1. Purpose and Commitment

The Divine Theological Training Institute (DTTI) is a church-sponsored institute under the African Divine Church, and its academic life rests on the same commitment to truth that its students are called to preach. This policy states the Institute's standards of academic integrity for all certificate, diploma and short courses at every branch, defines misconduct, and sets out fair procedures for investigating and penalising it. It applies to all students, and by extension to trainers and staff whose own teaching, marking and publication must meet the same standard. Because integrity is a habit formed over years, the policy pairs sanctions with teaching, guidance and grace.

2. The Standard of Honest Work

Every piece of work a student submits, including assignments, continuous assessment tests, projects, research papers, sermons, practicum reports and attachment logbooks, must be the student's own effort, produced for the specific assessment, with all borrowed words, ideas, data and images honestly acknowledged. Students must not submit the same work for two different assessments without the written permission of both trainers. Where group work is assigned, each member's contribution must be identified as required. Honest work that earns a modest mark is always valued above dishonest work that earns a high one.

3. Plagiarism

Plagiarism is presenting another person's words, ideas, translations, sermons, projects or data as one's own, whether copied from a book, a classmate's script, a website, a shared past-paper file or any other source. It includes copying with minor word changes, re-using another student's submitted work, and failing to credit a source even unintentionally where a reasonable student would have cited. Students are taught citation and referencing during orientation and in research methods lessons, and are required to keep drafts and notes so they can demonstrate how their work developed. The Institute may submit written work to similarity-detection software or to a trainer's structured review before marking.

4. Collusion and Contracting

Collusion is unauthorised collaboration, such as two students producing substantially identical scripts or one student completing another's assignment. Contracting is obtaining work from a third party, including purchasing assignments or projects, commissioning a "writer" to produce a research project or practicum report, or having a friend, relative or online service complete work in one's name. Both are serious offences for the student who obtains the work and, where the other party is a DTTI student, for that student as well.

5. AI Tools and Technology-Assisted Work

DTTI embraces technology, including artificial intelligence tools, as an aid to learning, but never as a substitute for it. Unless a trainer expressly permits a stated use for a stated assessment, students must not submit AI-generated essays, sermons, reflections, code, or project reports as their own work. Permitted uses, where a trainer allows them, must be declared, for example by a short note stating which tool was used and for what purpose, and the student remains fully responsible for the accuracy and content of the submission, including verification of any source the tool cites. Fabricating references is treated as falsification. Trainers may require an oral defence or supervised practical task to establish authorship of any submitted work.

6. Cheating in Assessments and Research Ethics

Cheating in tests and examinations, including the use of unauthorised materials, devices and impersonation, is dealt with under the Examination Policy, and its penalties are severe. Research and fieldwork carry their own duties: students must obtain informed consent from any person they interview or survey, must respect confidentiality and the Data Protection Act 2019 in handling personal information, must not fabricate, alter or selectively omit data, and must obtain approval from their trainer before undertaking research with vulnerable participants, including children and hospital or prison populations. Attachment and practicum reports must present a truthful record of what the student actually did and observed.

7. Detection and Evidence

A suspicion of breach may arise from similarity software, markers' professional judgement, inconsistencies between written work and a student's demonstrated ability, or observation of the writing process. Before any finding is made, the student is shown the work in question and the evidence, and is invited to respond in writing and in person. The standard of proof is the balance of probability, and findings are recorded with reasons. Suspicion alone is never a finding, and a student who asks an honest question about proper practice is commended, not accused.

8. Procedure, Sanctions and Appeals

Confirmed breaches are handled by an academic integrity panel convened by the Registrar. Sanctions are proportionate to the gravity and repetition of the offence, and include resubmission of the work with a capped mark, a zero for the assessment, ineligibility for distinctions and prizes, suspension from the course, and discontinuation from the Institute for the gravest or repeated offences. A student may appeal in writing to the Chief Principal within seven days of receiving the decision, on grounds of procedural error, new evidence or manifestly disproportionate penalty; the Chief Principal's decision is final internally. Findings of malpractice affecting KNEC, NITA or CDACC assessments are additionally reported to the relevant external body under its own regulations.

9. Education and Culture

The Institute prefers to prevent breaches rather than punish them. Integrity and citation skills are taught at orientation and reinforced in course work; trainers set assessments that reward genuine thinking; and students are encouraged to ask before submitting whenever they are unsure whether a practice is acceptable, since a question asked in advance is never treated as an offence. The Institute celebrates honest excellence, and staff model the same standards in their own research, preaching and publication practice.

10. Review

This policy is reviewed every two years, and immediately where technology, Kenyan law or assessment practice materially changes. Amendments are approved by the Academic Board on the recommendation of the Chief Principal and communicated to all students and staff before taking effect at the start of the following academic year.