Malpractice Policy

Definition

Malpractice which includes maladministration and non-compliance means any act, default or practice which is a breach of the Regulations or which:

• Compromises, attempts to compromise, or may compromise the process of assessment, the integrity of any qualification or the validity and security of any assessment materials, the validity of result or certificate; and/or
• Damages the authority, reputation or credibility of any awarding body or Centre or any officer, employee, or agent of any awarding body Centre.

Failure by a Centre to notify, investigate and report to an awarding body allegation of suspected malpractice constitutes malpractice. Also, failure to act as is required by an awarding body, as detailed in this document, or to co-operate with an awarding body’s investigation constitutes malpractice.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Introduction to AI: AI, or Artificial Intelligence, is the field of computer science focused on creating intelligent machines capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence, such as problem-solving, learning, and decision-making.

The risk of using AI: While AI offers significant benefits, including efficiency and automation, it also poses risks such as bias, privacy concerns, and potential job displacement.

What misuse is: Misuse of AI involves using it in ways that violate ethical guidelines, data privacy regulations, or academic integrity standards.

How it will be treated as malpractice: Any misuse of AI in the context of academic assessments or qualifications will be considered a serious form of malpractice and subject to appropriate consequences, including potential disqualification. Misuse is defined as ‘the use of AI as the sole form of marker of candidates work’.

When it may be used and how candidates should acknowledge any use of AI to avoid misuse: AI may be used as a tool to assist candidates in their work when explicitly allowed by assessment guidelines. Candidates must clearly acknowledge any AI assistance used in their submissions to maintain transparency and integrity.

Provide clear guidance on how to reference the use of AI: Candidates should include a clear statement in their work, indicating when and how AI was utilised, ensuring proper attribution and compliance with assessment regulations.

Policy statement

EEI treats any example of malpractice, maladministration, or misuse of AI with the greatest seriousness and will take action in any case where malpractice, maladministration or misuse of AI is confirmed. EEI will take all reasonable steps to prevent the occurrence of any malpractice, maladministration or misuse of AI in the development, delivery and award of EEI qualifications.

Scope

• Instructors dealing with malpractice involving learners or centre
• EEI dealing with malpractice involving learners or centre

Instructors must report any cases of suspected malpractice to the Head of Academy immediately. Centres must co-operate with EEI in all cases of suspected malpractice or maladministration. EEI reserves the right to withhold certificates and/or not accept future registrations from the Centre in cases where the Centre does not fully co-operate and where malpractice or maladministration is proven.

Candidates

Where maladministration or malpractice on the part of the Centre is proven to have an adverse effect on candidates, EEI will promptly take all reasonable steps to protect the interests of the candidates.

EEI will ensure that Centres understand their responsibilities in protecting the interests of any adversely affected candidates.

EEI will investigate instances of alleged malpractice/maladministration by following the EEI malpractice procedure, which will involve taking any/all of the following steps necessary to establish whether or not malpractice or maladministration has occurred:

• Collect evidence from the persons alleging malpractice/maladministration.
• Inform the Centre of the
• Require Centre administrator to conduct an internal investigation and inform EEI of the
• Visit the Centre to establish
• Collect counter-evidence
• Examine all

At the investigative stage, EEI staff will make decisions on straightforward cases. In cases that are unclear or contested, advice and/or direction may be sought from EEI’s Board of Trustees.

The outcome of implementing EEI’s Malpractice Procedure may result in:

• Malpractice not
• Not issuing
• Sanctions against
• Sanctions against individual members of Centre
• Withdrawal of Centre
• Restrictions on Centre
• Information passed to other awarding bodies, regulatory authority or agencies where
• Other appropriate outcomes.

The outcome will be recorded and EEI will inform the Qualification Regulator of any case of malpractice and agree appropriate action.

Appeals

Appeals against the outcome of malpractice decisions are allowed. The Appellant must have viable grounds for appeal such as:

• EEI has not followed published
• New evidence has come to light, which could change the
• Reasonable belief that the action taken is not proportionate to the Centre’s or individual’s actions.

Appeals must be made within two weeks of EEI informing the Centre/individual of the outcome.

Appeals will be heard by a small panel of individuals within EEI who have no prior knowledge of the details or been involved in the malpractice investigation and/or decision following the investigation.

Document: MP14 Malpractice Policy
Revision: 5
Revision Date: 08.01.2024