Search

A concern that has been raised with the transition from pen and paper examinations to electronic examinations is whether this will make cheating easier. This article investigates how teachers and students perceive the differences in ease of cheating during three types of written examination: paper exams, bring your own device e-exams and e-exams using university-owned devices. It also investigates perceptions about the effectiveness of some typical countermeasures towards cheating across these examination types. A mixed-method approach was used, combining questionnaires and interviews with students and teachers in the authors' own university. A total of 212 students and 162 teachers participated in the questionnaire survey, and then, a more limited number were interviewed to get a deeper understanding of the results. Six-different cheating practices were considered -- impersonation, forbidden aids, peeking, peer collaboration, outside assistance and student-staff collusion and seven different countermeasures were considered -- proctors, biometry, mingling, shuffling, random drawing, sequencing and broadcasting. Both students and teachers perceived cheating as easier with e-exams, and especially with bring your own device. They also thought some countermeasures would be easier to implement with e-exams.

We examine the effects of computer-based versus paper-based assessment of critical thinking skills, adapted from English (in the U.S.) to Chinese. Using data collected based on a random assignment between the two modes in multiple Chinese colleges, we investigate mode effects from multiple perspectives: mean scores, measurement precision, item functioning (i.e. item difficulty and discrimination), response behavior (i.e. test completion and item omission), and user perceptions. Our findings shed light on assessment and item properties that could be the sources of mode effects. At the test level, we find that the computer-based test is more difficult and more speeded than the paper-based test. We speculate that these differences are attributable to the test's structure, its high demands on reading, and test-taking flexibility afforded under the paper testing mode. Item-level evaluation allows us to identify item characteristics that are prone to mode effects, including targeted cognitive skill, response type, and the amount of adaptation between modes. Implications for test design are discussed, and actionable design suggestions are offered with the goal of minimizing mode effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In calibration tasks students assess exemplar texts using criteria against which their own work will be assessed. Typically, these tasks are used in the context of training for peer assessment. Little research has been conducted on the benefits of calibration tasks, such as benchmarking, as learning opportunities in their own right. This paper examines a dataset from a long-running benchmarking task (~500 students per semester, for four semesters). We investigate the relationship of benchmarking performance to other student outcomes, including ability to self-assess accurately. We show that students who complete the benchmarking perform better, that there is a relationship between benchmarking performance and self-assessment performance, and that students appreciate the support for learning that benchmarking tasks provide. We discuss implications for teaching and learning flagging the potential of calibration tasks as an under-explored tool.

Plagiarism is not an issue observed only among students; rather, it also occurs in the publications of researchers in academic journals. The current study explored how Nobel laureates, with the highest possible academic status in the world, engage in text borrowing. A list of 91 laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology and medicine, and economics from 2006 to 2015 were identified and their publications were collected and analysed using Turnitin software. The findings of the current study revealed that Nobel laureates' journal publications outperform those of their counterparts in terms of text borrowing, even though there are still incidences of extensive text borrowing and the lack of appropriate citations observed in their publications. Most of the text borrowing in question consists of self-plagiarism and methods section text, in agreement of earlier research findings. In addition, papers by authors whose affiliated institutions are located in English-speaking countries exhibit fewer incidences of text borrowing than papers by authors whose affiliated institutions are located in non-English-speaking countries, whereas the number of authors does not play a significant role in text borrowing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite its name, the halo effect in student evaluation of teaching (SET) response is not mystical. Halo in SET results from psychological processes that undermine SET validity, particularly for summative evaluation (pay decisions, etc.). These processes span psychological concepts of cognition, motivation and affect. This paper demonstrates that halo signals serious trouble for SET data, contrary to the conclusion in Cannon and Cipriani (2022), to which this article replies. Re-analysis of those authors' findings, conducted for the present paper, reveals both more halo and less validity than Cannon and Cipriani reported. For re-analysis of their factor analysis, a practical, generalizable approach to gauging halo in various settings is proposed. This approach revealed consistently high apparent SET halo across various decades and geographical locations of SET use. For re-analysis of their multiple regression, an approach to deciphering individual variables' effect sizes is provided for designs like Cannon and Cipriani's. Implications discussed for summative use of SETs include issues of veracity of SET confidence intervals. In contrast to summative use, formative use (toward performance improvement) suffers less from halo because non-instructional factor influences are somewhat constant for individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Student feedback can be used to enable institutions to achieve the best possible outcomes for students through informing changes which enhance the quality of teaching and learning. Following the introduction of an online survey platform to gather student feedback at a top-performing UK university, anecdotal concerns raised by academics suggested students were being more critical. This exploratory study investigated the effects of switching from a paper to an online survey by comparing the open-ended responses between the two methods of collection. The main contribution of this study is the development of an analytical framework which can be used by other institutions to evaluate student comments, in order to understand and improve the student experience. Three key findings in this study were uncovered. Firstly, the quality of student feedback is not undermined by a switch to a more efficient online collection. Secondly, student comments via both methods of collection predominantly continue to focus on fulfilling basic needs, such as study resources. Finally, a small number of comments online revealed a lack of behavioural constraint and were considered to be inappropriate. These findings have important policy implications for the global higher education sector, highlighting the need for students to be given guidance on providing constructive feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the UK, all doctoral programmes are expected to include some form of periodic progression assessment, with individual institutions having autonomy to design and implement their own structures. Yet, despite the potential significance of this assessment to individual doctoral journeys, the design of progression assessment processes has previously received very limited attention. This paper reports on a study which investigated doctoral students' experiences of progression