NVQ Questions discussed on this forum. Plagiarism?

[johnep]

NPA training designed to meet needs of employers. Buttercups training designed to meet needs of students. Unfortunately, NPA originally set up to defend individual proprietor pharmacists. Now tainted by the big guns.
johnep

[Buttercups]

Our malpractice policy clearly identifies the range of activities by mentors, tutor pharmacists, students and indeed assessors that can lead to our action. Examples of action we have undertaken include suspension and removal from the programme. Disciplinary action has in most cases also been instigated by the employers with whom we work closely and has in a few instances resulted in dismissal of both students and pharmacists.

This is unusual. Most students respond to warnings about plagiarism and study groups that also include 'joint efforts' for assessment and we monitor forums. Most behaviour that could fall into the realms of malpractice is not deliberate and responds to some pastoral care from our tutors early on in the programme- I imagine that colleges and universities have the same issues. However, it's not helpful to the candidate to give out answers - what we want is that they contact us and then we can tutor them further so they can find the answer for themselves. I understand the need of fellow students to help, particularly when they've already experienced the world of pain that newer students are experiencing. But posting the answer isn't helpful - albeit, well intended. Not malicious or indeed malpractice but perhaps ill advised.

It must be such a huge shock when the enormity of the study mountain reveals itself. Students are initially in need of a lot of TLC - but most, with support and some firm, fair feedback emerge to be the fabulous technicians we have in our sector.

Now, this topic is becoming a bit of a bore. How about turning our attention to whether the syllabus of the new course is fit for purpose? What needs adding- or subtracting? Does it meet the needs of the day one qualified tech? If not, it's time to bleat because you can be heard by all the groups, including the GPhC who speak on your behalf.

Vanessa Kingsbury FRPS, Director Buttercups Training Ltd

[johnep]

Oxygen, extemp preps, surgical appliances could be removed.
johnep

[Tony Schofield]

Now, this topic is becoming a bit of a bore. How about turning our attention to whether the syllabus of the new course is fit for purpose? What needs adding- or subtracting? Does it meet the needs of the day one qualified tech? If not, it's time to bleat because you can be heard by all the groups, including the GPhC who speak on your behalf.

Vanessa Kingsbury FRPS, Director Buttercups Training Ltd

I'm not convinced it is becoming a bore. I read what you say and you gloss over what is plainly happening here and elsewhere. I am not convinced, as a potential purchaser of your product that the product is fit for purpose unless I know that individuals posting requests and those supplying answers are dealt with adequately. Discussing course content and fitness for purpose is academic when I am not convinced that a holder of your qualification achieved it on their own merit.

Sorry and all that............

[orangiey]

I have long championed the empowering of support staff and skilling them up in order that they may support a pharmacist, ultimately relieving a pharmacist of significant burden in order that they then perform more clinical services. I am a fan of technician registration and improving the status of technicians.

Time and again I have had cause to worry about the quality of distance learning qualifications. There is no requirement for a supervisor to state that the condidate understands how everything fits together or understands the big picture. The candidate purely and simply acrues the modules and is accepted. They may then be registered.

I have argued with pharmacists (particularly locums) here and elsewhere about their acceptance of the role of, say an ACT employed by, say, me and the confidence they have in the qualifications of such an individual. Personally all my staff are now enrolled on a day release course at a local technical college. It is more expensive but they are of much higher quality than those who enrol via Buttercups or NPA, have more confidence and are better at their job.

I am becoming increasingly more concerened about NVQ students posting questions here for more than support. I have no problem with discussing say, ethical dilemnas on line and then forming an opinion that informs an answer to a posed question. However, increasingly we get "would be techs" blatantly asking for answers to questions, citing being behind or falling out with assessors. Just as worrying, we get people actually supplying the answers.

I am horrified at the implications of this. Frequently an answer could be obtained just using a search engine but detailed replies are sought, and obtained, ready for cutting and pasting.

Personally I believe that all e-mail addresses of those involved should be forwarded to the awarding institution in order that they may investigate candidates for plagiarism. This is an insidious development that undermines faith in the qualifications offered by distance learning providers.

It also contributes to a lack of respect for technicians that undermines the confidence of RP pharmacists.

What does anyone else think?

I know a Technician who finished her NVQ3 and then handed all her work over to another 'student' tech who just copied it to complete the course. Disgusting. I went to Technical college one day a week for the BTEC as well as doing the NPA correspondance course and had a big problem convincing my now area manager that as these were done (1989) before NVQ3 were born they are equivalant (if not better). I am now registered and take much care and pride in my work and feel my route was more professional and worthy of this as well as the title of Pharmacy Technician.