Coursework / NEAs

In certain subjects studied throughout Years 10 to 13 there are controlled assessments, coursework or NEAs (non-examination assessment) which form part of the overall grade. The level of control (ie. whether it has to be completed in exam conditions in school, or whether it can be completed over time both in and out of lessons) varies from subject to subject depending on the exam boards specifications. These coursework/NEAs/controlled assessments are usually internally marked and then externally moderated.

All work submitted for marking must be the students own work. Teachers must not accept work that is not the student's own. Where students are using sources to support their work they must be referenced accurately throughout the document and in such a way that the sources can be checked on submission. Teachers will provide guidance as to how sources should be used and referenced prior to commencing the coursework/NEA/controlled assessment.

With the growth of generative AI and LLMs students must be extremely careful where and how they use AI within the context of their NEA/controlled assessment. In some instances it is not allowed, in others it can be used to support with planning - teachers will provide explicit guidance on if, when and how generative AI can and cannot be used. It can never be used to write the coursework/NEA/controlled assessment. If it is allowed, teachers will also provide guidance on how the use of AI must be referenced within their submission.

It is critical that students are not over-using and/or under-referencing their use of AI as this is misuse and deemed as cheating/plagiarism. If students are believed to have cheated (submitted work for final submission that is not 100% their own) then it is deemed as malpractice; something that is taken very seriously by the exam boards and is likely to result in the student losing their entire qualification grade and possibly even all grades from that exam board.

All students are taught about generative AI, LLMs, plagiarism and malpractice within the curriculum. They cover what it is, what is isn't and the consequences for both their learning and examination results. For KS3 students this is very much centred around the school values (Respect, Aspire, Integrity, Love and Service) highlighting the ethical and discerning use of AI; for KS4 and KS5 it is very much geared towards what constitutes plagiarism and malpractice and how the school and exam boards deal with that should it be evident. 

The key messages to students are:

  • You cannot say your work is your own if it is not. If you do, this is plagiarism and with regards to an exam this is deemed malpractice.

  • You are responsible for your own work and behaviour and we expect you to act with integrity.

  • If you do not act with integrity then you are penalising yourself, your learning and ultimately you risk losing your GCSE / A Level / BTEC qualifications.

Attached below are the JCQ guidelines on the use of AI for students, prior to commencing any NEAs.

JCQ - AI in Assessments (student guide)JCQ - Preventing misuse of AI in assessments (teacher guide)

Before students start their coursework/NEA/controlled assessment the teacher will outline expectations clearly including whether AI tools can be used or not.

If AI tools can be used, the teacher will provide:

  • Clear examples where and how AI tools could be used.

  • Clear examples of inappropriate use of AI tools (within the context of the coursework/NEA).

  • Clear guidance on how to reference the use of AI tools throughout the coursework (if allowed) including the use of screenshots / a screen recording of all AI chats in an appendix.

  • Clear guidance on how to reference all sources (eg. the Harvard referencing system (or equivalent).

Alongside this teacher will provide clear guidance as to what content is required and how students can meet the required expectations.

The specific exam board requirements may vary from subject to subject. However in general, during the completion period:

  • Teachers will ensure regular checks on work are conducted throughout the period of completion so that any suspicions of plagiarism/cheating can be dealt with promptly whilst the students still have an opportunity to correct their mistakes.
  • Teachers will act promptly if they suspect plagiarism. They will meet with the student and go through the work together, highlighting the areas of concern
  • If the student is honest about their plagiarism they will be guided to either change the necessary passages (if allowed within the exam control specification for the coursework/NEA/controlled assessment) or add in references as appropriate.
  • If the student denies plagiarism and refuses to redo any sections then the teacher will notify them that once the work is submitted for marking they will be investigating their suspicions which may result in the student getting zero marks for some or all of the work, or potentially being reported to the exam board for malpractice.

Where exam board regulations allow, students will be guided to make the right choices, be honest about the integrity of their work and have an opportunity to make changes right up to final submission.

Students who are suspected of cheating/plagiarism will not be given more time overall to complete their coursework than any other student. 

Teachers will ensure the parents and Curriculum Lead are notified promptly of any concerns.

Day of final submission

The teacher will remind the students that they will shortly be asked to sign a cover sheet declaring that the work submitted is 100% their own. The teacher will highlight the importance and significance of them signing it and point out that:

  • The student is signing to say that the work submitted is 100% their own work. If for any reason it is not (including the use of AI), then they must declare that on the form.

