Using administrative data to examine academic integrity incidents and outcomes

A narrow control over the comparison may create false assurance. In the present context, assessment methods that do not support valid judgements, technology access determining educational access and supplier dependency without continuity controls may produce acceptable aggregate reporting while individual learners remain exposed to material disadvantage.

Application to academic integrity incidents and outcomes

Implementation of administrative data to examine academic integrity incidents and outcomes should be organised around a decision that can be tested.

In examining using administrative data to examine academic integrity incidents and outcomes, its relevance to the measure should be assessed against the affected jurisdiction, learner population and form of provision.

In the context of academic integrity incidents and outcomes, the analysis should make its decision rule explicit. A proxy is useful only where its relationship with the intended outcome is sufficiently understood. Participation, activity and expenditure may support learning, but none constitutes direct evidence of learning without an explicit and tested connection.

• Provide alternative routes for material barriers before it informs a consequential decision.
• Define the educational purpose of the technology.
• Support staff and learners before it informs a consequential decision.
• Maintain continuity and supplier exit controls.
• Test access before requiring use.

Controls for academic integrity incidents and outcomes

Care is required in drawing conclusions about administrative data to examine academic integrity incidents and outcomes.

Across the defined scope, each source should have a stated purpose in supporting or limiting the conclusion. For the measure, the most relevant material is likely to include learner access and participation information, delivery-mode design and approval records, teacher capability and workload information, and supplier performance and exit arrangements. For academic integrity incidents and outcomes, independent records should be reconciled, with disagreement and uncertainty reported alongside the finding.

Review of academic integrity incidents and outcomes

Authorities and providers reviewing administrative data to examine academic integrity incidents and outcomes should proceed in a defined sequence. Review of the available evidence should state the construct to be measured, explain why the proxy is expected to represent it, test that relationship against direct evidence and identify circumstances in which the proxy may fail. Do not allow convenience to determine the measure.

For academic integrity incidents and outcomes, decision-makers using evidence on the measure should be told what the data cannot establish as clearly as what it can. The nature of the result and its applicable unit—system, institution, programme or learner group—should be explicit.

• For which groups may it fail?
• What outcome does the proxy represent?
• Is direct evidence available?
• Would the decision change if the proxy were inaccurate?
• What evidence supports the relationship?

Implications for academic integrity incidents and outcomes

For academic integrity incidents and outcomes, the central objective should not be obscured by the form of the administrative response. A change in delivery mode should not weaken the defined learning outcomes, learner protection, accessibility or reliability of assessment. Across the defined scope, assurance should not stop at adoption, resourcing or completion of administrative tasks.

In the context of academic integrity incidents and outcomes, assurance should be withheld for the affected scope until the limitation is resolved.