Academic integrity vs (?) assessment security Associate Professor - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
academic integrity vs assessment security
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Academic integrity vs (?) assessment security Associate Professor - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 22, 2023 8 likes •301 views

Academic integrity vs (?) assessment security Associate Professor Phillip (Phill) Dawson deakin.edu.au/cradle @phillipdawson Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B Some declarations before we get started I support the positive I

slide-1
SLIDE 1

deakin.edu.au/cradle @phillipdawson

Academic integrity vs (?) assessment security

Associate Professor Phillip (Phill) Dawson

Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Some declarations before we get started

Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B

  • I support the positive

missions of AfL and AI

  • I think cheating is

symptomatic of broader educational and socioeconomic concerns

  • I think universities have

a responsibility to take reasonable measures to prevent and detect cheating

  • I receive research

funding from ed tech companies (including Turnitin), but these are my opinions, not theirs

  • CRADLE has bought

contract cheating assignments

  • My mum helped me

contract cheat in year four

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Australia, extrapolated from Bretag et al 2018

~80k total

  • avg. ~2k per uni

UK UK Australia ???

slide-4
SLIDE 4
slide-5
SLIDE 5
slide-6
SLIDE 6
slide-7
SLIDE 7
slide-8
SLIDE 8

Assessment for learning Cheating panic Assessment conservatism

slide-9
SLIDE 9

“Assessment conservatism”

Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B

  • Lack of authenticity
  • Restrictions and

surveillance

  • Individualistic
slide-10
SLIDE 10

We need academic integrity AND assessment security

Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B

Academic Integrity

  • Positive
  • Trusting
  • Educative

‘crime prevention’ Assessment security

  • Negative
  • Adversarial
  • Punitive

‘policing’ or ‘surveillance’

What do you currently do to enhance AI/AS?

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Fundamental values of academic integrity

  • Honesty
  • Trust
  • Fairness
  • Respect
  • Responsibility
  • Courage

https://academicintegrity.org/fundamental-values/

slide-12
SLIDE 12
slide-13
SLIDE 13

Educate students

Talk about

  • Trust
  • Interactivity and

support

  • Quality
  • Cost

Rowland et al

Sutherland-Smith & Dullaghan

slide-14
SLIDE 14
slide-15
SLIDE 15
slide-16
SLIDE 16

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Short turnaround time Heavily weighted task Series of small graded tasks Research, analysis and thinking skills No ‘right’ answer Integrate knowledge/skills vital to programme Relevant professional skills Major part of nested task Small part of nested task In-class task Personalised and unique Viva Reflection on practicum

Students’ perceptions of the likelihood of contract cheating (%)

Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., van Haeringen, K., et al. (2019). Contract cheating and assessment design: exploring the relationship. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(5), 676-691.

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Assessment security

“measures taken to harden assessment against attempts to cheat; this includes approaches to detect and evidence attempts to cheat, as well as attempts to make cheating more difficult.”

(Dawson, forthcoming, “Defending Academic Integrity in the Digital Age: Preventing E-Cheating and Managing Assessment Security in Higher Education”, Routledge)

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Obvious mistakes that weaken assessment security

Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B

Reusing the same assessment task Unsupervised online tests Take-home “one right answer” or lower-level tasks Poor examination practices

slide-19
SLIDE 19

X

slide-20
SLIDE 20

X

slide-21
SLIDE 21

X

slide-22
SLIDE 22
slide-23
SLIDE 23

20 40 60 80 100 Trained to look for it Looking for it Not looking for it

Accuracy at detecting contract cheating (%)

e.g. Lines 2016; Medway et al 2018

slide-24
SLIDE 24

20 40 60 80 100 Trained to look for it Looking for it Not looking for it

False positive rate (%)

e.g. Lines 2016; Medway et al 2018

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Learnings about detection

Contract cheating sites do reflection poorly Discipline- specific knowledge; detection; training Viva had 100% detection rate; seems too good, needs follow-up before we publish

slide-26
SLIDE 26

What do you do to secure assessment against contract cheating?

slide-27
SLIDE 27
slide-28
SLIDE 28

Programmatic assessment

‘Cheat-proofing’ every act of assessment is resource intensive and bad for learning Provide high- security assessments for program

  • utcomes

Academic integrity needs to be assured across a program, not in every task

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Practical things to do now

Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B

  • Balance security and integrity
  • Ask markers to look for

contract cheating

  • Talk with students about the

dangers of cheating

  • Secure the tasks that matter

for the program

  • Help build the evidence base

to avoid assessment conservatism