{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-d4309e94d9ee0bad","slug":"2021-01-19-the-use-of-proxy-measures-in-analysing-academic-integrity-incidents","language":"en","publication_status":"PUBLISHED","publication_date":"2021-01-19","last_modified_date":"2021-01-19","title":"The use of proxy measures in analysing academic integrity incidents","summary":"Reviews the available evidence on academic integrity incidents and identifies the conditions required for sound interpretation and defensible conclusions.","category":{"code":"DATA_RESEARCH","label":"Data Research"},"article_type":"Data and research analysis","publisher":"International Council for Education Quality Certification (ICEQC)","jurisdictional_scope":"International","historical_reference_basis":"Expanded remote assessment and digital resources","reference_authority":"Relevant public authorities and official international sources","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["The present attention to academic integrity incidents follows the expanded remote assessment and digital resources and requires a careful distinction between public commitment, institutional practice and demonstrated result. The value of the present data lies in the questions it can answer reliably and in the limits it makes visible.","Implementation of the measure should be organised around a decision that can be tested. For academic integrity incidents, a sound interpretation should identify the unit of analysis, reference period, denominator, exclusions, missing values and any change in definition or collection practice. In practice, the stated objective should connect to responsibility, committed resources, operating evidence and the outcome reported for oversight."]},{"heading":"Analytical scope","paragraphs":["The stated reference is the expanded remote assessment and digital resources. Application to academic integrity incidents depends on evidence from the relevant jurisdiction or institution.","Analysis should make its decision rule explicit. For the analysis, 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. In the context of academic integrity incidents, comparable evidence should be assessed against criteria settled before the result is known.","Failure in relation to the analysis may arise even where the stated policy is reasonable. Material concerns include unclear identity and participation records, inaccessible content or interaction, supplier dependency without continuity controls, and technology access determining educational access. When examining academic integrity incidents, the assessment of an exception should address severity, persistence and the likelihood that the condition is more widely present.","The evidential record for the analysis should permit a reviewer to trace the matter from decision to outcome. This may require delivery-mode design and approval records, teacher capability and workload information, service availability and incident records, and supplier performance and exit arrangements, supported by learner access and participation information and accessibility and usability testing."]},{"heading":"Definitions and data coverage","paragraphs":["A competent review of the measure 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 decisions concerning academic integrity incidents, contrary evidence should not be removed merely because aggregate performance appears acceptable.","The assurance record for the analysis should retain the date of the evidence, the source responsible for it, the scope examined and the version of any instrument or definition applied. In work concerning academic integrity incidents, revision should not remove an earlier conclusion from the record where reliance has occurred."],"bullets":["Would the decision change if the proxy were inaccurate?","For which groups may it fail?","Is direct evidence available?","What outcome does the proxy represent?","What evidence supports the relationship?"]},{"heading":"Use of the findings","paragraphs":["Accountability for academic integrity incidents should follow decision-making authority. As regards academic integrity incidents, evidence of material risk should be placed before the body with authority to act, together with a traceable decision. Where academic integrity incidents is under review, where work is delegated, the record should continue to identify who is accountable for material consequences to learners.","The analytical record for academic integrity incidents should state the research question, data source, unit of analysis, reference period, coverage, exclusions, treatment of missing values and principal limitations."],"bullets":["Support staff and learners.","Define the educational purpose of the technology before it is relied on for a decision with material effect.","Test access before requiring use.","Provide alternative routes for material barriers before it informs a consequential decision.","Monitor engagement without intrusive surveillance."]},{"heading":"Uncertainty and safeguards","paragraphs":["For academic integrity incidents, the public interest is not confined to institutional compliance. In this case, a change in delivery mode should not weaken the defined learning outcomes, learner protection, accessibility or reliability of assessment. For academic integrity incidents, where learners rely on published information or support decisions, errors should be identifiable and capable of prompt, fair correction.","In the context of academic integrity incidents, analysis should remain within the limits of the evidence. When examining academic integrity incidents, international comparison can identify variation, but institutional and policy context remains necessary before a practice is transferred from one setting to another. Digital participation data should not be treated as a direct measure of learning. For decisions concerning academic integrity incidents, log-ins, connection time and activity counts require interpretation alongside assessment and learner experience.","In work concerning academic integrity incidents, progress should not be assessed by the amount of policy or documentation produced. As regards academic integrity incidents, progress is demonstrated when the intended educational result is achieved, adverse variation is identified and responsible bodies act where it is not."]}],"word_count":767,"content_hash":"sha256-42545c717688cd1c606e27bc9dc8a6fc215cfae3ac795b54972c29e61672a9f4","seo_keywords":["the use of proxy measures in analysing academic integrity incidents","international education data research","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"AnalysisNewsArticle"}