  • Teachers must not accept work that is not 100% the students own. If a teacher believes that the work submitted has been plagiarised and the student has not declared it on the form then the teacher is obliged to report it to the exam board as malpractice. This could result in the student forfeiting all qualifications being sat with that board (not just the marks on the coursework).

The teacher will give the students one final opportunity for the students to come forwards and declare any work being submitted that is not 100% their own before being asked to sign the declaration.

If a student comes forwards at this late stage and is honest about their inappropriate use of AI tools, they will be given a further 24 hours to correctly reference how/where they used AI tools. Students will not be awarded any additional time to redo the work as this is unfair on those who have acted with integrity.

Marking the coursework

The teacher will consider any declarations made by the student on the cover sheet and any previous concerns they have flagged with the student around cheating/plagiarism.

When marking work, teachers will look at the work submitted and look out for potential indicators of AI use including:

  • The student's ability based on prior assessment undertaken in class or under exam conditions.
  • The student's usual writing style.
  • A default use of American spelling, currency, terms and other localisations.
  • A default use of language or vocabulary which might not appropriate to the working or qualification level.
  • A lack of direct quotations and/or use of references where these are required or expected.
  • Inclusion of references which cannot be found or verified.
  • A lack of reference to events occurring after a certain date, reflecting when an AI tool’s data source was compiled.
  • Instances of incorrect or inconsistent use of first-person and third-person perspective where AI generated text has been left unaltered.
  • A variation in the style of language evidenced in a piece of work, if a student has taken specific portions of text from an AI tool and then amended it.
  • A lack of graphs, data tables or visual aids where these would normally be expected.
  • A lack of specific, local or topical knowledge.
  • Content being more generic in nature.
  • The inadvertent inclusion of warnings or provisos produced by AI tools to highlight the limits of its ability or the hypothetical nature of its output.
  • The submission of pupil work in a typed format, where this is not usual, expected or required.
  • The unusual use of several concluding statements throughout the text, or several repetitions of an overarching essay structure within a single lengthy essay.
  • The inclusion of confidently incorrect statements within otherwise cohesive content. 

Where a student has declared their use of AI, the teacher will make a judgement as to whether they believe the declaration is wholly truthful or not. If they are happy that the student has not misused AI then they will go ahead and mark the work.

If the teacher suspects cheating/plagiarism of any kind including the misuse of AI, then they will firstly ask another teacher to review the work with them (this may be a subject specialist, line manager or someone else who teaches the student as deemed most appropriate).

If their concerns are shared and the teachers believe that some or all of the coursework/NEA has been plagiarised (by the misuse of AI or other means), then then they will do the following:

  1. Notify their Curriculum Lead, the students Head of Year and the Deputy Head.

  2. Notify the student and parents of their decision (which is final)

  3. Notify the exam board of the malpractice.

If a student has signed the declaration form and the school deems that on a "balance of probabilities" the work submitted is not 100% the students own work then the Head of Centre (Headteacher) is oblidged to notify the exam board.

We will always do our best to guide the students to make the right decisions and act with integrity. It is always better for a student to be up front and honest - once they sign the declaration form there is no going back!

AI tools, as LLMs, produce content by ‘guessing’ the most likely next word in a sequence. This means AI-generated content uses the most common combinations of words, unlike humans who tend to use a variety of words in their normal writing. Several programs and services use this difference to statistically analyse written content and determine the likelihood that it was produced by AI,

  • Copyleaks (https://copyleaks.com/ai-content-detector)
  • GPTZero (https://gptzero.me/)
  • Sapling (https://sapling.ai/ai-content-detector)
  • Turnitin AI writing detection (https://www.turnitin.com/solutions/topics/aiwriting/ai-detector/)
  • Grammarly (https://www.grammarly.com/ai-detector)

With the relevant consent*, these may be used as a check on student work and/or to verify concerns about the authenticity of student work. 

In instances where misuse of AI is suspected it may be helpful to use more than one detection tool to provide an additional source of evidence about the authenticity of student work. Detection tools, where used, will form part of a holistic approach to considering the authenticity of students’ work; all available information will be considered when reviewing any malpractice concerns.

The use of detection tools, where used, forms part of a holistic approach to considering the authenticity of students’ work; all available information will be considered when reviewing any malpractice concerns. Teachers know their students best and so are best placed to assess the authenticity of work submitted to them for assessment – AI detection tools can be a useful part of the evidence they can consider.

*Students in Years 10 to 13 own their own data and have a right to withhold consent. Students who are suspected of misusing AI who withhold consent when challenged will be assumed to have something to hide.