{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-4dd18acb4e01679d","slug":"2023-02-02-academic-integrity-an-international-evidence-note","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2023-02-02","last_modified_date":"2023-02-02","title":"Academic integrity: an international evidence note","summary":"Examines academic integrity: an international evidence note, defining the evidence base, coverage and limits that should govern comparison and use of the findings.","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":"Public availability of generative AI tools","reference_authority":"Relevant public authorities and official international sources","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["Against the background of the public availability of generative AI tools, education authorities and providers should review how academic integrity is defined, implemented and evidenced. In this case, the value of the present data lies in the questions it can answer reliably and in the limits it makes visible. Proportionality should be assessed against effects on access, learning, fair treatment and the accuracy of learner information."]},{"heading":"Evidence base for academic integrity","paragraphs":["The relevance of the public availability of generative AI tools is contextual. Consequential findings on academic integrity require current, attributable evidence for the scope concerned. The decision basis should identify what is evidenced, what reflects policy and what depends on authorised discretion.","The required public outcome should be stated in operational terms. A decision concerning the comparison should recognise that technology may support teaching, administration and access, but consequential educational decisions must remain accountable, explainable and open to effective review. In relation to academic integrity, assurance should not stop at adoption, resourcing or completion of administrative tasks.","The analysis of the issue should make its decision rule explicit. In reviewing the issue, comparison requires more than the use of a common label. Definitions, reference periods, population coverage, institutional boundaries and collection practices must be sufficiently aligned for the observed difference to have a stable meaning. A stated decision rule enables comparable examination and limits retrospective explanations of adverse evidence.","The governing expectation for the measure should be capable of consistent application. A decision concerning the measure should recognise that reported averages should be accompanied by sufficient distributional information to identify material differences between learner groups, locations and forms of provision. Terms governing eligibility, support, assessment, reporting or review should prevent materially different treatment without recorded justification.","The principal risks in relation to the analysis are loss of meaningful human review, unequal performance across learner groups, opaque use of personal or inferred data, and unclear responsibility between providers and suppliers. A weakness in one part of the control environment may obscure a related failure elsewhere. In relation to academic integrity, documents should be tested against the decision process they record and the outcome that followed.","The evidential record for the measure should permit a reviewer to trace the matter from decision to outcome. This may require records of human review and overrides, an inventory of systems and their intended uses, learner information and accessible challenge routes, and data provenance and access controls, supported by documented authority for each consequential use and supplier change and incident records. Further cases should be examined when the initial sample does not represent the affected scope or confirm sustained correction."]},{"heading":"Coverage and comparability","paragraphs":["Implementation of academic integrity can be tested without imposing unnecessary reporting. Review of the comparison should prepare a comparability table before analysing results. Record common elements, material differences, breaks in series and the direction in which each limitation may affect the conclusion; do not rank systems where those limitations remain material. Existing records may be used if reliable and relevant, but data collected for another purpose may not answer the assurance question.","Decision-makers using evidence on the available evidence should be told what the data cannot establish as clearly as what it can. Reporting should state whether a result describes, compares or evaluates, together with the level at which it is valid. The basis for applying the result elsewhere should be established rather than assumed.","Proportionality in relation to the issue does not mean reduced protection for learners exposed to greater risk. the analysis proceeds on the basis that a technical capability is not evidence that a use is educationally justified. Accuracy measured in one setting may not transfer to another population, language, curriculum or decision context. In reviewing the analysis, association should not be presented as causation, and statistical significance should not be treated as evidence of educational importance without further analysis. No exception should continue without a documented basis, accountable approval and scheduled review.","Records relating to the issue should preserve both the conclusion and its limits. A changed evidential position should be applied to the affected scope, including prior decisions that may no longer be reliable. This is material where learners, authorities or institutions relied on information that cannot be corrected by replacing the current text alone.","Accountability for the comparison should follow decision-making authority. Relevant evidence should reach the body authorised to commit resources, amend policy or accept residual risk, and its judgement should be recorded. Operational tasks may be delegated, but accountability for material effects on learners must remain identifiable.","No individual measure is sufficient to establish effective operation of the issue across the affected scope. A conclusion should be revised when stronger evidence materially changes the assessment of implementation, outcome or risk."]}],"word_count":778,"content_hash":"sha256-0085c287d1222e413b9f0965d4fac4d644e9beee49e5de4998a1906df6190ed9","seo_keywords":["academic integrity","international education data research","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"AnalysisNewsArticle"}