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

2. 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?

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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