Academic integrity in assessment Rowena Harper UniSA Academic Integrity Officer Coordinator Co-leader of OLT project Contract Cheating and Assessment Design: Exploring the Connection

Questions What messages are you getting about the relationship between assessment design and academic integrity? What advice have you received about assessment design for academic integrity?

Principles To foster academic integrity, assessment designers should consider the extent to which assessment design: addresses the reasons students cheat minimises opportunities to cheat, and maximises chances of detection

Reasons students cheat How could we address these with assessment and course design? And should we? Lack of interest or engagement in the task/course/program Perceived lack of interest or care from staff Pressure to pass (perceived or real) – familial, cultural, financial, social Last minute desperation: juggling multiple demands, poor time management I don’t need to learn this, just pass it – perceived irrelevance to student aims ‘I don’t understand what I’m expected to do’ – unclear instructions, limited relevant academic experience Unclear about collaboration/collusion – murky boundaries, lack of explanation Paraphrasing would be disrespectful/dangerous/nonsense ‘I can’t do this’ – tasks beyond the student’s capability, unclear expectations I think I can get away with it – challenging the institution, worth the risk There was an opportunity, so I took it How could we address these with design? To what extent should we address these with design? Carroll 2007

What types of student cheating are each of these trying to address? To what extent do each of these address reasons, opportunities and detection? Common advice Use in-class tasks Use open book exams Sight drafts, outlines and work in progress Avoid using ‘describe’ as an assessment task word Avoid using group work where all students get the same mark Avoid re-using assessment tasks in more than one study period Individualise tasks: allow choice, personalisation, or allocate each student something unique Avoid broad, general topics; narrow your requirements or specify sources or specific cases Use vivas (oral defence of a written piece) – for all students, or a random percentage Use supervised reflections on other work (meta-essays, reflections on a placement) Assess sub-skills first: finding information, reading, summarising, critiquing, synthesising, reasoning, arguing What types of student cheating are each of these trying to address? To what extent do each of these address all three: reasons, opportunities and detection? Carroll 2007

Bretag & Harper et al What do students say? Weighting is a consideration – relates to pressure. Also, low weighted weekly tasks are seen by some as trivial. Bretag & Harper et al

Detection methods How can we design in these detection methods as part of the assessment cycle? Knowledge of a student’s academic ability (71%) Knowledge of a students language ability (62%) A high text match identified via text-matching software (49%) Assignment was ‘off-topic’/didn’t answer question (36%) Mismatch between assignment marks and exam marks (22%) Mismatch between performance on individual and group tasks (22%) Falsified or fictional references (19%) A low text match identified via text-matching software (15%) Tip from a student (11%) Metadata showed different author from the student (10%) Tip from another person (not a student) (7%) How could we design in these detection methods as part of the assessment process? Harper & Bretag et al, under review