assessment at one UK university, where the process involved both written and oral components. Utilising the concept of assessment for learning to support the analysis of narrative interviews with six doctoral students studying in the social sciences and humanities, the paper considers the pedagogic potential of doctoral progression assessment. The findings of the study indicated that the students perceived the dialogic aspects of the assessment to have the most significant potential for supporting learning and understanding, particularly where invitational, reflective, coaching format questions were utilised. The potential of assessment dialogue to present opportunities for reframing and disrupting thinking is explored, as well as the significance of this assessment in supporting autonomy, permission and motivation. The paper advocates careful consideration of both assessment design and practice in relation to these aspects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Within the new feedback paradigm, the concept of student and teacher feedback literacy is gaining more and more attention, with most studies focussing on what it entails and how it can be supported by design. This paper contributes to this, by focussing on what students can do with feedback information. It proposes an instructional model for student feedback processes with the student activities seeking-, making sense of-, using- and responding to feedback information and specific prompts all four activities. Following Vygotsky, the model is built on the premise that effective feedback processes take place in social interaction with a more knowledgeable peer in the Zone of Proximal Development. In doing so, this is the first paper that addresses what students can do to contribute to scaffolded learning from feedback. The instructional model can be used by students to process feedback information and can be used by teachers to scaffold students' feedback processes. So, it is intended to support both student and teacher feedback literacy and their interplay. Future studies need to empirically validate the effectiveness of this instructional model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is growing agreement that feedback should be understood as a contextual and social process, rather than as receipt of teacher comments on students' work. This reframing brings with it new complexities, and it can be challenging for researchers and practitioners to adopt a process perspective when making sense of feedback practices in naturalistic settings. This paper takes the nascent notion of feedback encounter and proposes it as an analytical lens for understanding and analysing feedback processes. Based on a rich dataset from a cross-national digital ethnographic study of student feedback experiences, the paper identifies three categories of feedback encounters - elicited, formal and incidental - and explores how they are experienced by students, in relation to perceived usefulness, control and self-exposure. Furthermore, the paper investigates how individual feedback encounters may interconnect to form simple and complex sequences, revolving around distinct uncertainties or dilemmas. This operationalization of feedback encounters builds the foundations of a framework that can help researchers and practitioners make sense of authentic feedback processes in naturalistic settings. Such a framework is useful because it offers a structured way of analysing processes that are inherently complex and unfolding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses the current research regarding student evaluations of courses and teaching. The article argues that student evaluations are influenced by racist, sexist and homophobic prejudices, and are biased against discipline and subject area. This paper's findings are relevant to policymakers and academics as student evaluations are undertaken in over 16,000 higher education institutions at the end of each teaching period. The article's purpose is to demonstrate to the higher education sector that the data informing student surveys is flawed and prejudiced against those being assessed. Evaluations have been shown to be heavily influenced by student demographics, the teaching academic's culture and identity, and other aspects not associated with course quality or teaching effectiveness. Evaluations also include increasingly abusive comments which are mostly directed towards women and those from marginalised groups, and subsequently make student surveys a growing cause of stress and anxiety for these academics. Yet, student evaluations are used as a measure of performance and play a role in hiring, firing and promotional decisions. Student evaluations are openly prejudiced against the sector's most underrepresented academics and they contribute to further marginalising the same groups universities declare to protect, value and are aiming to increase in their workforces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over four semesters of a large introductory statistics course the authors found students were engaging in contract cheating on Chegg.com during multiple choice examinations. In this paper we describe our methodology for identifying, addressing and eventually eliminating cheating. We successfully identified 23 out of 25 students using a combination of unique academic and digital fingerprints, and identified students who used virtual private networks (VPNs) to protect their online identity. There were two forms of cheating – posting questions and waiting for responses from tutors, and looking for questions that had already been solved. We found that 165 questions from these examinations were posted by 10 different students, but that the most common form of cheating was searching for answers that had already been posted. This paper discusses these patterns of Chegg usage, the consequences of not catching cheating early on, and how students reacted to being caught. Also provided are R and Python code that readers may use to identify cheating students in their own courses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Across the international higher education sector, existing studies highlight that student evaluations of courses and teaching are biased and prejudiced towards academics and can cause mental distress. Yet student evaluation data is often used as part of faculty hiring, firing, promotion, award and grant decisions. That a data source known to be prejudiced and biased is used for employment and career decisions raises questions around whether these university policies are discriminatory towards university staff. This paper investigates these questions via an analysis of: a) what are the common university policies relating to evaluation data collection and its use, b) are these policies leaving academics exposed to discrimination, and c) what types of policies may be leaving universities liable to legal ramifications due to non-compliance with anti-discrimination and workplace health and safety laws? The work demonstrates why most institutions are operating outside the bounds of the law, highlights to academics what types of policies may fail to meet discrimination and workplace laws, and informs university leaders of the actions that may be exposing their universities to legal implications for failing to protect their staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study looks at assessment of PhD theses from two perspectives: criteria in use in assessment reports at a science faculty and norms of science. Fifty assessment reports were analysed inductively, resulting in thirteen categories that examiners consider when assessing a thesis. These categories were compared with norms of science as described in the sociology of science. The study shows a high congruence between the two perspectives, but also new categories worthy of further discussion and research. Relevance of the thesis research and quality by proxy (that publication is an indicator of quality) stand out very clearly in this