Page 77 - SEC_2017WorkingDocument_Neat

CENTRE/
®
CAPE INVESTIGATION
CASE SUBJECT(S) CANDIDATE
NUMBER
provided these are not defaced.” They discussed the
candidate’s suggestion that since Supervisors are
required to check the timetables of candidates before
candidates enter the examination room, her
timetable could not have been defaced when she
entered the examination room. The Vice Chair and
DCS agreed that the Council was unable to prove that
the candidate’s jottings were on the timetable when
the candidate entered the examination room. The
candidate’s result for the subject was released.
The Caribbean Computer Studies 1102010364 The Principal and the Computer Science teacher had
Examinations Unit 1 reported that they were doubtful whether the SBA was
Council received a the candidate’s work. The candidate denied
report alleging that misconduct stating that the work was indeed his. The
the School Based SBA was reviewed by the Assistant Chief Examiner
Assessment (ACE), who managed the marking of the SBA
contained component of the examination. After the review, CXC
plagiarized material. arranged for the ACE to interview the candidate online.
Based on the candidate’s responses to the questions
posed and his knowledge of the work submitted, the
ACE noted that he was unable to state the work was
not that of the candidate and recommended that the
candidate be awarded the grade earned. The
candidate’s result for the subject was released.

The Caribbean Tourism Unit 1 1005540109 The Chief Examiner had reported that “sections of the
Examinations SBA appear to have been copied from elsewhere
Council received a without appropriate quotations. See Pages 9, 10, 11”.
report alleging that Both the teacher and the candidate challenged the
the School Based conclusion. The candidate denied misconduct stating
Assessment that she used several sources and cited all of them.
contained She stated that she checked the work several times to
plagiarized material. ensure compliance. The teacher also reported that the
work was vetted on multiple occasions to ensure that
the citations were done according to the APA
guidelines. The Chief Examiner did not identify the
resources which were plagiarized by the candidate. On
pages 9, 10, 11, the candidate made use of lengthy
indented quotations. References were cited by the
candidate which, when checked, spoke to the
information being discussed. In one instance, the
marker indicated that the year was omitted. The year
was however provided in the bibliography. Upon
examination, the matter appeared to have been one of

7