THE KENYA NATIONAL EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL

INTEGRITY IN ASSESSMENT,
AND REPORT WRITING

A PAPER PRESENTED DURING THE

TRAINING OF TVET ASSESSORS

MARCH 2025

© 2025, Kenya National Examinations Council

Page 1 of 13
Table of Contents
1.0 INTEGRITY IN ASSESSMENTS DURING MARKING........................................................... 3
2.0 ISSUES REGARDING ASSESSMENT MALPRACTICE ......................................................... 3
3.0 TYPES OF ASSESSMENT MALPRACTICES WHICH CAN BE DETECTED DURING
MARKING .................................................................................................................................. 4
3.1 Collusion.................................................................................................................................. 4
3.2 Impersonation .......................................................................................................................... 4
3.3 Smuggling of unauthorized information/material into the assessment room .......................... 4
3.4 Presentation of two or more answer scripts / sheets by one candidate .................................... 4
3.5 Prior access to contents of assessment papers (early exposure) .............................................. 5
3.6 Inclusion of inappropriate, offensive, or obscene materials in the answer scripts. ................. 5
4.0 REPORTING OF ASSESSMENT MALPRACTICES DURING MARKING ........................... 5
5.0 HANDLING OF ASSESSMENT IRREGULARITIES REPORTED DURING MARKING
AFTER MARKING BY KNEC .................................................................................................. 6
6.0 HOW ASSESSORS ABET IRREGULARITIES DURING MARKING .................................... 7
7.0 EMERGING ISSUES IN THE MARKING OF ASSESSMENTS .............................................. 8
8.0 REPORTING DURING MARKING EXERCISE ....................................................................... 9
9.0 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 13

Page 2 of 13
1.0 INTEGRITY IN ASSESSMENTS DURING MARKING

1.1 Marking and scoring of candidates' written answers in an assessment is a cardinal process
that plays a pivotal role in judging the extent to which educational competencies have been
attained by individual learners in particular and the nation in general. This undertaking
should thus be done with utmost objectivity and accuracy so that the desired outcome is
above board.

1.2 In the marking exercise, the tenets of objectivity, credibility, and validity in the whole process
of scoring candidates’ work is critical as these will ensure that the competency levels of the
candidates are a true reflection of their potential

1.3 The role that assessors play in upholding integrity in awarding candidates’ work cannot be
overemphasized. It is noteworthy that assessors must also have the “third eye” to detect any
possible hint of assessment irregularity and also be able to report the same for further
investigation and retribution.

2.0 ISSUES REGARDING ASSESSMENT MALPRACTICE

2.1 Assessment malpractice is defined as any deliberate act of wrongdoing contrary to the rules
of assessments designed to give a candidate an undue advantage. Assessment malpractice,
also known as cheating is the illegal actions that candidates commit during assessments to
try to make good grades by cutting corners.

2.2 Any form of cheating must be detected and punished in order not to undermine one of the
major functions of assessments, that of grading candidates according to their competencies.

2.3 Like other examining bodies in the world, the KNEC employs various ways of detecting
assessment malpractice at different stages of the academic assessment process. Marking
exercise is a very critical stage during which cheating in assessments can be detected. This
is because the process is handled by practicing teachers who directly interact with the
teaching content and understand learner characteristics better than any other person in the

Page 3 of 13
 learner’s circle. Assessors must therefore play a significant role in pre-empting cheating
candidates from getting grades they do not deserve.

3.0 TYPES OF ASSESSMENT MALPRACTICES WHICH CAN BE DETECTED DURING

MARKING

Every assessment season, students develop new strategies, methods, and dimensions of perpetrating
assessment malpractices. These may range from impersonation, leakage of questions, tampering
with results, computer frauds to other fraudulent practices by invigilators, supervisors, and center
managers. The following are some of the assessment malpractices commonly reported during
assessment administration: -

3.1 Collusion
This is the situation where a candidate produces work which has evidence of assistance by a third
party / work that the candidate(s) cannot replicate independently.

3.2 Impersonation
Assessment malpractices are not limited to time and place of the assessment. One of the commonest
forms of pre-assessment malpractice is the registration of non-school candidates for school
assessments by centre managers despite clear regulations against such actions. Impersonation occurs
when a person who is not registered to take a particular assessment presents or attempts to present
himself or herself to take the assessment in place of the genuine candidate. Impersonation is
characterized by a candidate producing work for marking with evidence of assistance from a third
party such as submission of answer scripts with different handwritings on the same answer script.

