Plagiarism Policy Document
Plagiarism Policy Document
V4
This policy will be reviewed and updated as necessary, a minimum of once a year, in line with new
legislation and to reflect any changes in the business. Policy updated February 2024
Nickie Thompson
PROGRAMME DIRECTOR
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:
quoting in exactly the same words as were used originally, another person's work without due
acknowledging where it was taken from;
using different words, another person’s work by changing some of the words, or the order of
the words, without due acknowledgement of the where it was taken from;
using ideas taken from someone else without reference to the person who originally wrote it;
cutting and pasting from the internet;
Submitting someone else's work as part of your own without identifying clearly who did the
work.
Plagiarism might also arise from collaborating with another person, including another student,
other than as permitted for joint project work
You should include a general acknowledgement where you have received a great deal of help,
for example with the language and style of a piece of written work.
Purchasing work to submit as your own.
text,
illustrations,
computer code, etc.;
material downloaded from websites,
Published and unpublished material, including lecture handouts and other students’ work.
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.
Responsibility
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.
Screening
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.
Consequences
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.
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.
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:
The Programme Director will convey the outcome and the final outcome to you in writing.
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.
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.
Review stage
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:
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.
I have read the Plagiarism Policy and fully understand that I may be removed from the program
should I be found guilty of plagiarism.
Signature:
Date: 5/2/2025_________________________________________