The candidate lost all his marks for the component penalty 3. It came to light that a candidate had removed his own sketchbook without permission after the deadline for completion. Examples of centre staff malpractice are set out in Appendix 2, Part 1. Heads of centre are referred to section 2. The awarding body had lost confidence in the ability of this centre to adhere to its examination regulations. The teacher stated that the words said to the candidate should not have been recorded. These will usually be the candidate s or the responsible members of staff.
During the Unit 5 examination the candidate was again observed referring to study notes. This controlled assessment is set at a high level of control. The head of centre will be required to make available an appropriate venue for such interviews. The table in Appendix 3 shows how the sanctions might be applied. A head of centre once advised by the awarding body should not ordinarily communicate further with the candidate. Each form is available from the JCQ website http:
The candidate misunderstood the instructions provided by the centre and left the room unsupervised. They did not have a firm grasp of delivery and assessment practices within the centre and the quality assurance system, which had failed to pick up on guiddlines issues.
Candidate A had promised not to copy the work but, in the event, had copied much of the content and submitted it coursewirk his own work. Four days before the deadline, however, he managed to hand in his 20013. It should, however, be accepted that there may be instances where the work submitted for assessment does not represent the efforts of the individual candidates and it may not be possible to give those candidates a result or permit a result to be retained.
Calaméo – Exam Malpractice Guide
The awarding body agreed that the candidates had collaborated on this project to an inappropriate extent. Audio forensic testing of examination recordings proved that the interlocutor and candidates were in different locations at the time of the examination. However, the candidate had signed the NVQ unit declaration of authenticity.
For example, there is a contradiction in the evidence provided by the candidate and the centre, or the centre is suspected of non-compliance with the regulations. The coureswork in Appendix 3 shows how the sanctions might be applied.
Candidate B, who had already been assessed by the time the theft was committed, was not implicated. The normal penalty for this offence is disqualification from all subjects in this series penalty 9. 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 awarding body had lost confidence in the ability of guivelines centre to adhere to its examination regulations.
These instructions are applicable from 1 September to 31 August At the end of the examination, guidelins announced that the candidates could leave the examination room, leaving their scripts on their desks. The teacher had told the centre that she was aware of all guidepines requirements for conducting the Speaking Test. These procedures are additional to any guidelines or regulations an awarding body may issue.
At this point a temporary suspension was imposed on entries for this Certificate. GCE A Level English Literature The moderator reported that the candidate had copied extracts from a website into one of her two pieces of work, and had not acknowledged this in the bibliography.
Exams Office – JCQ Joint Council for Qualifications
Awarding bodies reserve the right to inform the head of centre to which the staff member is moving to as to the nature of, and the reason jcs, the sanction. While being taken back to the examination room the candidate handed the invigilator additional unauthorised material.
There were additions at the end of answers in a different coloured pen in the 201 of six candidates in the sample seen. For linear qualifications the option is penalty 8. Units which courseork been banked in previous exam series are retained. However, if any party wishes to be accompanied by a solicitor or trade union official, the other parties must be informed beforehand to give them the opportunity to be similarly supported.
This applies to NVQs and similar types of qualifications only. In this case, however, there was evidence that the candidate had done some work of his own. An inspection of the toilets, after he had resumed the examination, revealed examination-related notes and a copy of the text-book.
It has been drawn up in accordance with Joint Council agreements dealing with malpractice and breaches of security. Failure by a centre to investigate allegations of suspected malpractice in accordance with the requirements in this document also constitutes malpractice. Information relating to the coursewotk of the paper was related to candidates taking courseworrk examination in the afternoon session by the teacher.
This is in addition to and not a substitution for the requirement for centres to provide full details of suspected, alleged or confirmed breaches of security.
The invigilators and the exams officer witnessed this. The first awarding body disqualified the candidate from all her GCSE examinations with that board, and the other two awarding bodies followed suit. The candidate was disqualified from that subject penalty 7.