3.3 Smuggling of unauthorized information/material into the assessment room

This can take various forms such as candidates smuggling written notes or textbooks into the
assessment room; being found with writings on calculator covers, mathematical tables, geometrical
sets etc.;

3.4 Presentation of two or more answer scripts / sheets by one candidate

This happens when candidates submit two or more answer sheets / scripts for the same assessment
with different responses on the answer sheets / scripts;
Page 4 of 13
 3.5 Prior access to contents of assessment papers (early exposure)
This occurs when candidates are exposed to contents of an assessment papers before the scheduled
time. This can lead to candidates producing work that lacks evidence of originality and
independence in working.

3.6 Inclusion of inappropriate, offensive, or obscene materials in the answer scripts.

These include candidates tracing their own answer scripts to marking centres, some candidates using
pencil to write their phone numbers urging the assessors to contact them for price negotiation, some
female candidates attach their semi-nude photos praying for a sexually promiscuous examiner to
mark their scripts favorably, such photos bear phone numbers and contacts.

4.0 REPORTING OF ASSESSMENT MALPRACTICES DURING MARKING

4.1 An examiner must be a practicing teacher of good standing and a trained professional in the
subject area they are marking, should be able to detect and unearth possible cases of
dishonesty work presented to them by candidates who may have colluded or cheated in
assessments. The colluders may be (but not limited to) other candidates, teachers,
supervisors, or invigilators. Further guidelines on detecting signs of assessment cheating
shall be given during the practical marking exercise since these cases vary from subject to
subject.

4.2 During marking, the examiner who suspects an assessment irregularity is expected to take
the following steps:
4.2.1 Mark and score the candidate(s) as per the laid down procedure for marking.
Assessors are not expected to under-score the candidate(s) or attempt to make any
alterations to the marking process to address the suspected cheating;

4.2.2 The assessors should enclose the answer scripts back into the Script Return envelope
where the candidates’ answer scripts had been initially enclosed and not attempt to
isolate the scripts;

Page 5 of 13
 4.2.3 The assessors are expected to write down the assessment centre code, the paper code
and the index numbers of the candidates suspected to have been involved in
assessment malpractice and hand over to their Team Leaders for onward forwarding
to the Examiner in Charge, who is expected to fill in a Report prepared by KNEC
for purposes of reporting cheating. A brief statement of the nature of suspected
irregularity should be made in this report.

4.3 If an examiner suspects that the chain of reporting the assessment malpractice may be
compromised by anyone in the marking process, who may be having vested interest in the
centre or candidates in question, the examiner is expected to make a confidential report on
the case, giving the details of the same and put it in the Anti-corruption boxes provided by
KNEC in the marking centres. The examiner can also make a confidential report to the Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) KNEC, to ensure that the case does not go unreported.

4.4 The information provided by the examiner will be handled with utmost confidentiality. It
will be investigated and acted upon conclusively.

5.0 HANDLING OF ASSESSMENT IRREGULARITIES REPORTED DURING MARKING

AFTER MARKING BY KNEC

5.1 At the end of the marking session, all cases reported during marking and through other
channels are assembled at KNEC and are subjected to various rigorous professional and
internationally accepted processes to establish if there is evidence of cheating;

5.2 Such evidence is further subjected to extensive investigation and is also tested before a
decision to cancel candidates’ results is taken. Once there is evidence of assessment
irregularity, the candidates’ results are suppressed as per the provisions of the KNEC Rules
and Regulations and KNEC Act of 2012, which are in line with the Constitution of Kenya
2010.

Page 6 of 13
6.0 HOW ASSESSORS ABET IRREGULARITIES DURING MARKING

KNEC receives numerous reports regarding the marking process from anonymous letters from the
field, assessors themselves as well as the observations made by KNEC during its internal quality
assurance processes. The following are some of the ways assessors abet or contribute to assessment
irregularities through / during marking:

6.1 Assessors/examiners revealing their Identities and using their status as Assessors for
Personal Gain.
6.1.1 Giving “motivational talks” to students is in contravention of KNEC rules and
regulations.

6.1.2 There are also numerous incidents where Assessors/Examiners have revealed their
identities which is in contravention of the Code of conduct for Assessors. As a result,
schools and individuals are reported to have approached such assessors to
‘influence’ marking to their advantage.

6.2 Assessors NOT revealing their workstations to be able to find a chance to mark scripts of
their own candidates
6.2.1 Some assessors do identify their current workstations. Some give their previous
workstations so as not to be found marking scripts where they have vested interests.

