The External Portfolio and the Borrowed Diagram
Dev is finalising his external assessment portfolio for Industry Connections. His workplace investigation report includes a process-flow diagram of a warehouse picking system. Dev adapted the diagram from a supplier's publicly available brochure, redrawing it and changing the labels to match his host employer's layout. He lists the brochure in his reference list but does not mark the diagram itself as adapted. The portfolio is externally assessed and must be the student's own work. Dev's teacher notices the diagram during a compulsory pre-submission check and tells Dev it 'looks like it came from somewhere'. Dev replies that he cited the source, so it is not plagiarism, and that the diagram is only one page of a 20-page portfolio.
1. Distinguish between the issues of plagiarism, copyright, and authenticity in Dev's situation, and explain why 'I cited it' does not resolve all three.
Read the worked answer
The three issues are related but distinct, and a citation addresses only some of them.
Plagiarism is a failure to acknowledge the source of words or ideas. Dev has acknowledged the brochure in his reference list, so the plagiarism concern is reduced - but not eliminated. A reference list entry tells the reader a source was used; it does not tell them which part of the work is borrowed. An adapted diagram should be captioned as adapted, with the source, so the reader can see the boundary between Dev's work and the source's. Without that, the reader may attribute the diagram's intellectual structure to Dev.
Copyright is a legal matter about whether Dev may reproduce or adapt the diagram at all. Public availability does not equal permission to adapt. Whether the adaptation is permitted depends on the licence or an exception, which the school must consider - a citation does not cure a copyright problem.
Authenticity is the external assessment question: is the portfolio the student's own work? A diagram whose structure is taken from a supplier is partly not Dev's work. The relevant rule is usually about the proportion and significance of borrowed material, and the requirement to declare it.
So 'I cited it' answers the plagiarism question partially and the copyright and authenticity questions not at all.
2. Recommend what Dev and the teacher should do before submission, and justify each step.
Read the worked answer
Step 1 - Identify precisely what is borrowed. Dev should state, in writing, which elements of the diagram come from the brochure (the sequence of stages, the decision points) and which are his (the labels, the layout data, any added stages). This is the foundation for every later decision.
Step 2 - Declare it properly. The diagram should carry a caption such as 'Adapted from [source], [year]' and the reference list entry should remain. This makes the boundary visible to the external assessor, which is what authenticity rules are designed to achieve.
Step 3 - Assess whether the borrowed element is too significant. If the diagram's intellectual contribution is essentially the supplier's, Dev should replace it with his own representation of the host employer's process - for example, by mapping the process himself from observation and interviews. If his adaptation adds substantial original analysis, declaration may be sufficient.
Step 4 - Check the copyright position. The teacher should confirm whether the school's policy or the brochure's licence permits the adaptation. If not, the diagram must be replaced regardless of citation.
Justification. Each step targets a different risk: Step 1 enables honest disclosure; Step 2 addresses plagiarism and transparency; Step 3 addresses authenticity; Step 4 addresses legality. Doing only Step 2 - the tempting 'just add a citation' fix - leaves the authenticity and copyright risks unresolved.
3. Dev argues the diagram is 'only one page of twenty' and should not affect his result. Evaluate this argument.
Read the worked answer
The argument has some force but is not decisive, and the reasoning matters more than the arithmetic.
Where Dev is right. External assessment is holistic. A single declared, properly attributed element in a 20-page portfolio is unlikely, by itself, to invalidate the whole submission. Assessors are not looking for reasons to fail students; they are looking for honest work.
Where the argument fails.
- Significance is not measured by page count. A process-flow diagram may carry a substantial share of the report's analytical work. If the diagram is the core of Dev's investigation, one page could be the most important page.
- The issue is disclosure, not size. An undeclared adaptation is a problem at any length because it misleads the assessor. A declared one is usually manageable. Dev's argument is really an argument for leniency after disclosure, not a substitute for it.
- Rules are applied to the submission as it stands. The assessor cannot weigh a breach against page count without first knowing the breach exists. Dev's framing asks the assessor to excuse something they have not been told about.
Conclusion. The right response is not 'it doesn't matter because it's small' but 'declare it, then let the assessor judge its significance'. Dev should make the disclosure and let the merits of his own analysis carry the rest of the portfolio.