GuidetoUsingTheseSlidesTheaimofthisworkshopistoworkcollaborativelyandcreativelytoimprovetheverificationofstudentidentityinassessment tasks.Inotherwords,wecanaskourselves‘Isthestudentwhowillgetcredittowardsauniversityqualificationfromsuccessfullycompletingthisassessmenttasktheactualpersonundertakingthetaskwork?’.Robustassessmentdesignisanimportantwaytorespondtothischallenge.

Thesefacilitator’sslidesareaccompaniedbythesetofgenericassessmenttasks(page1ofeachcasestudy)availablefromthecollectionofassessmentcasestudiesatwww.apfei.com.au.Alternatively,youcanuseyourowntasks.Youwillalsoneed:

• largesheetsofblankpagee.g.butcher’spaperorthewall-sizedstickynotesforthetablegroupstouse• felttippedpens,and• smallpost-it-notesfortheicebreakeractivity.• nametags

Themajorityofyourworkshoptimewillbeinfacilitatingtablegroupsthroughthedifferentstepsintheredesignprocess.Theseslidesaredesignedfora2.5hrworkshopfor20participants(fivegroupsoffour)butcanbeusedfordifferentworkshoplengthsbyadjustingthetimeallowedforthepotentialproblemidentificationandredesignsteps.

AtanappropriatetimeintheworkshoppleaseacknowledgethefundingbytheAsiaPacificForumonEducationalIntegrity(APFEI)andtheworkindesigningandfacilitatingtheoriginalworkshopsbyDrChristineSladeandAssociateProfessorSusanRowland,InstituteforTeachingandLearningInnovation(ITaLI)atTheUniversityofQueensland(seelastslideforfurtherinformation).

1

StudentIdentityVerified(SIV)AssessmentWorkshop:

Aresponsetocontractcheating

2

BackgroundandRiseinConcern

• Contractcheatingwebsiteservicesareaseriousthreattoacademicintegrity.

• Theychallengetheauthenticityofstudentauthorshipinassessment.

• Currentplagiarismstrategiesdonotcatchcontractcheatingstudents.

• Improvingstudentidentityverification(SIV)inassessmentisoneresponse.

3

WorkonAddressingIntegrityinAssessment

4

http://itali.uq.edu.au/filething/get/6341/Slade_Rowland_McGrath_Student_Dishonesty_Assessment_July_2016.pdf

ImprovingRobustnessofAssessmentforSIV

• Notaseasyasitfirstappears(e.g.,oneacademicmaythinkanassessmentdesignisrobustbutdiscoverfromothers’feedbackthattherearestillwaysstudentscangetotherstodotheirtasks).

• Thedefaultpositionistoincreasecentralinvigilatedexams(buttheyarenotbeyondthereachofcontractcheating).

• Pedagogically,examsarenotalwaysthemostsuitablechoiceforintendedlearningoutcomes.

5

AimsoftheWorkshop

§ Understand§ Collaborate§ Redesign§ Connect

PrinciplesofAssessmentDesign

6

WorkshopRunSheet• Introduction(10mins)

• Icebreaker(5min)

• Brainstorming– whataretheproblemareaswiththisassessmenttask(15min)

• Presentbrieflytowholegroup(2minpergroup=10mins)

• TablegroupstostartredesignoftheSIVofdesignatedassessmenttask(30min)

• Presentworktowholegroupforfeedbackmidway(5minspergroup=25mins)

• Tablestocontinueredesignassessmenttask(20min)

• Re-presenttaskstowholegroup(5minspergroup=25mins)

• Finalcommentsandwrapup(10min)

7

IcebreakerActivity

Step1: Shareinturnatyourtable– yourname,yourroleatyouruniversity,andyourmainconcernaboutassessmentintegrity(1mineachperson).

Step2: Writeyourmainconcernaboutassessmentintegrityonasmallpost-itnote.(Thefacilitatorwillcollectthemandsharewiththegroupatalaterstageintheworkshop)

8

IdentifyingPotentialProblemAreas

Step1: Chooseaspokespersonandscribe(1min)

Step2: Gettoknowyourassessmentcasestudy(1-2min)

Step3: Discussinyourgroupthepotentialintegrity-relatedproblemswiththisassessmenttaskandrecordthemonapieceofbutcher’spaper(12min)

Step4: Eachgroupwillbrieflypresentthecasestudyintegrityproblemsthattheyaregoingtoaddressintheredesign(2minspergroup)

9

WhenRedesigningYourAssessmentTask…

10

YOUCAN

• Changeassessmentformat• Extendtimeframeorsteps• Increase%value• Introducenewtoolsandtechnologies• Changesubmissionformat• Adjustmarkingcriteria

YOUCANNOT

• Reduce%value

• Changeyearlevel

• Changedisciplinearea

• Changebasicintentofassessmentitem(e.g.critiqueofresearchpaper,reflectionofWIL)

RedesignProcessandGroupFeedback

Step5:Startredesignofthetasktoimprovestudentidentityverificationandrecordworkonanewpieceofbutcher’spaper(30min)

Step6: Yourspokespersonpresentsworktowholegroupformidwayfeedback(2.5minpresentation+2.5minfeedbackpergroup)

Step7:Tablegroupscontinuewithredesignprocess(20mins)

Step8:Eachgroupre-presentsredesignedtasktowholegroup (5minspergroup)

11

FinalCommentsandWrapup

Thank you for your participation

12

AbouttheOriginalProject

13

In early 2017 Dr Christine Slade (left) & Associate Professor Susan Rowland (right) from the Institutefor Teaching and Learning Innovation (ITaLI), at The University of Queensland conducted SIVAssessment Design Workshops as part of a small grant from the Asia Pacific Forum on EducationalIntegrity http://www.apfei.edu.au/ (APFEI).

These slides are based on those used by Christine and Susan in their workshops. If you would likefurther information about their academic integrity work please contact c.slade@uq.edu.au