6.2.2 All assessors are expected to declare their workstations, which should be included
in the assessors’ database. KNEC will thereafter follow up to verify the accuracy of
the information with TSC and private school owners.

6.3 Assessors/examiners from particular institutions forming ‘cartels’ by ensuring that they
have teachers from the same institution marking various papers, with an aim of
‘influencing’ marking of several papers.
Some schools have been reported to have assessors spread across the various papers in a bid
to collude during marking.

Page 7 of 13
 6.4 Non-Reporting of Assessment Irregularities
KNEC officers have in the past been able to detect and identify collusion cases during the
processing of candidates’ results. These are cases that Assessors/Examiners did not identify
during the marking exercise even in cases where such irregularities are extremely glaring.
This constitutes marking malpractice.
i. Assessors taking answer scripts out of the marking rooms.
ii. Assessors divulging details of assessment centres involved in assessment
irregularities
iii. Assessors attempting to take away marking related materials from Marking Centres.
iv. Use of mobile phones in the marking rooms.
v. Disclosure of Candidates’ Performance
vi. Any information or knowledge accessed during marking is strictly confidential and
must never be divulged to unauthorized persons whatsoever.

6.5 Misuse of Random Numbers to cater for vested interests

Some assessors collect school random numbers and secretly decode them at marking centres
to access candidates’ scores.

6.6 Inconsistency in Marking:

6.6.1 This includes assessors correctly scoring responses for some candidates/centres and
denying other centres/candidates with similar responses.
6.6.2 Some assessors also leave parts of an answer script unmarked.

7.0 EMERGING ISSUES IN THE MARKING OF ASSESSMENTS

The following challenges compromises the quality of marking:

7.1 Wrong addition scores and transfer of marks from the answer scripts;
7.2 Insubordination and disobeying instructions; from seniors and from laid down regulations;
7.3 Sexual Harassment and indecent conduct during marking;
7.4 Indecent dressing;
7.5 Lack of team-work and good interpersonal relationships / communication;
7.6 Absenteeism;
7.7 Dishonesty / Making fraudulent claims with regard to work-stations, number of answer
scripts marked;
7.8 Engaging nepotism/favoritism.

Page 8 of 13
8.0 REPORTING DURING MARKING EXERCISE

8.1 Reporting form the integral part of the marking exercise. This is because the information put
in the reports is used as feedback hence forming basis of decision making. Thus accuracy
and precision of the information is key. There are various feedback reports that require
special attention during the marking exercise. They include
8.1.1 Chief Assessors report;
8.1.2 Chief Assessors report on assessment irregularities;
8.1.3 Confidential integrity and discipline report on Assessors
8.1.4 Marking centre report;
8.1.5 Chief Assessors report on practical assessors.

8.2 Chief Assessor in-charge report

A Chief Assessor (CA) is an Assessor who oversees a subject. Where a paper has more than
one subject, each subject will have its own Chief Assessor. This report is to be filled by the
Chief Assessor/Assessor in-charge of the subject. However, Assistant Chief Assessors, Team
Leaders and Assessors views should also be captured in the report. The chief Assessor/
Assessor in-charge is expected to critique the question paper objectively in terms of:

8.2.1 Curriculum Design coverage:

Indicate whether the paper tested the curriculum design adequately or not. If not,
then give precise and accurate information on the areas of inadequacy.

8.2.2 whether all the questions were within the curriculum design:
Indicate whether there are questions which you feel were set outside the curriculum
design and give a brief comments on why you think they are outside the curriculum
design

8.2.3 Whether the question paper was balanced or not:

The chief Assessor/ Examiner in-charge should indicate how the question paper is
balanced in terms of skills tested, length of questions and adequacy of the allocated
time.

8.2.4 Errors on the question paper:

Indicate whether the question paper has an error not and if yes comment on how the
error was handled during marking including whether or not it affected the candidates.

Page 9 of 13
 8.2.5 Advantageous, ambitiousness, difficult, open-ended and easiness of the questions in
the question paper:
The Examiner in Charge/Examiner in-charge should interrogate the questions
objectively and highlight the questions perceived to be advantageous, ambiguous,
open-ended, easy or difficult to the candidates. This must be accompanied with
corroborating evidence.

