{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-ead5f58817ad6fab","slug":"2021-09-06-transparency-requirements-associated-with-academic-integrity","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2021-09-06","last_modified_date":"2021-09-06","title":"Transparency requirements associated with academic integrity","summary":"Sets out the scope, decision criteria and evidential basis relevant to transparency requirements associated with academic integrity.","category":{"code":"STANDARDS_INTERPRETATION","label":"Standards Interpretation"},"article_type":"Standards interpretation","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 immediate international context is the expanded remote assessment and digital resources. Its significance for academic integrity lies in the quality of implementation rather than in formal acknowledgement alone. A decision concerning the assurance question should recognise that interpretation should begin with the intended outcome, then identify the controls and evidence needed to show that the outcome is achieved across the declared scope. The proportionality test should consider both the identified risk and the consequences of the control for affected learners.","Implementation of the issue under review should be organised around a decision that can be tested. In reviewing the issue under review, conformity should not be inferred from a policy document alone; operating records and outcomes should show that the stated arrangements are in use. In practice, the stated objective should connect to responsibility, committed resources, operating evidence and the outcome reported for oversight."]},{"heading":"Applicable scope","paragraphs":["The contemporaneous context is established by the expanded remote assessment and digital resources. It does not, without setting-specific evidence, demonstrate the operation of academic integrity. Decision-makers should state which matters are evidenced, which express policy and which require authorised judgement. In relation to transparency requirements associated with academic integrity, later review should not obscure whether the earlier position rested on fact, policy or judgement.","The quality significance of the stated expectation follows from a basic distinction between availability and effective provision. A decision concerning the assurance question should recognise that a change in delivery mode should not weaken the defined learning outcomes, learner protection, accessibility or reliability of assessment."],"bullets":["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."]},{"heading":"Implementation and evidence","paragraphs":["In practical terms, academic integrity should be reviewed against a stated method rather than general assurance. The analysis of the relevant requirement proceeds on the basis that public information should be accurate, current, complete in relation to material matters and presented before a learner is required to make a consequential commitment. Qualifications and limitations should receive comparable prominence to the principal claim.","Relevant evidence for the assurance question 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. Evidence outside the relevant period or scope should be identified and given no more weight than its limitations permit. In relation to transparency requirements associated with academic integrity, conflicting records require reconciliation before a complete assurance conclusion is reached.","Public reporting on the relevant requirement should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action. Revision history should remain available where users have relied on the earlier conclusion.","The final record on the stated expectation should identify the applicable expectation, the relevant scope, the evidence examined, the sampling basis, material exceptions and the reason for the conclusion. Departure from an illustrative method may be justified where equivalent outcome and evidence are established. Unresolved limitations should be stated with the conclusion and carried forward for action."]},{"heading":"Assessment of conformity","paragraphs":["The review method for academic integrity should be reproducible. Review of the assurance question should identify material information across the learner journey, assign source ownership, reconcile public statements with controlled records and retain corrections. Test whether a reasonable user can understand status, cost, obligations, support and routes for redress. Working papers should allow another competent reviewer to understand the evidence, judgement and treatment of material exceptions.","The principal risks in relation to the relevant 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.","Traceability is necessary for accountable decision-making and fair correction. For the assurance question, 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. Material changes require a traceable effective date and explanation so that prior reliance can be reviewed fairly.","Proportionality in relation to the control does not mean reduced protection for learners exposed to greater risk. Oversight of transparency requirements associated with academic integrity should reflect the principle that digital participation data should not be treated as a direct measure of learning. Log-ins, connection time and activity counts require interpretation alongside assessment and learner experience. In reviewing the control, interpretive guidance should not create an obligation that is absent from the governing instrument or applicable law.","The present development should inform review of the relevant requirement, with attention to the relationship between commitment, implementation and demonstrated outcome. Improvement should be supported by evidence and an accountable decision record capable of public scrutiny."]}],"word_count":804,"content_hash":"sha256-de4b0b16f1b46de5d2942ee3795c4e3d1210089f396e4d7f94b2191f656a2d03","seo_keywords":["transparency requirements associated with academic integrity","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}