and helps prevent escalation. 

(9) Proactive education on academic integrity, general conduct, and professional behaviour helps prevent misconduct and promotes responsible conduct aligned with university standards and future professional expectations. Education is delivered through formal and informal means, including orientation, workshops, training modules, policy communications, discipline-specific guidance, everyday interactions, and role-modelling.
 

Section 2 - Definitions

(10) Academic Integrity means a commitment, even in the face of adversity, to six fundamental values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage. From these values, flow principles of behaviour that enable academic communities to translate ideals to action (International Centre for Academic Integrity, 2014; TEQSA, 2019).  In practice this means adherence to honest and ethical practices in learning and assessment, ensuring all work is your own and properly acknowledged.

(11) Behaviour of concern means behaviour that puts the safety of oneself of others at risk or that restricts a student's or others ability to student to continue with their study as outlined in the Student Health Leave Policy.  These Guidelines include behaviour of concern.

(12) Conduct and Investigations Office (C&IO) means the central business unit that monitors reports of inappropriate behaviour and provide end-to-end case management of misconduct matters. 

(13) Complaints Management and Misconduct System (CMMS) where inappropriate behaviour is centrally recorded.

(14) General Behaviour: Conduct that demonstrates respect, responsibility, and cooperation within the learning environment and university community.

(15) Inappropriate Behaviour is any conduct by a student, staff member or affiliate that is unreasonable, unwelcome, or inconsistent with the standards of behaviour expected within the University community.  It includes behaviour that undermines a safe, respectful, inclusive, or productive learning and working environment. Such behaviour may occur in teaching, research, administrative, residential, or social settings, including online or digital environments connected to the university. Such behaviour is not considered misconduct and will be managed at the point of origin via the Inappropriate Behaviour Guidelines. These Guidelines allows students up to three educative actions, before the matter is reported as a misconduct allegation.    

(16) Placement refers to all undergraduate and postgraduate coursework related placements, including accreditation placements, cadetships, clinical placements, clinical practicums, clinical education, clinical experience, cocurricular work placements, community organisation placements, corporate internships, extramural placements, industry placements, internships, intramural placements, practical placements, practical work placements, practicums, practicum placements, professional experience placements, professional internships, professional placements, professional work placements, research practicums, service learning, teaching professional practice, voluntary placements (which may not be discipline specific), and work placements as defined in the Placement Policy. These guidelines include inappropriate behaviour while on placement.

(17) Placement Behaviour: Professional conduct and adherence to workplace expectations, standards, and responsibilities during practical or industry-based learning experiences in line with the Student Code of Conduct and Placement Agreement.

Section 3 - Guidelines

Behavioural Thresholds

(18) Behavioural thresholds clarify which student behaviours fall within the scope of these Guidelines and can be appropriately managed through routine teaching, learning, or administrative processes. 

(19) Behaviour that does not meet the threshold under these Guidelines refers to conduct that reflects normal learning challenges, misunderstandings, or administrative issues, and is more appropriately addressed through standard teaching, support, or academic processes, rather than formal intervention.

(20) Out of scope
Examples of behaviour that do not meet the threshold for resolution under these Guidelines include, but are not limited to:

1. Students not following instructions when completing an assessment task. 
2. Student not following the guidelines provided in a marking rubric.
3. Academic misunderstanding or errors, such as submitting an assessment late or misinterpreting an assessment question or task, which are addressed through the marking rubric.
4. A student respectfully debating an issue with teaching staff.
5. A student needing additional time to process instructions or requesting reasonable adjustments.
6. A student arriving late to a class for a legitimate reason, transport delays, being lost on campus, evidenced IT issues for online classes.
7. A student whose placement is terminated by the placement provider due to unforeseen issues, or changes in the providers ability to host the placement.

(21) In scope
Behavioural thresholds within the scope of these Guidelines are as follows:

1. Minor academic integrity issues such as poor referencing, improper collaboration.
2. Low level disruptive behaviour such as interrupting, inappropriate communication, ignoring instructions.
3. Minor professionalism issues such as lateness, poor preparation, not following procedures.
4. Administrative or compliance issues such as incomplete forms, missed processes, minor safety issues.

