Page 1494 - SUBSEC October 2017_Neat

th
ITEM 2 – ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE 68 FINAL AWARDS
COMMITTEE HELD ON 21 FEBRUARY 2017

9. FAC adopted the report of the 68 FAC meeting held on 21 February 2017.
th

ITEM 3 – MATTERS ARISING FROM THE REPORT NOT ELSEWHERE ON THE AGENDA

10. FAC received FAC 2017 (22) – Progress Report on Action Points from the Meeting of
the Final Awards Committee held on 21 February 2017 – and noted the progress on items as
indicated below:

Para. 29 – REPORT ON FOLLOW-UP ACTION IN CASES OF IRREGULARITY

11. Remind territories of due diligence required by the Invigilators and Supervisors in the
examination room to ensure that CXC’s regulations and procedures are followed.

12. FAC heard that the instructions were sent to the territories.

Paras. 48 and 49: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUBMITTED BY APPEALS
COMMITTEE: MAY-JUNE 2016

13. 48. Update CXC’s Regulations to include expanded information on the use of
electronic devices in the examination room.

14. 49. Research how other examination boards handle candidates bringing electronic
devices into the examination room and provide a recommendation to FAC.

15. FAC received Appendix 1, an update on the research conducted on regulations of
various examining bodies regarding electronic devices in the examination room.

16. FAC noted that the Council’s current Regulation 7.1 governing Conduct in the
Examinations Room, states that:
Candidates must NOT take, or have in their possession, in the examination room
any unauthorized material including books, notes or paper of any kind, mobile
phones and other electronic devices other than watches worn on the wrist and
calculators, whenever permitted.”

17. FAC was informed that the regulations of the examination boards and institutions
which were reviewed: the Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ UK), Oxford Cambridge and
RAS(OCR), Cambridge International Examinations, Botswana Examinations Council, John
Marshall’s Law School; and the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers, included measures
ranging from total exclusion of all devices, to controlled access. Some bodies ban all watches
from the examination room, and provide clocks for candidates. The UK boards under the
umbrella of the Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ), allowed watches but required the
candidates to remove them and place them on the desk. In cases were watches were not
explicitly defined, the broader definition of electronic devices capable of communication,
processing and storage of data, was used. In all cases, the penalties for violating the rules
were clearly stated. Further, the rules were emphasised through visuals and detailed

5