Transparency requirements associated with academic integrity

Its significance for academic integrity lies in the quality of implementation rather than in formal acknowledgement alone.

For academic integrity, implementation should be organised around a decision that can be tested.

Application of the evidence to transparency requirements associated with academic integrity

It does not, without setting-specific evidence, demonstrate the operation of academic integrity.

For decisions concerning academic integrity, a change in delivery mode should not weaken the defined learning outcomes, learner protection, accessibility or reliability of assessment.

• Assure assessment validity.
• Define the educational purpose of the technology.
• Provide alternative routes for material barriers.
• Monitor engagement without intrusive surveillance before using it to determine a learner or provider outcome.
• Maintain continuity and supplier exit controls, identifying the accountable function and affected scope.

Controls relevant to transparency requirements associated with academic integrity

Review of academic integrity should follow a stated and reproducible method. Qualifications and limitations should receive comparable prominence to the principal claim.

Relevant evidence for the conclusion will normally include assessment validity and integrity reviews, teacher capability and workload information, delivery-mode design and approval records, accessibility and usability testing, and learner access and participation information. For decisions concerning academic integrity, evidence outside the relevant period or scope should be identified and given no more weight than its limitations permit.

Public reporting on the applicable requirement should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action. For academic integrity, revision history should remain available where users have relied on the earlier conclusion.

The final record on the applicable expectation should identify the applicable expectation, the relevant scope, the evidence examined, the sampling basis, material exceptions and the reason for the conclusion. In the context of academic integrity, departure from an illustrative method may be justified where equivalent outcome and evidence are established.

Review criteria for transparency requirements associated with academic integrity

The review method for academic integrity should be reproducible. Review of the conclusion should identify material information across the learner journey, assign source ownership, reconcile public statements with controlled records and retain corrections. Across the defined scope, working papers should allow another competent reviewer to understand the evidence, judgement and treatment of material exceptions.

The principal risks in relation to the applicable requirement are inaccessible content or interaction, supplier dependency without continuity controls, technology access determining educational access, and assessment methods that do not support valid judgements. Risk assessment should account for dependencies between controls and the possibility that one failure masks the next.

For academic integrity, traceability is necessary for accountable decision-making and fair correction. For the conclusion, the responsible body should be able to identify the evidence considered, the judgement made, the person or body authorised to make it and the action that followed.

Proportionality in relation to the control does not mean reduced protection for learners exposed to greater risk. When examining academic integrity, digital participation data should not be treated as a direct measure of learning.

The present development should inform review of the applicable requirement, with attention to the relationship between commitment, implementation and demonstrated outcome. Improvement of academic integrity should be supported by evidence and an accountable decision record capable of public scrutiny.