A preliminary mark, plagiarism and a progress bonus
The S7 L3 Italian preliminary mark is calculated as 40% formative and 60% summative. Formative: five graded tasks; the best three count. Summative: two term tests, equally weighted. Candidate E's formative scores are 5, 6, 8, 9, 9; summative 5 and 6. Candidate F's formative scores are 7, 7, 7, 7, 7; summative 7 and 7. After the deadline, the teacher discovers that one of E's formative 9s was copied from a website; the school policy requires the task to be voided and replaced by the next best score. E argues that the improvement shows progress and that the copied task was only a draft. The teacher must also decide whether to add a 'progress' bonus of up to 0.5 points, which the school allows but does not require.
1. Compute E's preliminary mark before and after the plagiarised task is voided, showing each step.
Read the worked answer
Before voiding: formative best three of 5,6,8,9,9 are 8,9,9; mean = 26/3 = 8.667. Summative mean = (5+6)/2 = 5.5. Weighted = 0.4×8.667 + 0.6×5.5 = 3.467 + 3.3 = 6.767, rounded to 6.8. After voiding one 9: remaining formative 5,6,8,9; best three are 6,8,9; mean = 23/3 = 7.667. Weighted = 0.4×7.667 + 3.3 = 3.067 + 3.3 = 6.367, rounded to 6.4. The difference is 0.4 points. F's mark is 0.4×7 + 0.6×7 = 7.0. So E remains below F on the preliminary mark, but the gap widens from 0.2 to 0.6. The arithmetic should be checked against the school's rounding rule; if it rounds only at the end, 6.4 is correct.
2. Should the teacher apply the discretionary progress bonus to E? What criteria would make that decision fair?
Read the worked answer
The bonus should not be applied merely because E asks for it or because the teacher feels sympathy. A fair policy needs pre-set criteria, e.g. an upward trend across the two summative tests, or a gain of at least one point between them. E's summative scores are 5 and 6, which is an upward trend of one point, so a small bonus could be defensible under that criterion; but F is stable at 7 and has a higher weighted mark. If the bonus is meant to reward progress, E might qualify; if it is meant to recognise achievement, F is ahead. The teacher should apply the same criterion to the whole class, record it, and not use the bonus to close a gap to a particular student. A 0.5 bonus would take E to 6.9, still below F. My decision would be to apply a small bonus only if the department has published the criterion in advance; otherwise no bonus, and the issue should be fixed for the next cohort.
3. How should the teacher handle E's claim that the copied task was 'only a draft'?
Read the worked answer
The teacher should apply the school's definition of submitted work, not the student's label. If the task was submitted as the final version, it counts as the assessed task; a draft that was submitted for marks is not exempt. The teacher should hear E, check the submission record and the task instructions, and give E the chance to explain. If the copying is established, the policy requires voiding the task and using the next best score; that is the consistent consequence, not a punishment added on top. The teacher should explain the decision in writing, avoid a public accusation, and offer a chance to redo a similar task formatively if the policy allows. The preliminary mark should be finalised after the decision and the record kept. If E disputes the finding, the school's appeals procedure should be available. Leniency because E is otherwise a hard-working student would undermine the reliability of the preliminary mark.