Academic Integrity

(22) Expectations of academic behaviour are outlined in the following university policies: Student Code of Conduct, Assessment Policy, Assessment Guide, Academic Integrity Guidelines, Use of Artificial Intelligence Policy, Student Misconduct Policy, and the Responsible Conduct of Research Policy.

(23) Inappropriate behaviour relating to academic integrity refers to minor academic concerns that pose a minimal threat to the integrity of the assessment and student learning outcomes.

(24) Examples of inappropriate behaviour relating to academic integrity may include, but are not limited to:

1. Poor referencing – forgetting to cite sources correctly or missing quotation marks.
2. Over-reliance on others’ work – copying part of a friend’s answer and slightly rewording it.
3. Improper collaboration – discussing answers in group chats when work is meant to be individual.
4. Using notes incorrectly – bringing unauthorised materials into an assessment.
5. Self-plagiarism – reusing parts of previous work without permission.
6. Using AI tools without acknowledgement where disclosure is expected or failing to complete Artificial Intelligence (AI) task declarations.
7. Academic misconduct involving interpersonal behaviour – such as collusion involving pressure or coercion from peers.

Generative AI

(25) These Guidelines should be read in conjunction with the University’s Academic Integrity staff resources.

(26) Academics are responsible for guiding students to use generative AI ethically and responsibly.  This includes building AI literacy, explaining its capabilities and limitations, aligning use with academic integrity and professional standards, and requiring appropriate disclosure of AI use.  Academics should also model discipline-appropriate practices and refer students to subject-specific guidance.

(27) Decisions about inappropriate AI use must be fair, evidence based, transparent, and defensible.  They should rely on multiple sources of evidence rather than a single indicator, and assessment design should provide varied opportunities for students to demonstrate their learning.

(28) Acceptable evidence must be specific and objective and may include, but are not limited to:

1. Clear inconsistencies in a student’s work (e.g. sudden changes in writing style, unexplained use of advanced knowledge, or internal inconsistencies)
2. Evidence of the student’s work process (e.g. drafts, notes, version history, planning documents)
3. Student responses to questioning (e.g. explaining reasoning or reproducing work)
4. Metadata or file history anomalies (e.g. unusual creation or editing patterns)
5. Mismatches between different stages of assessment (e.g. draft vs final submission)

(29) The University assesses suspected inappropriate AI use using a triangulation approach, drawing on multiple evidence sources for a single assessment task.  Unacceptable evidence includes relying solely on AI detection tools, subjective claims that work “sounds like AI,” or assumptions based on a student’s background or performance. AI detection tools should only support education and discussion, not be used as standalone proof.

General Behaviour

(30) Expectations of general behaviour are outlined in the following policies: Bullying Prevention Policy, Health Safety and Wellbeing Policy, Placement Policy, Smoke-Free Environment Policy, Student Code of Conduct, Student Health Leave Policy and the Student Misconduct Policy.

(31) Inappropriate general behaviour refers to conduct that demonstrates a lack of respect, responsibility, and cooperation within the learning environment and university community.

(32) Examples of inappropriate general behaviour may include, but are not limited to:

1. Disruptive behaviour in lectures, tutorials, labs, or meetings.
2. Talking over others or interrupting during class.
3. Ignoring instructions from lecturers or staff.
4. Inappropriate or disrespectful communication, including emails, online platforms, or social media.
5. Using inappropriate language or tone, even if unintentional.
6. Not participating appropriately in group work.
7. Distracting behaviour such as excessive phone use.
8. Misuse of university resources or facilities in ways that negatively affect others.

Placement Behaviour

(33) Expectations of appropriate conduct while on placement is outlined in the following policies: Health Safety and Wellbeing Policy, Placement Policy, Smoke-Free Environment Policy, Student Code of Conduct, Student Health Leave Policy and the Student Misconduct Policy. 

