1. Assessment practice to complement use of text-matching software Faculty of Education Humanities and Law Faculty Teaching and Learning Forum November, 2015 David D Curtis

2. Outline Background Two sets of questions about assessment Questions to enhance learning through assessment design Questions to minimise plagiarism in assessment Assessment methods Discussion

3. Background Plagiarism is surprisingly common More than 75% of students self-report (anonymously) breaches of academic integrity The incidence of these practices has grown Students are increasingly likely to believe that using others’ work without acknowledgement, but in one’s own words, is not plagiarism Text-matching software is a deterrent, but does not prevent plagiarism Common forms of academic dishonesty include Unacknowledged copying from other sources (publications, other students) Commissioning ghost-writers of papers It would be unwise to believe the problem does not exist at Flinders and to ignore it Responsibility to professions to ensure integrity of qualifications Protection of the Flinders brand (McCabe, et al., 2001; Miller, et al., 2011) (Stapleton, 2012) (Busch, 2014)

4. Enhancing learning through assessment design

5. Key questions Why assess? What to assess? How to assess? How to interpret? How to respond? (Rowntree, 1987, p.11)

6. Why assess? Deciding why assessment is to be carried out; what effects or outcomes it is expected to produce. Broadly, we identify at least two sets of reasons We assess in order to certify learning We assess in order to enhance learning We expect several outcomes Assessment tasks should motivate learning Assessment tasks should guide or direct learning Assessment tasks should lead to high levels of knowledge and skill But, assessment motivates a range of unintended behaviours One of these is plagiarism

7. What to assess Deciding, realising or otherwise coming to an awareness of what one is looking for, or remarking upon, in the people one is assessing.

8. How to assess? Selecting, from among all the means we have at our disposal for learning about people, those we regard as being most truthful and fair for various sorts of valued knowledge. We seek alignment between assessment purposes and methods What methods are available to us? [See below] By what criteria do we judge the suitability of assessment types? ValidityReliability FairnessFeasibility ObjectivityAuthenticity Washback

9. How to interpret? Making sense of whatever outcomes of whatever observations or measurements or impressions we gather through whatever means we employ; explaining, appreciating and attaching meaning to the raw 'events' of assessment.

10. How to respond? Finding appropriate ways of expressing our response to whatever has been assessed and of communicating it to the person concerned (or other people). Feedback is fundamental to effective learning Ho: Engaging students in dialogue is likely to enhance personal commitment to the activities and to reduce AI breaches Consider assessment tasks that elicit discursive responses Generate dialogue with and among students following their responses Hattie, 2009 Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Nicol, 2010; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006

11. Assessment to thwart plagiarism

12. Key question What methods of assessment will prevent plagiarism? And if it does occur, can you detect it?

13. Assessment methods Examinations Closed-book or open-book Extended essays, short constructed response, multiple-choice (or similar) Take-home papers Extended essays, reports Portfolios, wikis Case studies Literature reviews, annotated bibliographies Artefacts Presentations Seminars/tutorials Viva voce OSCEs (Objective Structured Clinical Examinations) (Brown & Race, 2013) Discussion Which of these methods: Enhances learning that is valid, fair, authentic, feasible, … We should pay particular attention to washback. How does assessment influence how students learn and how they respond? Which of these methods: Prevents plagiarism

14. Assessment to curtail plagiarism Individualised assessment tasks In statistics topics, I provide each student with a unique data set Each data file is for a particular country, but all files have a common structure Each has numerous variables reflecting diverse constructs Students decide on research questions and choose the constructs to use, so each student’s assignment is unique I did this, not primarily to counter plagiarism, rather to enhance authenticity Curtailing plagiarism was a consequence Incremental assessment tasks Major assignment asks students to explain how they would implement an educational initiative Prior to that, students submit a ‘readings summary’ and are advised to focus on the initiative they will investigate in the major assignment Not designed to combat plagiarism, but to enhance engagement with literature

15. References Brown, S., & Race, P. (2013). Using effective assessment to promote learning. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers (Eds.), University teaching in focus. A learning-centred approach (pp. 74-91). London: Routledge. Busch, P., & Bilgin, A. (2014). Student and staff understanding and reaction: academic integrity in an Australian university. Journal of Academic Ethics, 12, 227-243. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: a decade of research. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 219-232. Nicol, D. J. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501-517. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218. Rowntree, D. (1987). Assessing students: how shall we know them? (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row. Stapleton, P. (2012). Gauging the effectiveness of anti-plagiarism software: an empirical study of second language graduate writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 125-133.