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

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 receive research • • missions of AfL and AI funding from ed tech companies (including I think cheating is • Turnitin), but these are symptomatic of broader my opinions, not theirs educational and socioeconomic concerns CRADLE has bought • contract cheating I think universities have • assignments a responsibility to take reasonable measures to My mum helped me • prevent and detect contract cheat in year cheating four Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B

UK Australia, extrapolated from ~80k total avg. ~2k per uni Bretag et al 2018 Australia ??? UK

Assessment for learning Assessment Cheating panic conservatism

“Assessment conservatism” Lack of authenticity • Restrictions and • surveillance Individualistic • Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B

We need academic integrity AND assessment security Academic Integrity Assessment security • Negative • Positive • Trusting • Adversarial • Educative • Punitive ‘crime prevention’ ‘policing’ or ‘surveillance’ What do you currently do to enhance AI/AS? Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B

Fundamental values of academic integrity • Honesty • Trust • Fairness • Respect • Responsibility • Courage https://academicintegrity.org/fundamental-values/

Educate students Talk about • Trust • Interactivity and support • Quality • Cost Rowland et al Sutherland-Smith & Dullaghan

Students’ perceptions of the likelihood of contract cheating (%) Reflection on practicum Viva Personalised and unique In-class task Small part of nested task Major part of nested task Relevant professional skills Integrate knowledge/skills vital to programme No ‘right’ answer Research, analysis and thinking skills Series of small graded tasks Heavily weighted task Short turnaround time 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 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.

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)

Obvious mistakes that weaken assessment security Reusing the same assessment task Unsupervised online tests Take-home “one right answer” or lower-level tasks Poor examination practices Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B

X

X

X

Accuracy at detecting contract cheating (%) Not looking for it e.g. Lines 2016; Medway et al 2018 Looking for it Trained to look for it 0 20 40 60 80 100

False positive rate (%) Not looking for it e.g. Lines 2016; Medway et al 2018 Looking for it Trained to look for it 0 20 40 60 80 100

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

What do you do to secure assessment against contract cheating?

Programmatic assessment ‘Cheat-proofing’ Provide high- Academic every act of security integrity needs assessment is assessments for to be assured resource program across a intensive and outcomes program, not in bad for learning every task

Practical things to do now 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 Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B