(34) Behavioural thresholds for work placement clarify when student conduct falls below expected professional standards and requires an educative response, as opposed to routine performance issues or circumstances more appropriately managed through standard supervision or placement support processes. 

(35) Examples of inappropriate behaviour include, but are not limited, to:

1. Incomplete preparation for placement, such as failure to complete or meet pre-placement requirements.
2. Arriving late or leaving early without notifying a supervisor.
3. Inappropriate use of mobile phones during work hours.
4. Not complying with uniform, dress code or workplace dress requirements.
5. Incomplete communication – failing to update supervisors or seek clarification when needed.
6. Lack of preparation – attending meetings or tasks without adequate review.
7. Casual handling of information – discussing workplace matters in public spaces.
8. Misuse of workplace time or resources for personal tasks (e.g., social media, personal emails).
9. Behaviour that does not meet professional standards, including disrespectful communication or failure to follow workplace procedures.

(36) Refer to Schedule A:  Examples of behaviour, evidence and recommended educative actions.
 

Section 4 - Procedure

(37) The University implements procedures for managing inappropriate behaviour in a safe, fair, respectful, and trauma-informed manner that prioritises safety, wellbeing, the achievement of learning outcomes and student progression.  The university’s response should uphold procedural fairness, provide reasonable adjustments, and appropriate support, and engage with student’s respectfully and proportionally, while expecting compliance with recommended educative actions.

(38) The University manages inappropriate behaviour in accordance with these Guidelines through the Educative Response Procedure, which comprises seven stages:

1. Education
2. Inappropriate behaviour identified.
3. Subject Coordinator recommends educative action(s).
4. First educative action
5. Second educative action
6. Final educative action
7. Monitoring and Notification: The C&IO monitors reports of inappropriate behaviour and notifies the relevant school when a student has received three reports, at which point a misconduct allegation can be raised.
    

Stage 1: Educating Students about Behavioural Expectations

(39) This stage refers to the academic function of providing students with proactive education on academic integrity, general conduct, and professional expectations through orientation, training, programmatic learning, and ongoing guidance.

Academic Integrity

(40) Education on academic integrity is integrated throughout the student learning journey and tailored to each discipline, helping students progressively develop the knowledge, behaviours, and skills needed to act ethically. This includes a range of approaches designed to build academic integrity capabilities, ensuring students can apply these principles consistently in their studies. 

(41) Academic integrity is supported through orientation and ongoing course communications, with clear guidance on general and discipline-specific expectations. Students build their skills through training, modules such as AEGIS, workshops, and learning to use tools like Turnitin and AI responsibly. They also access discipline-specific resources, receive regular reminders about assessment expectations, and are directed to support services and relevant policies to strengthen their understanding of academic integrity.

General behaviour

(42) Expectations of appropriate conduct are developed through a range of initiatives to help students understand expectations of behaviour, respectful conduct, safety and community standards. Students are supported to understand appropriate conduct through clear communication of the Student Code of Conduct, reinforced regularly throughout their studies. This is complemented by workshops on respectful behaviour and ethical decision-making, access to campus safety briefings and resources, and ongoing campaigns promoting inclusivity and positive culture. Student leaders receive targeted training to model expected behaviours, while clear policies outline standards, accountability, and consequences for misconduct.

Behaviour on placement

(43) The University educates students about expectations of behaviour, respectful conduct, professionalism, and safety during placement activities. 

(44) Students are prepared for appropriate conduct in placement settings through clear communication of the Student Code of Conduct, reinforced throughout their program and applied to both campus and workplace environments. This is supported by preplacement workshops on professional behaviour, workplace safety briefings, and access to relevant policies outlining expectations, responsibilities, and consequences. Ongoing engagement with academic mentors before, and during placement, helps students understand expectations, reflect on experiences, and address challenges in a professional manner.

Stage 2: Inappropriate Behaviour observed.

(45) This stage happens when university staff identify behaviour that does not meet expected academic standards or learning outcomes.  When this occurs, the Subject Coordinator, or delegate, should be notified and will recommend suitable learning actions to support the student in understanding and improving their behaviour.