study compared with earlier assessment research. These two categories are both relatively new categories in assessment research and indicate that the classical norms of science are changing with an increasing influence of post-academic norms in academia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports a series of studies that assessed the performance of students on continuous assessment components from two courses in an undergraduate psychology programme. Data were collected from two consecutive cohorts of students (total N = 576) and the grades of students were compared based on additional learning needs (ALN; ALN versus No ALN), whether or not the students had requested an extension to a deadline, and whether or not students had missed any of the tests that made up the continuous assessment component. Results showed no significant differences in attainment between students with and without ALN, supporting the argument that continuous assessment does not differentially impact students who already require additional support. Students who were granted deadline extensions achieved significantly lower scores, but only on the course with content that built week on week. Students who missed one or more tests achieved significantly lower scores even if the grade was calculated ignoring the questions that a student had not attempted. The implications of these findings for assessment practice in higher education are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Feedback is a dialogic process in which diverse individuals are involved. In internationalised higher education, individuals with different feedback literacies are likely to participate in feedback dialogues and interactions across feedback cultures. Such intercultural interactions can be challenging; some degree of intercultural competence is needed for dialogues between cultures to be effective and appropriate for all involved. This paper brings together feedback and intercultural competence research, exploring whether developing intercultural competence specific to feedback contexts can support more effective dialogues. Narrative interviews and audio diary methods were employed over a 9-month period of time to explore the role of intercultural competence in feedback dialogues across feedback cultures. Changes over time were captured through the longitudinal design of the study. Findings show that knowledge and awareness of diverse feedback practices and cultures, intercultural critical reflection, intercultural emotional management, alongside a set of skills and attitudes towards diversity of feedback practices can impact on facilitating intercultural feedback dialogues. A framework of feedback intercultural competence is proposed, and further research is encouraged to expand upon this exploratory papers' initial contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasingly, student assessments of courses are being conducted online as opposed to administered in class. A growing body of research compares response rates and course ratings of courses evaluated online versus on paper. The present study extends this research by comparing student course assessments before and after the University of South Florida made online evaluations mandatory for all courses. This change only directly affected courses taught on-campus, as online courses were already being assessed online. However, we examine the effect of this change on courses taught on-campus and online, because we expect this change in policy to have differential effects. We hypothesise that by making online assessments mandatory for all courses, online assessments went from a novel method of evaluation to the norm; and, therefore, increased response rates for online courses, but had the opposite effect for on-campus courses. We find mixed support for our hypothesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractThis paper explores institutional leaders’ perceptions of learning and teaching involved in facilitating and assessing Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET) survey instruments across Australian regional universities. It focuses on how they understand the function of SET, strategies used to mitigate bias, and potential residual harm. Through adopting a combination of inductive and deductive research processes and a thematic analysis through the ethical lens of nonmaleficence (first, do no harm), we report that leaders in learning and teaching perceive SET as a form of surveillance and Quality Assurance ‘performance’, recognise inherent biases inhabited in SET reports, and identify how these biases negatively impact academics through a lack of systematic harm mitigation strategies. The paper’s critical – and novel – contributions include an increased understanding of how SET inflicts harm towards women and other marginalised academic groups through systematic and authorised microaggressions and how SET contravenes universities’ duty of care to employees. It recommends an expansion of the principle of nonmaleficence beyond potential harm to research subjects, including those who undertake research or evaluation (such as academics), particularly if these impact them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For over 30 years, the notion of authentic assessment in higher education has been adopted in academic practice, but it has managed to escape substantial critique. Although there have been multiple definitions and operationalisations of authentic assessment, current practice tends to foreground mimicking of work tasks. Authenticity cannot be completely unmoored from the reality of workplaces, the demands of the discipline, and the overall intended learning outcomes, however, a restricted view of how these aspects are represented in assessment can limit the sector's ability to prepare graduates who can engage with and shape the changing world. This paper elaborates the multiple challenges that some conceptualisations of authentic assessment contribute to assessment planning, recognising that assessment design always requires compromise. Three theoretical perspectives on authenticity are introduced to open new possibilities for authenticity in assessment. These are (1) psychological authenticity; (2) ontological fidelity; and (3) practice theory perspectives. The final section discusses how learning design might offer a means to operationalise theory. The paper concludes by suggesting that authenticity in assessment continues to hold value for the sector beyond its current uses through stronger theoretical conceptualisation and operationalisation of authenticity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The student evaluation of teaching (SET) in higher education has become an increasingly complex and subjectively contested area. From a singular purpose in seeking information to improve teaching in the 1920s, evaluation has now expanded to encompass administrative and regulatory purposes. Currently, evaluation impacts on personal and institutional reputation and is frequently used as a benchmark in determining and shaping individual academic careers. The value and purpose of evaluation is open to ongoing debate, as is the notion of transparency regarding who should have access to evaluation data (quantitative scores and/or free text comments). This paper presents the outcome of a situational mapping we conducted to better understand student evaluations of teaching in Australian higher education. We identified the component actors, actants and elements of the setting and derived a list of the discursive constructions which drive the relationships between them. To test the efficacy of our mapping in terms of isolating situations within the broader setting, we describe three hypothetical case studies: making student evaluations public, closing the loop and academic surveillance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main objective of this research was to review the characteristics of portfolios and their outcomes for teaching professionalism to