A full account of the incident should be submitted together with supporting evidence and an indication of which regulation or specification requirement has been broken. The centre was given the following guidance: Breakdown in management and quality assurance arrangements for some or all accredited qualifications offered by the centre. Any units banked in a previous series are retained, but the units taken in the present series and the aggregation opportunity are lost. However, in cases of serious malpractice, where the threat to the integrity of the examination or assessment is such as to outweigh a duty of confidentiality, it will normally be necessary for information to be exchanged amongst the regulators and the awarding bodies. Statements from the centre confirm that the information given to candidates about completion dates was clear, and given both orally and in writing.
Any involvement must be supervised by a more senior and experienced member of staff. The candidates had been placed in the same room as those who had approved access arrangements. Where a conflict of interest may be seen to arise, investigations into suspected malpractice should not be delegated to the manager of the section, team or department involved in the suspected malpractice. The awarding body agreed that the candidates had collaborated on this project to an inappropriate extent. Irrespective of the underlying cause or the people involved, all allegations of malpractice in relation to examinations and assessment need to be investigated. Appendix 4 Table of offences graded according to levels of seriousness and showing appropriate ranges of penalties applied to candidates NOTE:
Ccoursework centre was visited. There was evidence of an added sentence. GCSE Mathematics The candidate was found to be using a mobile phone as a calculator during the examination. The centre informed one of the three awarding bodies involved, and that board informed the others.
The candidates declined to make written statements when given the opportunity to do so. Candidate A had been sitting next to B. The candidate would not therefore receive a certificate from any awarding body.
Some other candidates who were not part of the sample had been given far higher marks than ccoursework coursework justified.
Exams Office – JCQ Joint Council for Qualifications
The disclosure took place prior to the date on which the material was due to be made available to teachers.
Failure by a centre to investigate allegations of suspected malpractice in accordance with the requirements in this document also constitutes malpractice. Sanctions and penalties applied against candidates 25 It is possible that the evidence in some cases may be inconclusive, but the awarding body may decline to accept the work of the candidates in order to protect the integrity of the qualification for the majority.
The following individuals have a right to appeal against decisions of the Malpractice Committee or officers acting on its behalf. The candidate admitted the offence. While being taken back to the examination room the candidate handed the invigilator additional unauthorised material.
Suspension of certification Loss of the integrity of assessment decisions; danger of invalid claims for certification. However, when malpractice is judged to be the result of a serious management failure within a department or the whole centre, the awarding body may apply sanctions against the whole department or centre.
Exam Malpractice Guide
GCE Design and Technology The head of a centre reported that it had been discovered that a teacher had enhanced the coursework of some candidates in the moderation sample.
The teacher stated that the words said to the candidate should not have been recorded. GCSE Art and Design The centre reported that courseworl candidate disrupted the examination by throwing a pencil at another candidate three desks away. As the candidate was no longer under direct centre supervision, this action had the potential to impair the integrity of the examination. There were additions at the end of answers in a different coloured pen in the case of six candidates in the sample seen.
Communicating decisions 27 GCSE Design Technology The invigilator reported that a candidate had attempted to show his answer paper to another candidate. The candidate was awarded a mark of zero for the unit. The candidate admitted throwing objects twice during the examination.
Related publications Share Embed Add to favorites Comments. Reflecting on the available information, the awarding body judged that the advice given to the candidates was specific in nature and would have assisted them. Some units also have components, in which case a level of penalty between numbers 2 and 4 is possible. The centre was reminded that when work is stolen the correct procedure is to apply for special consideration for the candidate affected.
Calaméo – Exam Malpractice Guide
Procedures for dealing with allegations of malpractice 7 4. Alternatively, an action plan will be agreed between the awarding body and the centre, and will need to be implemented as a condition of continuing to accept entries or registrations from the centre. The allegations were that: The only exception to this is malpractice discovered in controlled assessments or coursework before the authentication forms have been signed by the candidate see section 4.
courswwork Any involvement must be supervised by a more senior and experienced member of staff. The effect of this penalty is to prevent the candidate aggregating or requesting certification in that series, if the candidate has applied for it. Investigations into allegations of malpractice or irregularities against the head of the centre or the management of the centre may be carried out by: