• +65 6737 0010

Malpractice and Maladministration

DOCUMENT REVISION HISTORY

Revision No

Date

Description

Prepared by

Reviewed by

Approved by

1

2 January 2021

Initial version

Alvin Poh

Maxim Kang

Maxim Kang

 

 

 

This Centre has clear and strict policies regarding malpractice and does not tolerate any breach against our assessments whether summative, formative, assignment based, or examination based. Malpractice is any irregular conduct, on the part of a candidate or centre staff, which gives unfair advantage to a candidate or group of candidates, or disadvantages other candidates. This Malpractice Policy will be distributed to all candidates with their confirmation of registration and during their course induction. This policy is version controlled.

 

Examples of irregular conduct which constitutes malpractice, although not wholly exclusive, includes:

 

  • plagiarism of another’s work without acknowledgment and appropriate referencing to the other’s work
  • copying or collusion, or attempted copying or collusion, during an examination or of other assessed work
  • obtaining unauthorised access to examination materials
  • using or trying to use unauthorised material or other aids in an examination (e.g. unauthorised electronic media such as mobile phones and palm tops; notes, books and study guides)
  • behaviour which disrupts, or has the potential to disrupt, the smooth running of the examination (e.g. not following the invigilator’s instructions)
  • impersonating a candidate (i.e. claiming to be someone other than yourself)
  • altering or forging any results documents or certificates

 

 

Identifying malpractice

 

Cases of malpractice can be identified in a number of different ways. They may be:

 

  • reported by the tutor or an invigilator or an examiner via a report where the behaviour of an individual has had a disruptive effect on other candidates
  • reported by an invigilator or examiner or assessor, who may identify shared answers in an examination script or identical wording in a coursework assignment
  • identified by an internal verifier who may identify identical work in coursework assignments

 

 

 

In cases where malpractice is identified or suspected by the Centre, it is required to submit a written report detailing the suspected irregular conduct, and identifying any candidates who have been complicit in this conduct to the Awarding Body’s own malpractice notification procedures.

 

 

Dealing with malpractice with regards to students

 

All cases of suspected malpractice will be investigated thoroughly by a Centre Senior Manager who will keep a record of all evidence and witness statements collected from the investigation.

 

 

Staff Malpractice or Maladministration Policy

 

Aim of the Policy:

 

  • To identify the risk of malpractice by staff
  • To respond to any incident of alleged malpractice promptly and objectively
  • To standardise and record any investigation of alleged malpractice to ensure openness and fairness
  • To impose appropriate penalties and/or sanctions on staff where incidents (or attempted incidents) of malpractice are proven.

 

 

Definition of Malpractice by Centre Staff

 

This list is not exhaustive and the Centre at its own discretion may consider other instances of alleged malpractice:

 

  • Improper assistance to candidates in their coursework or during an assessment
  • Inventing or changing marks for internally assessed work (coursework or portfolio evidence) where there is insufficient evidence of the candidates’ achievement to justify the marks given or assessment decisions made.
  • Failure to keep candidate coursework/portfolios of evidence secure.
  • Inappropriate retention, destruction or unauthorised distribution of qualification certificates
  • Assisting learners in the production of work for assessment, where the support has the potential to influence the outcomes of assessment, for example where the assistance involves centre staff producing work for the learner

 

 

  • Producing falsified witness statements, for example for evidence the learner has not generated.
  • Allowing evidence, which is known by the staff member not to be the learner’s own, to be included in a learner’s assignment/task/portfolio/coursework
  • Facilitating and allowing impersonation
  • Misusing the conditions for special learner requirements, for example where learners are permitted support, this is permissible up to the point where the support has the potential to influence the outcome of the assessment
  • Falsifying records/certificates, for example by alteration, substitution, or by fraud
  • Fraudulent certificate claims, for instance claiming for a certificate prior to the learner completing all the requirements of assessment
Top