undergraduate medical students. A systematic review on the use of portfolios in teaching professionalism to medical students identified 1257 papers. Of these, 11 articles met all inclusion criteria. According to the papers, the use of portfolios for teaching professionalism shows versatility, supports learning strategies and has the potential to be used in different contexts, including for formative and summative purposes. The weaknesses were based on the artificiality of the reflections, deficient instructions, time-consuming processes and preference among students for other teaching methods. Students complained about feeling that the reflection was ‘forced’, and they tended to write based on social conventions rather than reveal their true thoughts. Reflection is a powerful component of the portfolio, but the method by which it is taught could easily ruin its potential to boost professionalism. Requiring reflection did not ensure its achievement; increased understanding by students regarding how and why they were doing it, the clarity of assessment methods and constructive feedback might strengthen the potential for success. A framework was designed to support faculty members in developing and applying portfolios with a clear and broad view of this teaching strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Contract cheating providers exist as businesses with a single shared intention, to profit on a student's inability to fulfil academic requirements for themselves. For contract cheating providers to make money, the correct market conditions are required. First, providers need to be able to offer the expertise that students request. Second, students need to be financially able to pay for specialist support across a diverse range of different areas. If students are unable to meet the price or require expertise that providers do not offer, the transaction is not going to be completed. Therefore, an examination of the demand-side of the contract cheating process in terms of subject matter expertise and the price of offers is important. The research presented in this paper is based on the analysis of 1579 Twitter messages (tweets) that contract cheating providers engaged with. The study aims to examine price variation and the type of assignments students seek to outsource. For typical requests such as essay writing, students are shown to be willing to pay $33.32 per 1000 words. Some services carry a premium, particularly where a student wishes to hire an impersonator to take an examination for them. The student demand for paid help is seen to be highest in the mathematics field, suggesting that students feel under-equipped and under-supported in this area. The paper concludes by discussing further implications of this research and strategies for the minimisation of contract cheating. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Feedback is a term used so frequently that it is commonly taken that there is a shared view about what it means. However, in recent years, the notion of feedback as simply the provision of information to students about their work has been substantially challenged and learning-centred views have been articulated. This paper employs a corpus linguistics approach to analyse the use of the term 'feedback' in research articles published in key higher education journals on the topic over two five-year periods: 2009–2013 and 2015–2019. Analysis focused on the most common noun modifiers of 'feedback' and nouns modified by 'feedback', verbs with 'feedback' as the object, possessors of 'feedback', and prepositions representing an action or concept on or with 'feedback'. Whilst the analysis demonstrated that transmission-focused conceptions dominate publications on feedback, linguistic signifiers of a shift over time in representation of feedback away from a transmission-focus towards a learning-focus were evident within each grammatical relation category. The data indicate that the term 'feedback' is used by different authors to refer to very different representations of the concept, and the paper proposes that greater clarity in the representation of feedback is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the role of formative feedback in teaching academic writing for a large class of first-year business students. The paper contributes to our knowledge on how to design an effective formative feedback process for a class in excess of 300 students. Based on survey data from 2018 the paper addresses how the students respond to being taught academic writing in two different feedback modalities: face-to-face interaction and electronic annotations. Our findings indicate that there are no significant differences between the two modalities and that the students are relatively satisfied with the feedback they received. The majority of the students report that feedback has helped them accomplish their learning goals, they pay attention to feedback, and feedback motivates them in their studies. Even with these positive responses from the students, we question whether our approach is sustainable in the long run. Unless smarter and more efficient ways of providing personalised feedback are developed for large student groups, the transition to the new paradigm for feedback, where the emphasis is placed on dialogic interaction, will not be practicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assessors' perspectives on their evaluative practices remain relatively under-researched. Given evidence that higher education assessment and feedback continue to be problematic, this paper proposes a specific methodological innovation with potential to contribute both to research and practice in this area. It explores the potential of a micro-analysis of textual engagement, nested within an ethnographic approach, to defamiliarize the often taken-for-granted practice of marking. The study on which the paper is based used screen capture combined with audio-recorded, concurrent talk-around-text to throw light on the processes, strategies and perspectives of eight teachers within one university as they assessed undergraduates' work. This close-up focus was nested within broader ethnographic data generation incorporating interviews, marked assignments and other assessment-related texts. The paper presents selected 'moments of engagement' to show how this methodology can offer a renewed understanding of evaluative literacies as complex, 'messy' and shot through with influences invisible in the final assessed text but which may nevertheless be highly consequential. The paper concludes by reflecting on the potential for this type of data and analysis to contribute to assessor development and inform debate about the future of higher education assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Teachers' feedback literacy is a focus of increasing attention in higher education. It may be framed through intentional design decisions, inter-relational aspects of engagement and pragmatic considerations of enacted curricula. Thus, teachers' feedback literacy is connected to both the enacted curriculum and students' relationship to feedback. How these connections take shape in particular approaches to the curriculum, affecting students' roles in feedback and evaluation is not as well-understood. This paper presents findings from an intervention aimed at developing students' peer feedback and self-evaluation skills in an undergraduate business course. Peer feedback and self-evaluation are increasingly common modes of engaging students as active participants in feedback and evaluation processes. It is therefore worthwhile to understand the ways in which these processes affect and link teacher and student feedback literacy. Data was analysed from a 14-week course aimed at developing students' competencies in self-evaluation, peer feedback and teamwork. Results are presented and discussed according to three major areas: how teacher's feedback on student engagement with feedback served as affective 'meta' scaffolding, the trajectory of students' growth in feedback literate self-evaluation, and the relationship of feedback literacy to trajectory of growth in teamwork competencies. The paper concludes with suggestions for further, crossdisciplinarity research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