8.2.6 Report of candidates’ performance per question:

i. State the expectation of the candidates in each question including their weakness
and advice on how the teachers would address such weaknesses.
ii. Indicate how the paper compares with a previous one if any, overall assessment
of the paper (appropriateness for the level) and suggest any improvement for the
paper.

8.2.7 Candidates’ general performance

Give overall assessment of the candidates’ performance including what attributed to
the performance, advice to institutions, both popular and unpopular questions among
candidates.

8.2.8 Candidates with special needs if any

Indicate any candidate with special needs reported by either the institution or
supervisor and whether or not the disability affect the candidates.

8.2.9 Recommendations
Suggest minimum mark for each of the grades as follows:

Description Minimum Suggested Marks

Grade
Minimum Competence 7
Credit Level 5
Distinction 2

8.3 Chief Assessors report on assessment irregularities

8.3.1 This report is to be filled by the Chief Assessor/Assessor in-charge of the subject
during the marking exercise in case of a suspected case of assessment irregularities.

8.3.2 The assessment irregularities may be of the following forms:

i. Collusion which may occur when a candidate answers assessment questions
with assistance from a third party;
Page 10 of 13
 ii. Candidates presenting an answer script bearing different handwriting or names
from those indicated in the registration details;

iii. Candidates presenting two or more answer scripts for marking;

iv. Candidates who attempt to bribe/ solicit help from examiners during the
marking exercise;

v. pre-prepared notes (smuggled materials) found inside candidates’ answer

scripts during marking.

8.3.3 All suspected cases of irregularities noted either by the Assistant Chief Assessors,
Team Leaders or Assessors should be reported to the Chief Assessor accompanied
by all relevant evidence.

The report must be filled in and submitted together with Chief Assessors’ report after
the marking exercise. Where there are no irregularity cases reported, indicate in bold
handwriting across the page that there were “NO ASSESSMENT
IRREGULARITIES”

8.3.4 Confidential integrity and discipline assessment report on Assessors

This report should be filled by the Chief Assessors for Assessors with serious
indiscipline and integrity issues during marking exercise:

The serious indiscipline and integrity issues may include:

i. Lack of professional integrity

ii. Taking away scripts from the marking room/centre

iii. Deleting marking to other examiners without council’s authority

iv. Altering already awarded marks without authority;

v. Influencing other examiners in changing already awarded marks;

vi. Falsifying claims during marking

vii. Giving/Demanding bribes to/from other examiners

Page 11 of 13
 viii. Asking/demanding sexual favours from examiners of opposite sex among
others.

The report is confidential and thus should be exposed to any third party.

8.3.5 Marking centre report

This is a feedback report to the Council by the assessors about the marking centre.
The report should be treated confidential and does not reveal the identity of the
assessors. It is based on the assessor’s own observations and experiences during the
marking exercise. It comprises of the following components: -

i. Centre organization and conditions

ii. Reception on arrival at the marking centre

iii. Accommodation arrangement

iv. Accessibility of the marking centre to public transport

v. Medical care

vi. Entertainment/ recreational facilities

vii. Working areas

viii. General cleanliness of the centre

ix. Security of the centre

x. Briefing of the Examiners by the centre organizer

xi. General grade

xii. The marking process

xiii. Working relations at the centre

xiv. Effectiveness and public relations of the following in coordination of marking

exercise.

Page 12 of 13
9.0 CONCLUSION

9.1 KNEC will continually endeavour to promote high sense of virtues of ethics and integrity
in all its assessment processes and procedures. These include and not limited to; setting
of assessments, administering, marking, grading and issuing of certificates to successful
candidates.

9.2 It is important for assessors to know that a breach of ethics and integrity in marking causes
irreparable injury and damage to:

9.2.1 Innocent candidates, who have worked hard and honestly so and who may end
up missing their rightful opportunities to those undeserving, lazy and incompetent
opportunists;

9.2.2 The examining institution’s credibility, reliability and public confidence both
locally and internationally;

9.2.3 Innocent parents and guardians who have heavily invested in their children’s
education in the hope that they will benefit in their pursuits;

9.2.4 The nation’s education system;

9.2.5 Loss of the assessors’ self-esteem, character, respect and professional credibility
and competence.

9.3 There are several mechanisms to detect cheating other than through marking. As such,
any examiner found to have condoned cheating during marking is held responsible for
this act. It is therefore paramount that assessors work collegially with KNEC to stem out
cheating in assessments by being vigilant during marking and by reporting any suspected
cases to KNEC for further action.

***************************** END *****************************

Page 13 of 13