Colaiste Ide uses cookies to give you the best experience on our websites. By using this site you agree to our use of cookies as described in this Privacy Policy. Click here to remove this message.

Notice in relation to Assessment Malpractice

Procedures being followed in Colaiste Ide CFE for the Duration of COVID 19 Emergency in relation to Assessment Malpractice

The policy is effective from the week beginning March 20th 2020 until Further notice...

What is Learner Malpractice?

Learner Malpractice is one committed by a learner during the course of the assessment process.

In an assessment system, malpractice is any act or practice, which brings into question the validity, or integrity of the assessment process and which normally arise due to one or more non-accidental factors.

Examples of Learner Malpractice:

Plagiarism; The practice of learners submitting any work for assessment that is not their own original work. This may include any percentage of work that has not been referenced and has been copied from published work, the Internet, other learners’ work and/or other sources.

Specific examples of Plagiarism include:

1.  Representing work completed by or authored by another person (including other learners, family, work colleagues and friends) as their own work.

2.  Procuring work from a company or external source including the         Internet.

3. Copying work from any source or medium without reference. (i.e. websites, books, journal, articles, etc.) No more than 10% of the entire piece should be reproduced.

4. Collusion by working collaboratively with other learners, beyond what is permitted in assessment (instructions/guidance of assessment parameters).

5. Personation:  pretending to be someone else in order to produce the work for another or arranging for another to take one’s place in an assessment.

6. Submission for assessment of a piece of work that has been purchased/procured from another source where the work is not the learner’s own.

What are the Procedures being followed in Colaiste Ide?

Teaching Staff must ensure that they are confident that the learner produced the evidence.  The following are ways in which the teaching staff may ascertain that learner evidence produced is reliable and genuine.  Teaching staff should, where appropriate, implement a range of the following:

Questioning: Asking the learner to explain and describe part of the evidence.  This presents the learner with an opportunity to demonstrate they are responsible for producing the evidence.

Authorship Statement:  As per normal the learner should testifying the evidence is their original work.  An authorship statement could be embedded into the assessment submission of evidence.  An example of such an authorship statement could be "I confirm that this is my original work".

Peer Reports: Peer reports are especially suitable for group work.  Peer reports are reports drafted by group members that can help explain individual involvement in a task or project and can be requested of the student by a teacher.  Learners may collaborate but may not duplicate their work.

College Procedure Should Malpractice Occur

1. The Learner will be notified by the teacher and given an opportunity to remedy the situation.

2. Should this not resolve the issue an investigation will take place.

The Principal will select and appoint the team who will conduct an   investigation and consult with senior management.  In Colaiste Ide the team led by the Principal and two senior teachers will  investigate the matter.  Principal (or designated appropriate personnel) is required to coordinate the investigation.  In certain cases, and in conjunction with the Principal, a special investigation may be undertaken by:

1. Internal Audit

2. An external Investigator

3. Conflict of Interest

4. Any issue that might unfairly influence or appear to influence the outcome of an investigation.

Examples of this would include:

Staff who have a personal or family relationship with the learner being investigated.

Any person who has a possible conflict of interest should not be involved in any investigation or the subsequent adjudication of judgments process.

The Principal is responsible for ensuring that a conflict of interest does not arise and that all members of an investigation panel sign a declaration to that effect.  In cases where real or apparent conflict of interest is identified, alternative arrangements must be put in place.

Natural Justice

Those responsible for conducting an investigation shall establish the full facts and circumstances of any alleged assessment system malpractice.  It should not be assumed that an allegation equates to proof of a malpractice.  Any investigation into an alleged malpractice shall have due regard to the principles of natural justice.  It is necessary that those managing the conduct of any investigation must ensure adherence to these principles.

Principles of Natural Justice

All investigations do not disadvantage the person against whom the allegation is made.  They should be concluded within a reasonable timeframe (expected to be conducted within a maximum of 40 working days in exceptional circumstances), from the date of the notification to the College of the alleged malpractice.  An investigator should be informed and framed by the following principles:

1. The learners in question are made aware of the allegation and are given the opportunity to respond.

2. Care is taken to avoid conflict of interest.

3. The Leaner/s of the allegation should know what evidence exists to support that allegation.

4. The Learner should be informed of the possible consequences, should an allegation of malpractice be proven.

5. The Learner should have the opportunity to consider their response to the allegations.

6. The Learner should have the opportunity to submit a written statement.

7. The Learner should be given the opportunity to seek advice (if necessary) and to provide a supplementary statement.

8. The Learner should be informed of the applicable appeals procedure, should a decision be made against them.

9. The Learner should be informed of the possibility that information relating to a particular malpractice may be shared with other relevant parties.

Investigation of all known evidence

Formal Interviews

All notified alleged Assessment System Malpractice must be investigated.

The Principal shall be responsible for communicating in writing to the learner under investigation, in relation to the Alleged Assessment System Malpractice/s.

The Initial Communication should:

1. Provide notification that an allegation of an assessment system malpractice has been received.

2. Advise that the Centre Procedure for managing assessment malpractices contain full details of how the investigation will be conducted.

3. Emphasise that the Exceptional Circumstances cannot guarantee this confidentiality, as identity may need to be disclosed to:

3a. An Garda Síochána, fraud prevention agencies or other law enforcement agencies.

3b. The Courts (in connection with court proceedings)

3c. Others to whom CDETB and/or awarding bodies are required by law to disclose identity.

4. Establishing the Facts within the Investigation.

5. The investigation team should endeavor to obtain all the relevant evidence and facts about the allege

 

Tags

Colaiste Ide College of Further Education Cardiffsbridge Road, Finglas West, Dublin 11

T 01 834 2333 / 01 834 2450 F 01 834 7242 E info@ide.cdetb.ie W www.colaisteide.ie

Funded by the Irish Government and supported by the European Union.

Colaiste Ide College of Further Education European Regional Development Fund Ireland's EU Structural Funds Solas CDETB - City of Dublin Education & Training Board