If feedback is to be conducted effectively, then there needs to be clarity about what is involved and what is necessary for teachers to be able to undertake it well. While much attention has recently been devoted to student feedback literacy, less has been given to what is required of teaching staff in their various roles in feedback processes. This paper seeks to elucidate teacher feedback literacy through an analysis of the accounts of those who do feedback well. An inductive analysis was undertaken of conversations about feedback with 62 university teachers from five Australian universities using a dataset of transcripts of interviews and focus groups from two earlier research studies. Through an iterative process a teacher feedback literacy competency framework was developed which represents the competencies required of university teachers able to design and enact effective feedback processes. The paper discusses the different competencies required of those with different levels of responsibility, from overall course design to commenting on students' work. It concludes by considering implications for the professional development of university teachers in the area of feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports on an interdisciplinary pedagogical research project involving academic literacy experts and lecturers at a School of Nursing. Specifically, the paper focusses on the development of a data-driven analytical rubric to teach and assess critical reflections in year-one nursing. The purpose of the project was to support the teaching and evaluating of critical reflections of nursing students after their initial clinical placement. Rather than focusing on inter-rater reliability or on pedagogical uses of rubrics, this paper is concerned with the ways the criteria that constitute these rubrics were devised. The data involved 200 student assignments, the existing marking criteria and two focus groups with the nursing lecturers. We analysed the data using aspects of a linguistic theory, systemic functional linguistics, and elements of a sociological framework, Legitimation Code Theory, to understand what constitutes 'deep reflection' in clinical nursing practice. Our findings led to a revised analytical rubric which makes visible what is highly valued in nursing reflection tasks. We conclude with a data-driven analytical rubric design framework which involves the analysis of student assignments at various levels of achievement to reveal academic literacy and knowledge practices requirements of reflection tasks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the study was to examine the effects of rubric co-creation on peer feedback. From a social constructivist perspective, rubric co-creation might have the ability to promote the quality of feedback messages, interactivities within feedback processes, and uptake of feedback information in a peer-based collaborative setting of higher education. Two groups of English Language Studies majors (N = 57) from a Chinese university were recruited. In a writing class enacting peer feedback, the experimental group participated in the co-creation of rubrics whereas the control group accepted and used the co-created rubrics. Results showed that rubric co-creation had significantly positive effects on students' use of criteria and the production of meaningful feedback messages instead of feedback writing styles. Regarding interaction patterns, the experimental group established active and bi-directional dialogic communication between peer learners. For uptake of feedback, the experimental group made significantly more critical application of feedback messages compared to the control group. The paper has implications for the enactment of rubric co-creation in peer-based learning and the promotion of learner agency in dialogic feedback interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the integrity of academic work has always been vitally important, since the establishment of the International Center for Academic Integrity in 1992 increasing attention has been paid to the area. The term academic integrity now explicitly appears in policy and in job titles or offices tasked with either detection, training, or both. Equally, regulatory, quality and standards agencies, such as Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI), the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) in the UK, and the Australian Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) have mobilised around academic integrity with frameworks, lexicons, charters and networks that offer national guidance and promote shared action and understanding. However, despite efforts to interrogate and standardise the use of the term 'academic integrity' from those working and researching in the field, it is often used inconsistently and frequently conflated with its opposite – academic misconduct – in practice. Our aim, in this paper, is to acknowledge a lack of clarity around the term 'academic integrity' and to address this ambiguity by offering a taxonomy of academic integrity. We will arrive at the taxonomy of academic integrity through philosophical conceptual analysis and making use of pre-existing philosophical work in virtue (and vice) epistemology. The outcome of this analysis will be a taxonomy of academic integrity that represents the various concepts related to it in an organised way, classified into distinct groups, along with a graphic to aid understanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introducing undergraduates to the peer-review process helps them understand how scientific evidence is evaluated and communicated. In a large biology course, technical writing was taught through mock peer-review. Students learned to critique original research through a multistep framework, calibrating their assessment skills with class standards. We hypothesized students' assessment of their own and their peers' writing becomes more accurate as they gain academic experience, and that novice students are more overconfident in their writing abilities. Counter to many instructors' assumptions, our results indicated that regardless of level of academic experience, students' self-assessed grades were higher than peer-assessed grades (p < 0.01). Both self- and peer-assessed grades were significantly higher than the instructor's grade (p < 0.01). Overall, the peer-review exercise was positively viewed by students. Most students found the peer-review process beneficial, and 88% reported taking it seriously, despite knowing they would receive instructor's feedback at the final stage of the writing exercise. Ultimately, the peer-review process provides an effective way to teach technical writing to undergraduates, but instructors should not assume that returning students with greater academic experience are better judges of their own performance. This study illustrates that all students are equally challenged to accurately assess the quality of their own work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A series of studies have found gender bias in student evaluations of teaching. Evidence from several observational studies show that women are evaluated lower than men. These findings are supported by experimental studies aimed at isolating the effect of a possible gender bias from other differences between male and female teachers. In this paper, we conduct two experiments in Denmark to test whether a similar gender bias is present in a national context that is generally considered among the most gender equal. Study one investigates differences in the evaluation of two similar presentations by teachers reported to be either male or female. Study two focuses on the evaluation of teaching material prepared by teachers presented as men and women respectively. The two studies arrive at similar conclusions: There is no gender bias in favor of men in the evaluations made by students. The paper discusses the implications of these findings. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2048355. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In contemporary feedback research, effective feedback does not depend on merely the characteristics of feedback but also on learners' ability to understand, manage and use the information. Known as feedback literacy, it refers to learners' social cognitive capacity, affective capacity and disposition prior to substantial engagement with feedback. In addition, feedback literacy is said to be developed in social learning settings. Despite the importance of the learner feedback literacy construct, little is known about its quantitative conceptualization or the specific psychological variables underpinning it. The purpose of this paper is to propose and validate a bifactor model of learner feedback literacy consisting of (1) conceptions of feedback, (2) feedback trust and (3) self-efficacy. Drawing from data on 923 learners from a polytechnic in Singapore that practices the social constructivist learning approach, results from Rasch and bifactor modelling analyses revealed that the learner feedback literacy model is psychometrically sound and robust with the potential to be developed further. Limitations and future research directions in the use of this model are discussed in the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The analysis of exemplars of different quality is a potentially powerful tool in enabling students to understand assessment expectations and appreciate academic standards. Through a systematic review methodology, this paper synthesises exemplar-based research designs, exemplar implementation and the educational effects of exemplars. The review of 40 empirical exemplar-based studies indicated frequent use of post-intervention evaluation designs. The integrated use of exemplars and strategies such as rubrics, peer or self-assessment was a major pedagogic feature to enhance students' understanding of standards and aid their generation of internal feedback for self-monitoring. There was evidence suggesting that the combined use of exemplars with these strategies could advance students' academic performance and development of self-regulated learning. The review results set future directions for exemplar-based studies: quantitative research would benefit from controlled manipulation of variables to disentangle the effects of exemplars and those of other strategies; qualitative research could profitably use self-reflective diaries, think aloud protocols or classroom observations to develop deeper understandings of exemplar implementation. The key pedagogical implication recommends students' production of an assignment draft prior to exposure to exemplars so that they can compare their own work with exemplars and then make improvements independently of teachers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the advances of technologies, possessing digital and information literacy is crucial for the selection of candidates by employers in this digital AI era. For most students, receiving and outputting electronic text has become the norm, and thus examinations with writing components done by hand may not accurately reflect their abilities. It seems that such traditional handwritten examinations are incongruous when assignments are now expected to be in typed formats, so the question is should it become part of the university assessment policy to make it compulsory for students to type their examinations? To better assist higher education institutions in planning for long-term, future-oriented assessment policies, this study provides a systematic review of the literature focusing on typed and handwritten examinations. A classification scheme of the unambiguous advantages and disadvantages, ambivalent factors, and impacts and perceptions for different stakeholders, is developed based on the findings to provide a thorough and concrete foundation for stakeholders to act upon and navigate the complexities of transitioning to typed examinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are a ubiquitous feature of higher education. However, scholars have presented numerous challenges to the accuracy, validity, reliability and objectivity of SETs as a measure of teaching effectiveness. Given the potential for bias, the use of SETs in professional review may constitute a form of institutional discrimination. Therefore, institutions of higher learning need to develop, adopt and refine better methods for collecting and using student feedback. This paper describes the steps taken by a mid-sized comprehensive university in the USA over a three-year period to do that. We describe the work of our committee dealing with this issue, how we collaborated with the rest of the university to enact change, and the Learning Environment Survey (LENS) system that the university eventually selected and modified. We also report findings from a pilot study of the new instrument, which was favorably received by both students and faculty, and make recommendations for other institutions of higher education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A source of contestation in higher education curricula is the multiplicity of demands they serve and purposes they seek to fulfil. In this paper, we see this contestation as actively shaping assessment theory and practice, resulting in paradoxes of valorisation and vilification of everyday assessment practices. We address the plethora of contestations in higher education assessment through the disruption of dichotomies in assessment discourse by re-querying assessment autonomy, logic and the basis of success. To this end, we apply Legitimation Code Theory to construct a new holistic framework for assessment inquiry, contributing to both extant and developing assessment theory by proposing a single sociological framework to analyse assessment practice cross-discipline, institution and geographical boundaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, academic and practitioner attention to improving attainment as a result of feedback, as well as satisfaction with it, has led to a conceptualisation of feedback that considers learners' active role in making feedback processes effective. This has led to interest in 'feedback literacy' or what learners need for productive feedback use. Engagement in peer feedback practices is believed to enhance some aspects of feedback literacy, namely, the ability to make evaluative judgements about work quality. However, based on evidence from a qualitative study with 14 undergraduates at a South Korean university, this paper argues that technology-mediated peer feedback practices can also support learners in navigating processes involved in feedback uptake. Results indicate that online feedback dialogues helped learners better understand and co-develop actionable feedback points and process some of the socio-affective and relational aspects of feedback engagement. The technology could also mediate multiple, recursive task-oriented discussions over space and time in emergent collaborative learning spaces. The results provide evidence for a new understanding of technology-mediated dialogic peer feedback as an online community practice and have implications for practitioners working in online and blended conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractGiven its prominence in maximising feedback processes, feedback literacy has received large scholarly attention over the past decade. This article aims to use a bibliometric approach to provide an overview of the evolution of feedback literacy from 2012 to May 1, 2024. Based on 240 documents retrieved from Scopus, a performance analysis and science mapping were conducted to explore research trends and impacts in feedback literacy. The performance analysis identifying