The Investigation Report and the Draft That Was Too Good
For the school-assessed investigation, students write a 1,200-word report in Indonesian on a topic of their choice, worth 30% of the internal mark. The teacher receives Rani's draft on 'Dampak pariwisata terhadap desa adat di Bali'. The draft is polished: complex embedded clauses, idiomatic collocations, and a bibliography with six sources. The teacher knows Rani's classroom writing is normally simpler - short sentences, frequent errors with meN- verbs, and limited connectives. The teacher also recalls that Rani mentioned an older cousin who studied in Melbourne. The school's academic integrity policy requires the teacher to raise concerns with the student before drawing conclusions, and to give the student a chance to explain. The final submission is due in nine days.
1. What should the teacher do first, and what evidence would justify or allay the concern?
Read the worked answer
The first step is a conversation with Rani, not an accusation and not silent acceptance. The teacher should present the concern factually: the draft's language features differ markedly from her assessed classroom writing, and the teacher wants to understand how the draft was produced. The teacher should ask open questions - which sources she read, how she planned the argument, whether anyone helped with language, what she found hardest. The evidence that would justify concern includes: inability to explain the content of cited sources, inability to paraphrase or explain a complex sentence from her own draft, a sudden change in vocabulary that she cannot use orally, or admission of substantial help. Evidence that would allay concern includes: Rani explaining her research process in detail, being able to discuss her sources, and being able to talk through her drafting decisions. Crucially, the teacher should also compare against a writing sample produced under supervision, because the strongest evidence is a controlled sample, not intuition. The conversation must be documented, and Rani must be told what happens next.
2. Suppose Rani admits her cousin corrected her grammar but that the ideas and research are her own. How should the teacher judge this against the task requirements?
Read the worked answer
The judgement depends on what the task assessed. If the report assesses both content (research, argument, use of sources) and language (accuracy, range, control), then extensive correction by a fluent relative inflates the language component and the mark is not a valid measure of Rani's achievement. The content may still be hers, but the teacher cannot award language marks for prose she did not produce. A proportionate response is to separate the two: credit the research and argument as evidenced by her planning notes and her ability to discuss the sources, but re-assess the language component using a supervised piece of writing on the same topic. The teacher should not zero the whole task - that over-punishes and conflates two criteria. The teacher should also check the school policy's definition of 'unauthorised assistance'; if proofreading by a relative is explicitly permitted, the outcome differs, so the policy text governs. The decision, the reasoning and the substituted evidence should be recorded and shared with Rani and the faculty integrity officer.
3. The teacher is also Rani's homeroom teacher and knows the family is under financial stress. How should this affect the process?
Read the worked answer
It should affect the process's tone and support, not its outcome. The teacher's prior knowledge of the family's circumstances creates a real risk of bias in both directions - leniency out of sympathy, or over-strictness to prove impartiality. The correct response is to separate the integrity judgement from the pastoral response. The integrity process should follow the same steps as for any student: conversation, evidence, documented decision, proportionate consequence. The pastoral response - offering extension support, connecting Rani to the school's writing help, checking whether the cousin's help arose from pressure - runs alongside, not inside, the marking decision. If the teacher feels unable to judge impartially, the appropriate step is to ask a colleague or the faculty head to make the integrity determination while the teacher continues to provide support. The teacher should also avoid discussing the family's finances with other staff beyond what is necessary, and should tell Rani clearly what is being assessed and what support is available, so the process does not feel punitive.