Empower Webinar Week

1. 1
Academic Integrity, a matter of trust, not a tick-box exercise.
EADTU, December 15th, 2022
by Henrietta Carbonel

2. 2
Academic integrity => Trust
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/09/aust
rian-minister-resigns-amid-plagiarism-scandal
https://www.politico.eu/article/surgisphere-scandal-shows-perils-of-mixing-big-data-and-scientific-research/

3. 3
Online proctoring, a contested solution.
Issues with online proctoring:
▪ Algorithmic biases (colour, gender, health, family, etc.)
▪ « the means we use contribute qualitatively to the very character of the
goals which they produce » Carr, 1992
▪ Acceptance or critical approach to the surveillance society
▪ ‘On the Efficacy of Online Proctoring using Proctorio,’ Bergmans et al. 2021
“Invigilation, and other measures to prevent
cheating, start from a default position of lack of trust
in students. Their use erodes the potential for
building trusting relationships between students and
staff.” (Ross and Macleod, 2018)

4. 4
Students
Institution
Employers
Government
Accreditation
Agencies
Teachers
Technology
Trust
Trust and assessment,
a multi-layered issue.
• The institution and accreditation
agency that their degree is valuable.
• Their teachers and peers (to interact,
take risks, be open to feedback).
• The technology and processes.
• Works
• Data privacy
• Usage as a student /
researcher
• Students’ own work

5. 5
Work in progress: What could trustworthy remote exams
look like in the (distance) university of the future?
Photo by C Carbonel
Speculative design thinking
approach:
• Open the field of possibles
• Critically discuss the
implications of these
possible futures
• Values based
Ross, J. (2023). Digital futures for learning:
Speculative methods and pedagogies.
Routledge.
Law, J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social
Science Research. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203481141

6. 6

7. 7
Resources
▪ EDUDL+ resources: https://unidistance.ch/en/edudl-resources
▪ Bergmans, L., Bouali, N., Luttikhuis, M., & Rensink, A. (2021). On the Efficacy of Online Proctoring using Proctorio: Proceedings of the 13th International
Conference on Computer Supported Education, 279–290. https://doi.org/10.5220/0010399602790290
▪ Biesta, G. (2007). Why ‘What Works’ Won’t Work: Evidence-Based Practice and the Democratic Deficit in Educational Research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22.
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.is.ed.ac.uk/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2006.00241.x
▪ Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable Assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167.
https://doi.org/10.1080/713695728
▪ Boud, D., & Bearman, M. (2022). The assessment challenge of social and collaborative learning in higher education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2022.2114346
▪ Carless, D., Joughin, G., & Liu, N.-F. (2006). How Assessment Supports Learning: Learning-Oriented Assessment in Action. Hong Kong University Press.
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ed/detail.action?docID=677207
▪ Carr, D. (1992). Practical Enquiry, Values and the Problem of Educational Theory. Oxford Review of Education, 18(3), 241–251.
▪ Fawns, T. (2019). Postdigital Education in Design and Practice. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(1), 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-018-0021-8
▪ Ross, J., & Macleod, H. (2018). Surveillance, (dis)trust and teaching with plagiarism detection technology. Networked Learning, 8.
▪ Rossade, K.-D., Janssen, J., Wood, C., & Ubachs, G. (2022). Designing Online Assessment. Solutions that are Rigorous, Trusted, Flexible and Scalable. Zenodo.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6563226

8. 8
Danke für die Aufmerksamkeit!
Merci pour votre attention !
Thank you for your attention!