volume, key authors, principal journals, and leading institutions reveals the research impacts in the feedback literacy landscape. The science mapping adopted the bibliometric software, VOSviewer, to analyse keyword co-occurrences and co-citations and visualised research trends in feedback literacy. Findings reveal two key authors, David Carless and David Boud, a top principal journal, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, and two leading institutions, the University of Hong Kong and Deakin University leading the feedback literacy field. It also reveals important themes in feedback literacy research: student and teacher feedback literacy, peer feedback and assessment, ecological perspectives, development and validation of feedback literacy scales, and L2 writing. This paper sheds light on the current state of feedback literacy research and provides insights and trajectories for different stakeholders in the education sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractAuthentic assessment is often positioned as an educational panacea, invoked in response to a broad range of complex problems. This paper considers authentic assessment in relation to three key challenges: preparing graduates for the future, cheating, and inclusion. Despite literature supporting its potential benefits, there is limited evidence on the relationship between authentic assessment and these challenges. Through an uncritical blending of authenticity with broader educational goals, the label ‘authentic assessment’ risks becoming a distraction or a thought-terminating cliché, impeding deeper conversation and interrogation. We argue that authenticity should be considered as a set of aspirational principles within a broader pedagogical framework. Authenticity in assessment requires thoughtful and contextualised design, and the negotiation of trade-offs with other educational goals. The concept of authenticity, if used judiciously, can foster critical conversations and meaningful interrogation of educational practices, rather than serving as an oversimplified solution to complex problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly increased capacity for producing textual, visual and auditory outputs, yet there are ongoing concerns regarding the quality of those outputs. There is an urgent need to develop students' evaluative judgement – the capability to judge the quality of work of self and others – in recognition of this new reality. In this conceptual paper, we describe the intersection between evaluative judgement and generative AI with a view to articulating how assessment practices can help students learn to work productively with generative AI. We propose three foci: (1) developing evaluative judgement of generative AI outputs; (2) developing evaluative judgement of generative AI processes; and (3) generative AI assessment of student evaluative judgements. We argue for developing students' capabilities to identify and calibrate quality of work – uniquely human capabilities at a time of technological acceleration – through existing formative assessment strategies. These approaches circumvent and interrupt students' uncritical usage of generative AI. The relationship between evaluative judgement and generative AI is more than just the application of human judgement to machine outputs. We have a collective responsibility, as educators and learners, to ensure that humans do not relinquish their roles as arbiters of quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While feedback literate teachers play critical roles in enhancing feedback efficacy and students' learning, there is a paucity of studies on writing teacher feedback literacy. To address this issue, this study draws from the notion of teacher feedback literacy to explore two second language (L2) writing teachers' feedback practices in the context of L2 writing for doctoral publishing at a Chinese research-intensive university. The analysis of the interviews, classroom observations and such textual data as the participants' profile sheets and course materials informs the development of a contextualised, two-dimension framework of teacher feedback literacy, encompassing feedback design and process management. The first dimension features an integrated, purposeful and enabling design of feedback practices that aligns with the design of curriculum and teaching, and addresses specific pedagogical goals and practical constraints arising from the teaching context. The second dimension involves meticulous management of feedback process to ensure effective feedback enactment in teaching, contributing to developing student feedback literacy. This dimension underscores students' skills development, as well as internal and external feedback interactions characterised by varying patterns of student feedback engagement. The paper concludes with implications for L2 writing feedback research and practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evaluative judgement is the ability to understand what constitutes the quality of a performance or product and to apply this understanding in the evaluation of one's own or another's task. It is, therefore, a key element in the development of learning to learn competences linked to professionalism. Experiences that explicitly encourage it in university studies are therefore essential. Peer feedback strategies could be one way of developing it. This paper presents the results of an intervention, based on a didactic sequence that included a peer assessment process, carried out in three courses with an iterative task of two feedback loops. A total of 1173 comments from 114 students were collected and analysed under a triple categorisation. A classification of peer comments is presented, which can be used and transferred to other work aiming at a similar analysis. From the first loop to the second, a higher percentage of comments classified as positive corrective feedback is observed, and an improvement in the quality of comments in all courses. In addition, the quality of comments differs greatly according to the type of assessment criteria. These results are discussed, outlining strategies for future designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Student evaluation of teaching (SET) involves numerous conceptual and methodological problems. This paper focuses on a specific methodological dilemma: whether to conduct SET surveys before or after the final examination. This decision is a critical administrative and practical issue that can affect the level and quality of SET results. To address this problem, a systematic literature search was initially performed. However, it found only 17 studies and inconclusive results. In the empirical component, a replication survey (n = 5,077) was conducted. It posed seven course-related questions to the same students before and after their final examination. A slightly higher but statistically significant (p < 0.001) average score was obtained in the after-examination survey (a 0.06 difference on a 1–5 scale). This increase was partly attributed to a positive examination experience. The overall test–retest correlation (r = 0.61) indicated relatively low reliability, suggesting that the before-examination survey better reflected students' attitudes. The data quality was also higher in the before-examination survey, although the before-examination survey could not properly assess the examination-related aspects of the course. From a methodological perspective, the most comprehensive insight seems to be derived from conducting SET surveys before the examination and following up with a brief after-examination survey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To progress with their learning, students need to be able to make judgements about the quality of their own work and the work of others. This capability is known as evaluative judgement. The importance of evaluative judgement is well-established, but environments in which learners practice this capability remain unknown. This