What is Plagiarism, Cheating and Collusion?
Plagiarism is defined as submitting someone else’s work as one's own work, irrespective of intent to deceive, that which extracts in part or in its entirety from the work of others without due acknowledgement. It is both poor workmanship and a breach of academic integrity.
Cheating is defined as Submitting work that has been done by someone else and persistent borrowing of other people’s work without citation are obvious instances of plagiarism and are regarded as cheating. Copying answers from social networking sites is cheating. Paying for work from other sources and submitting it as your own is also cheating.
Collusion is defined as : is the active cooperation of two or more students to deceive examiners. You will be guilty of collusion if you knowingly allow any of your academic work to be acquired by another person for presentation as if it were that person’s own work. If you allow this action to take place you are guilty of collusion.
Examples of plagiarism, cheating and collusion include copying (using another person's written words and/or ideas as if they are your own), by:
Plagiarism can occur in respect to all types of sources and media:
Acceptable means of acknowledging the work of others (by referencing, in footnotes, or otherwise) is an essential part of any work submitted for assessment, whether written examination, essay, or group course work.
The academy will provide guidance on the relevant academic practice for submitted work at the start of the course.
If other people’s ideas are used, they must be acknowledged. Quotation marks must be used to quote the words of others, whether written or spoken, and a footnote or reference should be added in the assignment text to accompany the quotation and indicate from where it is taken. If an idea generated by someone else is quoted, it should be referenced in the same way. Similarly, if an illustration is included from another source, must be acknowledged. If information is obtained and used from a web source on the internet, the source must be referenced.
You are responsible for ensuring that you have read and understood the academies’ plagiarism guidance above.
If, after reading the guidance, you have any outstanding queries you should seek clarification at the earliest opportunity from the Programme Director.
All assignments submitted for assessment are screened using Google plagiarism checker.
Failure to conform to the expected standards of the apprenticeship (e.g. by not referencing sources) in work submitted for assessment will be investigated by the programme director and may affect the mark given to your work. In addition, suspected cases of the use of unfair means (of which plagiarism is one form) may be subject to further disciplinary action.
What will happen if the text submitted by another student matches a student's work?
If a report generated by another institution identifies matches with a student's work the report will only show the extent of the match.
If Plagiarism, Cheating and Collusion are highlighted then the Programme Director may attempt to contact you about the matter.
This will be done within two weeks of the discovery of the Plagiarism, Cheating or Collusion.
Procedure for dealing with assignments found to contain unacknowledged materials
Assignments that have been identified by Google plagiarism checker as having unacknowledged materials will be submitted to the Programme director.
The Programme director will be tasked with making a decision as to whether the evidence available suggests that the unacknowledged materials are the result of poor/faulty workmanship, or whether a possible academic offence has been committed. In making their decision may invite you to an interview.
If the decision of the Programme Director is that the unacknowledged work is the result of poor/faulty workmanship, then it will be decided what course of action will be taken. The Programme Director will communicate the final decision to you.
The possible outcomes may be:-
In addition, the ILM may decide to take specific action against a learner or a member of the academy staff dependant on the severity of the outcome, which could include
If the Programme director believes that the unacknowledged material is not the result of faulty scholarship and that you possibly committed an academic offence, you will be contacted and invited to provide to her, in person or in writing, a defence/explanation of the use of unacknowledged material. You may also be invited to attend an interview. The Programme director will then consider the case and come to one of the following conclusions:
i) No case to answer: the suspicions are unfounded
The Programme Director will convey the outcome and the final outcome to you in writing.
ii) No intention to gain unfair advantage but evidence of poor scholarship
The Programme director may modify the mark in light of the decision.
The Programme director will convey the outcome and the final decision to you in writing.
iii) Unfair means suspected
Where it is evident that there was a deliberate attempt to gain an unfair advantage, or that the facts are unclear or disputed, the programme director will refer the case and all supporting evidence to the ILM who will come to one of the following decisions:
If the case is not proved, to conclude the academic assessment process on the basis that there is no question of the student intending to use unfair means.
The Programme director will give the outcome to you in writing.
Following the Programme Directors decision, if you remain dissatisfied with the outcome, you may request a review by contacting the Internal Quality Assurer.
The review will not usually consider issues afresh or involve a further investigation.
The review procedure allows for a decision to be reviewed on the following grounds:
Procedural irregularities that occurred during the decision-making process, which were material or potentially material to the decision reached; and/or
The decision is unreasonable, in that no reasonable person could have reached the same decision on the available evidence; and/or
The availability of new evidence, which materially impacts the outcome and which, for valid reasons, could not have been submitted at an earlier stage.
The Reviewer will convey the outcome to you in writing.