- Policy Statement
In all assessed work candidates should take care to ensure the work presented is their own and fully acknowledges the work and opinions of others. It is also the responsibility of the candidates to ensure that they do not undertake any form of cheating or other form of unfair advantage.
This policy and procedure applies to all internal assessments, and internal and external examinations. Where awarding bodies have their own published procedures these will take precedence over Challenge Consulting’s policy.
The Human Rights Act 1998 applies to the operation of this policy.
All staff have a responsibility to give full and active support for the policy by ensuring:
4.1 the policy is known, understood and implemented.
- Actions to Implement and Develop Policy
5.1 An allegation of cheating, plagiarism or other unfair advantage is not the same as proof of the incident.
5.2 The determination of whether cheating, plagiarism or other forms of unfair advantage (referred to in this document as academic irregularities) has occurred it should be resolved before any claims are made to the accrediting body.
5.3 Definitions and Examples
There are different forms of “academic irregularity” all of which may be the subject of the procedures described below. However, it is not possible to state categorically that, in all cases, every perceived academic irregularity will be proved once that matter is investigated (e.g. the copying of a design or a work of art may not in all instances amount to plagiarism – see below, Section 5.5). Each case will have to be considered on its merits and on the basis of the strength of evidence. The following sections are different types of academic irregularity.
Cheating is an attempt to deceive assessors, examiners and/or external verifiers and includes:
5.4.1 Communicating with or copying from any other candidate except insofar as the course regulations may specifically permit this e.g. group assessments.
5.4.2 In any other way, providing false evidence or knowledge of understanding towards assessed work.
5.4.3 Offering bribes of any kind to a person connected with assessment.
The deliberate and substantial unacknowledged incorporation in a candidate’s work of material derived from the work (published or unpublished) of another.
Examples of plagiarism are:
5.5.1 The inclusion in a candidate’s work of more than a single phrase from another person’s work, published or unpublished, without the use of quotation marks and acknowledgement of the sources.
5.5.2 The summarising of another person’s work by simply changing a few words or altering the order of presentation, without acknowledgement.
5.5.3 The substantial and unauthorised use of the ideas of another person without acknowledgement of the source.
5.5.4 Copying the work of another candidate, with or without that candidate’s knowledge or agreement.
5.5.5 Purchasing essays or downloading them from internet sources and submitting them as the candidates own.
Collusion is a form of plagiarism that involves unauthorised co-operation between at least two people with the intent to deliberately mislead or deceive; examples could include the candidate:
5.6.1 Submits as entirely his/her own, with intention to gain unfair advantage, work done in collaboration with another person.
5.6.2 Collaborates with another candidate in the completion of work which is intended to be submitted as that other candidate’s own unaided work.
5.6.3 Knowingly permits another candidate to copy all or part of his/her own work and to submit it as that candidate’s own unaided work.
5.7 Falsifying Data
The presentation of data in reports, projects etc. produced by an organisation and falsely purported to have been carried out by the candidate themselves, or obtained by unfair means.
“Personation” is the legal term of what is usually referred to by the lay person as “impersonation”. Personation is thus the assumption by one person of the identity of another person with intent to deceive or to gain unfair advantage. It may exist where:
5.8.1 One person assumes the identity of a candidate, with the intention of gaining unfair advantage for that candidate.
5.8.2 The candidate is knowingly and willingly impersonated by another with the intention of gaining unfair advantage for himself/herself.
Ghosting exists where:
5.9.1 A student submits as their own, work which has been produced in whole or part by another person on their behalf e.g. the use of a ghost writing service.
5.9.2 A student seeks to make financial gain or other material gain by using work, which they have written or produced, available to another student.
5.10 Dishonest Practice
The use of any other form of dishonest practice not identified by the above definitions.
- Procedures & Processes used to deter and deal with the above
6.1 Procedure for In Course Assessment.
Delegates will be made aware of the Plagiarism, Collusion and Cheating Policy during the induction of any accredited programme and be made aware of the rules and sanctions surrounding this.
Where there is a likelihood of work being submitted remotely (eg. via email or post), delegates will be required to sign a declaration that they understand the rules and sanctions which could be applied if they breach the Plagiarism, Collusion and Cheating Policy. These signed declarations will be held on file. See Appendix 1 for example.
Where hand written proformas are used, a declaration section will be present on the proforma which delegates will be required to sign.
On programmes where assessed work will be completed in the presence of the tutor/assessor, a declaration will not be necessary.
6.1.1 When an academic irregularity is suspected, the tutors should raise the issue with the Centre Manager/Course Director.
Where it is agreed by the Centre Manager/Course Director that there appears to be an irregularity, the tutor will raise the matter with the Student informally to give the student the opportunity to present his/her case.
6.1.2 If the student(s) concerned admits to the academic irregularity, then the tutor will determine the action to be taken, in accordance with paragraph 6.3 below.
6.1.3 In cases where the student admits misconduct the student should also be given the opportunity to declare academic misconduct in other work that they have previously submitted.
6.1.4 The Tutor should report the outcomes of the informal meeting to the Centre Manager/Course Director who will decide on whether any further action will be taken (in accordance with any relevant accredited body procedures and policies).
6.1.5 An allegation may be made after the work has been marked and returned to the student. Where this occurs the Centre Manager/Course Director will refer to the policy of the relevant awarding body and take action accordingly.
6.1.6 In the particular case of the ILM when this is the awarding body, findings should be reported to the Regulation and Quality Improvement Manager by e-mailing mailto:ILMRegulation@i-l-m.com.
To be used on courses where it is likely that assessed work will be undertaken and submitted remotely.
I ,………………………..………..(name) have been made aware of the scope, rules and sanctions relating to the Challenge Consulting Plagiarism, collusion and cheating Policy, and that any work which I submit will be my own work.
By making this declaration I am confirming that any work submitted :
- Has not in whole or in part been knowingly submitted elsewhere for assessment (unless this is being used for recognised prior learning), or as a draft towards the current course.
- Where a submission includes work from a previous assessment, this has been identified.
- Where materials have been used from other sources, these sources have been properly acknowledged.
Signed …………………………………. Date…………………….