A section may be part of a component, or a single piece of coursework if this consists of several items. The teacher stated that the words said to the candidate should not have been recorded. The centre might also be required to hand over to an awarding body officer or appointed agent the completed scripts and any relevant accompanying documentation, as opposed to using the normal script collection or posting procedures. Review and report Action plans A breach of procedures or regulations which if left unchecked could result in a threat to the examination or assessment. Each candidate denied wrongdoing. The centre was reminded that any consequences for the candidate arising from the submission of a plagiarised piece of coursework before it was authenticated are an internal disciplinary matter. The candidates and the centre denied any malpractice.
On investigation by the awarding body, more than one candidate confirmed that such information had been given to them by the head of centre. On this occasion three letters were sent to the centre over a three month period asking for an investigation and report, but without response. Investigations into allegations of malpractice or irregularities against the head of the centre or the management of the centre may be carried out by: Suspension of candidate registrations Threat to the interest of candidates registered on the qualification. This information will typically be the names and offences of those found guilty of breaching the published regulations.
The ruler was removed from the candidate and verified by the head of centre as being unauthorised information relevant to the examination. The candidate stated that he had not been in contact with any other candidate. This penalty can only be applied to qualifications which are unitised. It is not necessary to inform the head of centre of this report as details of the allegation will be communicated from the awarding body.
While being taken back to the examination room the candidate handed the invigilator additional unauthorised material. The Committee may be assisted by an awarding body member of staff. GCE A Level Economics and Religious Studies The candidate was involved in a timetable clash and had to be supervised after the morning examination until the start of the afternoon examination, which was Religious Studies.
The candidate was disqualified from the qualification as he had failed to abide by the conditions of supervision penalty 7. The centre held no records of candidate contact details.
Regulations and Guidance
It was, therefore, not possible to determine the identity of the candidates. The centre was reminded that when work is stolen coursewwork correct procedure is to apply for special consideration for the candidate affected. GCE A Level Physical Education A moderator reported that two candidates submitted coursework assignments which contained an identical essay on information processing, the only difference being the order of two paragraphs.
The Joint Council for Qualifications has written this document for centres. This controlled assessment is set at a high level of control. It was evident that the invigilator had breached the regulations. The candidate claimed not to know the rule forbidding the use of such equipment. The head of centre should deal with the investigation in a timely manner. During the Unit 5 examination the candidate was again observed referring to study notes.
These papers will be opened and distributed under the supervision of the awarding body officer or appointed agent responsible for the delivery.
It details procedures for dealing with suspected malpractice on the part of candidates, centre staff and any others involved in managing the delivery of qualifications, and for taking appropriate action to maintain the integrity of the qualifications. For linear qualifications, the option is penalty 3. Procedures for dealing with allegations of malpractice 7 4. On investigation it was confirmed that after the completion of the high level controlled assessment, the member of staff made indications in pencil on the work and the work was returned to candidates who were given time to make corrections.
The candidate claimed the writing was a pattern.
Exam Malpractice Guide
The awarding body agreed that the candidates had collaborated on this project to an inappropriate extent. A candidate may not enter as both a private candidate and as an internal candidate at the same centre in the same examination series.
Each candidate denied wrongdoing.
Any units banked in a previous series are retained, but the units taken in the present series and the aggregation opportunity are lost. Candidate B accepted the offer and a further message from Candidate A contained information relating to the examination. The centre might also be required to hand over to an awarding body officer or appointed agent the completed scripts and any relevant accompanying documentation, as opposed to using the normal script collection or posting procedures.
The evidence clearly indicated that there was a case of maladministration on the part of the lead invigilator.
Exams Office – JCQ Joint Council for Qualifications
After investigation, a warning was issued to the examinations officer. The awarding body will consider whether that integrity might be jeopardised if an individual found to have indulged in malpractice were to be involved in the future conduct, supervision or administration of the awarding body’s examinations or assessments. A section gudelines be part of a component, or a single piece of coursework if this consists of several items.
Sanctions and penalties 18 They did not have a firm grasp of guidelibes and assessment practices within the centre and the quality assurance system, which had failed to pick up on these issues.
This discovery was made before any certification claims for the candidate had been made.