The role of quality assessment design in strengthening academic integrity

The concept of constructive alignment is a fundamental consideration in designing quality assessment. Constructively aligned assessment allows students to understand the purpose of the assessment tasks and how they directly relate to their learning in a subject and course. As Biggs and Tang (2011) caution, “where assessment is not aligned to the intended or other desired outcomes, or where the teaching methods do not directly encourage the appropriate learning activities, students can easily ‘escape’ by engaging in inappropriate learning activities” (p.99).

Authentic assessment is a form of assessment in which students are asked to perform real-world tasks that demonstrate meaningful application of knowledge and skills appropriate to the discipline. It has “long been recognised as a feature of good assessment design” (Bretag et al., 2019, p.4) and builds many desirable graduate attributes such as critical thinking, teamwork, problem-solving, effective communication and reflective practice. Assessment tasks that build these types of skills, for example where students are required to document and explain their thinking process (e.g., develop mind maps or concept diagrams), are the types of tasks not easily outsourced to generative artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT; however it is important to temper these benefits with the cautions from the literature that authentic assessment “does not in itself assure academic integrity” (Ellis et al., 2020, p.465) and is “no panacea for assessment security” (Dawson, 2020, p. 132). Bretag, Harper and colleagues (2019) caution that “academically and linguistically diverse students” may struggle with the unfamiliarity of authentic assessment, and without scaffolded support they may be “tempted to seek unauthorised assistance” (p.19).

One of the many reasons students may turn to cheating is when they experience time pressures (Blum, 2016; Park, 2003), of which academic study workload is a critical component. To assist students with managing their study load, consider the timing of assessment tasks for your subject through the teaching session; where possible, consult with the other educators in your course team who are teaching subjects during the same session, to avoid (where possible) students having major assessments due at the same time.

Another important consideration is that of assessment task weightings; strive to achieve a balance of not ‘over-assessing’ with too many low-stakes tasks, but also trying to avoid large high-stakes tasks where possible.

In reflecting on your subject’s assessment, consider whether the assessment task types are appropriate to assess the subject learning outcome/s (SLOs) being addressed, as some SLOs will lend themselves to particular task types (e.g., written, practical, oral). Where possible have a mix of individual and collaborative tasks, as this helps to build the professional skills of students in both independent study and working with others in teams. Try to also avoid monotony in assessment type (e.g. all quiz-based assessment tasks), as using a variety of assessment types promotes student interest and gives them a chance to demonstrate their learning through different modalities which may appeal to their strengths and preferences. Although no assessment types are immune to academic integrity breaches such as contract cheating (Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, 2017), tasks that involve reflections on practicums, vivas, individualised tasks that relate to students’ personal experiences, or supervised in-class tasks are examples of four types of assessment that are less likely to be involved in student misconduct (Bretag et al., 2019).

Involving student choice where appropriate can be useful in promoting interest and engagement, as Blum (2006) identifies a lack of interest in learning content as a common motivation for poor academic practice. However, it is important to acknowledge the challenges here with ensuring fairness and equality and managing workload of both students (undertaking the task) and teachers (marking the task).

Multimodal assessment tasks that involve oral or video artefacts have many benefits, including preparing job-ready students with experience in communicating via a variety of media, improving students’ digital literacy capabilities, and are particularly useful in strengthening academic integrity.

Quality assessment design also involves the development of students’ evaluative judgement. Tai and colleagues (2018) provide a simple definition of evaluative judgement as “the capability to make decisions about the quality of work of self and others” (Tai et al., 2018, p.471). There are two components which are integral to student evaluative judgement (Tai et al., 2016; 2018): firstly, students need to understand what constitutes quality; and secondly, students need opportunities to apply their understanding of quality through appraisals of their own work, and the work of others.

The benefits of developing student capability for evaluative judgement include a reduction in student anxiety, promotion of fairness, engendering of trust, and development of skills that promote independence as students and contribute to job-ready graduates. Supporting students in becoming effective learners as well as meeting the requirements of their workforce future is a key aspect of the concept of sustainable assessment (Boud, 2000).

This particular assessment design consideration has been proven in the literature to help potentially mitigate academic integrity breaches; see for example findings from the large multi-institutional Australian study led by Tracey Bretag and Rowena Harper which included the recommendation of clarifying assessment requirements through “task instructions, scaffolding, interactive discussion and rubrics” (Bretag et al., 2019, p.47) as a cheating mitigation strategy.

Tai and colleagues (Tai et al., 2018, p.474) suggest five practices for developing evaluative judgement:

• Self-assessment
• Peer feedback/review
• Feedback
• Rubrics
• Exemplars

These are briefly unpacked as follows:

Self-assessment

Supporting students in effective self-assessment involves engagement in identifying or considering criteria (where students may need to be supported in identifying and choosing criteria for judgement) and using these to qualitatively (rather than quantitatively or assign a single grade) review their own work and then subsequently use that feedback to improve their work.

Peer feedback/review

Often implemented as part of group work assessment tasks, when students evaluate and make judgements about the work of their peers and construct a written feedback commentary, it is actively engaging them in “multiple acts of evaluative judgement, both about the work of peers, and, through a reflective process, about their own work” (Nicol, 2014, p.102). An important consideration here is that students need to be scaffolded in in how to provide constructive, quality peer feedback.

Rubrics and exemplars

In order to support students in understanding what quality means in their discipline, we need to consider both the ‘task criteria’ (what needs to be done to accomplish the task) and ‘quality criteria’ (what constitutes doing the task well) (Torrance, 2012, p.337). Task and quality criteria include resources such as rubrics and exemplars. However, a balance must be struck between transparency and too much detail which potentially overloads students, and Carless (2015) makes an important point that “criteria in themselves, however, may be of limited use to students unless they engage with them purposefully or are stimulated to do so by relevant classroom activities” (p.138). A similar point is made by Bell et al. (2013) in their study of student use of grade descriptor, marking guides and annotated exemplars, suggesting that formal in-class activities that provide “opportunities to ask questions about the resources might have reduced the number of students requesting further examples and other clarifications” (p.780).

Facilitating dialogic interaction and feedback

Rather than the traditional understanding of feedback as unidirectional (from educator to student), the concept of feedback as “a dialogic process in which learners make sense of information from varied sources and use it to enhance the quality of their work or learning strategies” (Carless, 2015, p.192) changes the understanding: from feedback as information, to feedback as an ongoing process involving multidirectional feedback (educator-to-student, student-to-student, student-to-educator).

Findings from Bretag et al.’s 2019 survey of Australian students and staff on contract cheating and assessment design indicated that providing “constructive, meaningful and timely feedback for each student” was as part of “fostering personalised teaching and learning relationships with students” (p.47) and a key consideration in potentially avoiding cheating behaviours.

Building in purposeful dialogic interaction and feedback as part of the design of a series of connected assessment tasks where students are required to act on feedback and submit multiple artefacts potentially strengthens academic integrity (Bloxham & Boyd, 2007) and promotes higher levels of student engagement in assessment.