Stage 3. Subject Coordinator recommends educative action(s).

(46) This stage involves the Subject Coordinator or delegate, implementing an appropriate educative action that is proportionate to the students' behaviour.   The Subject Coordinator determines the most suitable response and communicates it clearly to the student. 

(47) The Subject Coordinator will consider the student’s stage of learning, enrolment status, any prior findings of misconduct, relevant adjustment plans (such as Practical Reasonable Adjustment Plans (PRAP) or Academic Reasonable Adjustment Plans (ARAP), and the nature of the assessment (secure or non-secure).   They will also consider the student’s experience in higher education and their understanding of academic integrity, the impact of the behaviour on others and on assessment integrity, whether expectations have been clearly communicated, and the student’s level of engagement and learning progress.

Stage 4. First Educative Action.

(48) This stage involves implementing the first of up to three educative actions in response to a student’s inappropriate behaviour. The student’s behaviour is discussed with the Subject Coordinator, or their delegate, who determines an appropriate educative response. This response is then communicated to the student through a meeting or written advice.
The Subject Coordinator or delegate reviews the behaviour and identifies appropriate strategies to support student improvement. The student is informed about the behaviour, why it is inappropriate, and that an educative action is required. Clear expectations are reinforced, along with recommended actions, timeframes, and relevant resources. Actions may include reviewing guidelines, resubmitting work, completing training, or accessing support services. The incident is recorded in the CMMS, and the student’s progress is monitored, with any further incidents managed as new matters.

Implications of Non-Compliance with Educative Actions

(49) Students are encouraged, but not required, to complete educative actions. If they do not do so, the matter may escalate, resulting in additional actions or a formal misconduct investigation. Non-compliance may lead to academic penalties, loss of the opportunity for early resolution, and increased monitoring or the imposition of mandatory requirements.

Stage 5. Second Educative Action.

(50) This stage involves implementing the second of up to three educative actions in response to a student’s inappropriate behaviour.  The student’s behaviour is discussed with the Subject Coordinator or delegate, who determines an appropriate educative response.  This response is then communicated to the student through a meeting or written advice.

(51) The Subject Coordinator or delegate evaluates the behaviour, informs the student of the issue and why it is inappropriate, and outlines required educative actions with clear expectations, timeframes, and support resources. Actions may include reviewing guidelines, completing training (e.g. academic integrity or AI), resubmitting work, or engaging with support services. The incident is recorded in the CMMS, and the student’s progress is monitored, with any further incidents managed as new matters.

Stage 6: Third and final Educative Action 3.

(52) This stage involves implementing the third and final educative action in response to a student’s inappropriate behaviour.  The student’s behaviour is discussed with the Subject Coordinator or delegate, who determines an appropriate educative response.  This response is then communicated to the student through a meeting or written advice. 

(53) The Subject Coordinator or delegate reviews and addresses inappropriate behaviour by informing the student of the issue, explaining expectations, and identifying suitable educative actions with clear timeframes and support resources. These actions may include training, reviewing guidelines, or accessing academic or wellbeing support, with additional conditions applied if needed. Each incident is recorded in the CMMS, and the student’s progress is monitored, with any further incidents treated as new matters.

(54) There are no grounds to appeal the recommendation of educative actions or submit a complaint about the determination of actions under these Guidelines.

Stage 7: Monitoring and Notification

(55) The Conduct and Investigations Office (C&IO) monitors reports of inappropriate behaviour in the CMMS and notifies the school when three reports for the same student have been received.   A misconduct allegation can then be reported if inappropriate behaviour continues. 

(56) The C&IO will report quarterly on inappropriate behaviour reports to identify trends, assess the effectiveness of educative actions, and ensure consistent and fair application of procedures. 

(57) Reflection and stakeholder feedback will inform updates to these guidelines, strengthen staff and student education, and support continuous improvement in promoting academic integrity and shared expectations of conduct across the University community.

Part A - Schedule A: Inappropriate behaviour, evidence and recommended educative actions.