Integrity is the concept of being honorable, reliable, trustworthy. Anyone displaying integrity is a person you can trust without question. Why then, when we apply integrity to examination, don’t examinees have the same automatic positive feeling?
It’s common for examinees to view exam integrity processes as rigid and unforgiving. Instead of evoking positive feelings, these processes often conjure a sense of dread for examinees. I myself received a letter from a former student stating that they thought of me as the “bearer of bad news,” as I was responsible for all things assessment, including maintaining exam integrity. I am not alone; I know many exam administrators have felt that students view them as the necessary antagonist, at best, versus a helpful ally.
Why is it that exam integrity signals a divide between those giving the exam and those taking the exam? Educators find it necessary to promote proctoring and oversight because they fear otherwise examinees would always cheat. Research from the International Center for Assessment Integrity (ICAI) supports this notion, with over 60 percent of students surveyed admitting to cheating in some form. Even with that alarming stat, educators cannot take for granted that some examinees may feel demeaned because the message they receive is that they cannot be trusted, and proctoring measures are simply a means of showing power and authority.
The focus on the negative connotations of exam integrity have robbed us of the principle that both sides want the same thing — a fair and reliable exam experience. The view we must change is the misperception surrounding exam integrity, replacing a mentality of policing with one of promotion. That is, the promotion of equal opportunity and trustworthy assessment of knowledge.
Why is Exam Integrity Important?
Exam integrity is crucial to having results that you can trust to truly reflect student knowledge and curricular outcomes. If you have this accurate reflection, any data and analytics derived from exams in the form of categorical or item analysis can assist with student remediation — giving a pinpointed and detailed overview of strengths and areas needing improvement. Any exam that doesn’t have integrity doesn’t have the downstream advantage of knowing exactly where students stand academically, and it can’t provide the meaningful statistics that show your curriculum is teaching adequately. For many universities, this means proving compliance to their accreditors. If you have data with integrity, it is accepted as a valid indicator of your institution’s academic reputation.
Many students take pride in the reputation of their university and by extension, their education. To connect reputability to exam integrity, we have to consider student views on examination. The key selling point for students is as such: Exam integrity promotes equity. Proctoring and oversight in exam administration should be designed to encourage students to complete exams in a manner that reflects their individual knowledge, not the knowledge of their peers or the collective mind of the internet. Knowing that the exam is designed around this principle of equity, students can focus on applying their own knowledge instead of worrying if their peers have a competitive advantage over them.
The Value of Communication
To challenge the mindset that exam integrity is a barrier to success, educators must be better communicators in explaining the why — and how — behind exam integrity policies. When presenting security measures, whether through a secure testing software, proctoring solution, or exam-day policy, it is imperative to present these items as assistive rather than punitive. Instead of saying that a new process or rule is being put into place to prevent their cheating, emphasize that the new direction is there to protect the integrity of the exam itself and provide everyone with the same opportunity. When exam results are reliable — that is, when exams are an accurate measure of student learning — students can take pride in the quality of their education.
Involving students in the conversation about exam integrity promotes their receptivity to new protocols. Student council representation in curricular meetings is one approach to establish a direct line of communication, allowing students to gauge their understanding and reason through the process. Student representatives can explain their concerns to administrators and identify any unintended consequences. For example, banning all beverages in a computer lab may have the good intention of preventing spills, and therefore distraction. However, for longer exams, refreshments can improve student concentration. The resolution could be to only permit closed beverage containers in the computer lab. The original intent on spill/distraction prevention is maintained, while still allowing students to have refreshments for a more comfortable exam session. By talking through the implications with students, the resulting solution is fair and agreeable to both parties.
Communication builds a community in which students and administrators can function effectively and with mutual understanding. Students are more engaged with their education when they feel in community with faculty and administrators, and it endows students with an appropriate level of influence to promote integrity amongst themselves, as well. In other words, knowing that their exams are held to a high level of integrity promotes a high level of trust, vertically and horizontally. Educators play a key role in this community as well, in maintaining consistent integrity measures. If the same rules are not applied evenly to different exams or students, you risk compromising students’ trust.
Be the Ally
Treating students as professionals should be the foremost goal of any faculty or administration. Practicing this principle, however, requires effective and intentional communication. It is possible for educators to serve as an ally to students while also enforcing academic integrity protocols. This alliance comes with the goal of providing the fair and reputable education students expect and an education the curriculum is designed to deliver. Using meaningful communication techniques to help students understand that integrity measures are in place to benefit them, collaborating with students to gain their perspectives on policies, and ultimately providing them with detailed feedback from exams that assess their actual knowledge will yield a community of learning — which brings me back to my letter from a former student.
While the student who addressed the letter wrote that they had originally thought of me as a “bearer of bad news,” they recognized that I had also “…made the difficulty of [their] journey a little easier.” That idea alone, making the academic journey a little easier, is a goal that every educator strives to achieve — forming a solid community and demonstrating that, even with the charge to enforce exam integrity, student satisfaction and success is central to the educator’s mission. A foundation built upon an alliance with students is stronger than one built solely upon authority from educators.
Kevin Stringfellow is the Associate Director of Client Solutions at ExamSoft. He has over 10 years of combined experience in higher education and EdTech incorporating the use of assessment technologies for learning. His experience includes supporting assessments and their processes as the Program Manager for Evaluation and Assessment at The Ohio State University College of Medicine. He is passionate about using technologies to better the education process and leverage data to inform and direct.
- 5 of higher education’s biggest trends - December 26, 2024
- 5 ways to prepare students for a future with AI - December 24, 2024
- Information literacy is critical in the digital AI age - December 17, 2024