On 10th September 2001, Major Charles Ingram took part in what became a much-scrutinised episode of ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire’ on the UK’s ITV network. A surprisingly unsophisticated process of colluding with audience members through well-timed coughs allowed the contestant, Ingram, to validate his answers before committing. Although he never actually received the £1m prize, it highlights the lengths that some people will go to!
Now imagine how that episode may have played out if the host was ‘in on it’. Or if the contestant had access to the answers before the show. What if he’d been able to exploit some kind of technology, such as an in-ear device or a miniaturised screen in his glasses? With no way to spot these things, perhaps he would have gotten away with it after all.
In the world of high-stakes assessment, the landscape has changed dramatically over the past couple of decades. The days of school students writing the answers up their arm or hiding cheat sheets in their sock are disappearing fast! As the nature of test delivery becomes more sophisticated through digital transformation, so too do the ways of trying to cheat the system.
When we think about what constitutes the basis for integrity in assessed content, there are a few things to consider. I like to use the following as a bit of a guide:
And of course, those three foci raise questions about the overall Admissibility of the content being assessed. If there’s doubt about the ‘safety’ of the content in terms of its validity, originality, and attribution, then of course the legitimacy of the award is called into question.
Any activity that involves trying to get around measures designed to protect the integrity of an assessment can be seen as malpractice. Such activities are likely to fall into a number of categories.
The use of other’s work may or may not be with their consent, but it is likely to fall under the category of plagiarism or collusion. It’s almost a philosophical consideration when discussing the use of generative AI content. Is it plagiarism if it’s original? Is it really original? Is the AI like a person, thereby making it collusion? I suspect these are questions for another day! But make no mistake, depending on the nature of the assessment, these likely constitute malpractice.
It’s difficult to determine exactly how widespread malpractice is in the digital assessment space. From talking to assessment providers across a range of sectors, we know that protecting the integrity of both qualification and brand represents one of the most significant strategic challenges, and, of course, we’ve seen evidence of candidates attempting to work around malpractice countermeasures, typically through collusion. When it comes to assessment malpractice, it might be that the more we look, the more we find.
So, the question for educational establishments and awarding bodies isn’t “is malpractice a problem?” but rather two new questions:
We’re working on several fronts when it comes to identifying instances of potential malpractice in digital assessment.
If you’re part of a school, college, or university, or if you’re part of creating, administering, and assessing qualifications within an awarding body, we’d love to hear about your experiences and how you address them today.
Email us: digitalassessment@rm.com