paper explores whether learners practice evaluative judgement within qualitative self-assessment. We conducted a thematic analysis of students' qualitative self-assessments from years one, three and four of construction management and building surveying courses and analysed approximately 430 pages of text. Our analysis indicated that learners often practised evaluative judgement during qualitative self-assessment even when such pedagogical activity was not specifically designed for this purpose. While constructing their professional knowledge, learners made evaluations of the quality of work, their own and the work of others. Based on our findings, we recommend that qualitative self-assessment is embedded within curricula to enable learners to practice evaluative judgement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Distance education has increased steadily since the onset of Covid-19. As online offerings become a staple in programs of study, rather than the exception, it is important to consider how instructors design their courses to incorporate feedback as well as how they promote active student involvement in feedback processes. In this paper, the authors revisit a feedback model proposed for the online environment, which includes intentional strategies to alleviate potential pitfalls in the feedback cycle, first by conducting a citation analysis of how the model was interpreted and applied by others in their practice and scholarship, and then by describing how they adjusted the model for further inquiry with fully online graduate students. Finally, the authors detail how their model aligns to the four features of the feedback literacy framework. Findings discuss the importance of formative assessments within online coursework to provide space for the application of feedback as well as strategies for creating individualized dialogue with students around their feedback and learning. The findings warrant additional research regarding how the model may provide a structured approach to developing students' feedback literacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PhD candidates, like all students, learn through engaging with feedback. However, there is limited understanding of how feedback strategies support doctoral candidates. This qualitative framework synthesis of 86 papers analysed rich qualitative data about feedback within PhD supervision. Our synthesis, informed by sociomateriality and a dialogic, sense-making view of feedback, underscores the critical role that feedback plays in doctoral supervision. Supervisors, through their engagement or disengagement with feedback, controlled candidates' access to tacit and explicit standards. The ephemeral and generative nature of verbal feedback dialogues contrasted with concrete textual comments. While many supervisors aimed for candidates to become less reliant on feedback over time, this did not necessarily translate to practice. Our findings suggest that balancing power dynamics might be achieved through focussing on feedback materials and practices rather than supervisor-candidate relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Covid-19 pandemic has not only brought about sociocultural, psychological and economic challenges, but also educational problems that have entailed radical policy changes to allow universities and colleges to fulfil their role. Before the pandemic, the majority of university courses were designed for face-to-face settings; but under the social distancing policies since Covid-19, institutions have had to react quickly, revising their teaching and assessment policies to ensure that education continues for all students and accommodate the new remote reality of education. This paper provides a review of the changes in educational assessment and grading policies of universities around the world in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, where five key themes were identified: covid-19 binary grading system, revised regulations governing the final degree award, relaxed academic progression policies, revised extension, deferral and exceptional circumstances policies, and mark adjustments. This review will serve as a useful summary for institutions to reflect upon and inform planning strategies for subsequent unexpected future events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Student evaluation of teaching (SET) has become a ubiquitous feature of higher education. The attainment and maintenance of positive SET is essential for most teaching staff to obtain and maintain tenure. It is not uncommon for teachers to receive offensive and non-constructive commentary unrelated to teaching quality. Regular exposure to SET contributes to stress and adversely impacts mental health and well-being. We surveyed Australian teaching academics in 2021, and in this paper, we explore the perceived impacts of SET on the teaching and learning experience, academic standards and quality. Many respondents perceived that SET contributes to an erosion of standards and inflation of grades. A thematic analysis of open-ended questions revealed potential mechanisms for these impacts. These include enabling a culture of incivility, elevating stress and anxiety in teaching staff, and pressure to change approaches to teaching and assessment to achieve the highest scores. Playing the SET game involves balancing a commitment to quality and standards with concessions to ensure optimal student satisfaction. Anonymous SET is overvalued, erodes standards and contributes to incivility. The process of SET needs urgent reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Research Excellence Framework is a high-stakes exercise used by the UK government to allocate billions of pounds of quality-related research (QR) funding and used by the media to rank universities and their departments in national league tables. The 2008, 2014 and 2021 assessments were zero-sum games in terms of league table position because the outcomes were captured as Grade Point Averages (GPA) on a ratio scale, unlike the 1996 and 2001 iterations when departments were ranked on a simple seven-point ordinal scale. Although league tables were never part of the assessment itself, they were inevitable in 2008, 2014 and 2021 given the nature of the scoring, and subsequent league table position had a significant effect on investment and disinvestment within universities. This paper uses data from the 2008, 2014 and 2021 assessments to look at the changing competitiveness of different subjects, the size of submissions, and how these are related to QR funding. It finds that competition in the UK research sector is exceptionally tough, but that competitiveness and QR funding are so closely related to submission size that it calls into question the benefit of carrying out any more assessment exercises in their current format. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Student agency is often mentioned as a key feature of feedback practices. Commonly, the concept of agency is used to refer to students' active role in the process of seeking, receiving, generating and acting upon feedback information. However, the notion of what student agency means is often taken for granted and rarely elaborated. The feedback literature has also mainly focussed on agency within individualised and psychological paradigms of feedback. In this paper we argue that a more sophisticated view of students' role in feedback processes is needed. We identify four theoretical frameworks of student agency that reach beyond the individual – ecological, authorial, sociomaterial and discursive – as well as the implications of each of these frameworks for feedback. We further argue that a deeper understanding of student agency as a socio-cultural and -political construct is vital in the 'new paradigm' of learner-centred feedback. The paper serves as a basis for future empirical studies on feedback practices to adopt a more nuanced understanding of student agency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]