Integrity and Motivation in Remote Assessment
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v29i2.4309Keywords:
remote assessment, online assessment, speculative methods, academic intergrity, plagiarism, motivation, self-determination theory, chatgpt, sdt, autonomyAbstract
The shift to distance education during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the potential and preference of online learners for remote assessment. Yet, concerns about academic integrity, especially with tools like ChatGPT, prompted a reevaluation of remote evaluation methods. Universities responded by returning to on-campus exams or relying on technological surveillance, with the limits of such approaches from a pedagogical and values perspective. This research offers a third path, re-imaging with the main stakeholders in higher education (teachers, students, institutional leaders, and pedagogical experts) what quality remote assessment could look like in the future. To address this, we took a collaborative speculative design approach. The two-day workshop comprising 34 education stakeholders identified four key characteristics of quality remote assessments: (1) ensuring authorship, (2) designing meaningful assessments, (3) fostering a feeling of autonomy, and (4) reducing stress by fostering a feeling of competence and giving space for failure. We show that the last three characteristics align with the first two psychological needs of Self-Determination Theory (SDT), autonomy and competence. Therefore, by designing assessments with such characteristics, teachers will support autonomous motivation and, thus, engagement, performance, and academic integrity. However, the third need of SDT, relatedness, was largely overlooked and should be considered in further work. The results also highlight the need for structure and a space for failure, which may thwart autonomous motivation. Teachers must carefully balance these seemingly contradictory requirements of remote assessment design. Finally, the collaborative nature of the research led to a change in the practice of some participants.
References
Amabile, T. M., DeJong, W., & Lepper, M. R. (1976). Effects of externally imposed deadlines on subsequent intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(1), 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.1.92
Audrin, C., & Coppin, G. (2022). Interest and confusion: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Swiss Psychology Open, 2(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.5334/spo.35
Baillifard, A., & Martarelli, C. S. (2023). Notes et taux de décrochage inébranlables durant la Covid-19 en enseignement universitaire à distance: Savoirs, N° 60(3), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.3917/savo.060.0013
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., Bosch, J. A., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2011). Self-determination theory and diminished functioning: The role of interpersonal control and psychological need thwarting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(11), 1459–1473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211413125
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2011). Psychological need thwarting in the sport context: Assessing the darker side of athletic experience. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 33(1), 75–102. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.33.1.75
Bayne, S., Evans, P., Ewins, R., Knox, J., Lamb, J., Macleod, H., O’Shea, C., Ross, J., Sheail, P., & Sinclair, C. (2020). The manifesto for teaching online. The MIT Press.
Bearman, M., Dawson, P., & Tai, J. (2020). Digitally mediated assessment in higher education: Ethical and social impacts. In M. Bearman, P. Dawson, R. Ajjawi, J. Tai, & D. Boud (Eds.), Re-imagining University Assessment in a Digital World (pp. 23–36). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41956-1_3
Bergmans, L., Bouali, N., Luttikhuis, M., & Rensink, A. (2021). On the efficacy of online proctoring using peroctorio: 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
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term. Taylor & Francis Group. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ed/detail.action?docID=292915
Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., Rozenberg, P., Saddiqui, S., & van Haeringen, K. (2019). Contract cheating: A survey of Australian university students. Studies in Higher Education, 44(11), 1837–1856. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1462788
Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., van Haeringen, K., Saddiqui, S., & Rozenberg, P. (2019). Contract cheating and assessment design: Exploring the relationship. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(5), 676–691. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1527892
Bulletin Officiel. (2018). Utilisation des calculatrices électroniques aux examens et concours de l’enseignement scolaire, au diplôme de comptabilité et gestion (DCG), au diplôme supérieur de comptabilité et de gestion (DSCG), au diplôme d’expertise comptable (DEC) et au brevet de technicien supérieur (BTS), à compter de la session 2018. https://www.education.gouv.fr/bo/15/Hebdo42/MENS1523092C.htm
Carless, D. (2009). Trust, distrust and their impact on assessment reform. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801895786
Carr, D. (1992). Practical enquiry, values and the problem of educational theory. Oxford Review of Education, 18(3), 241–251.
Carter, C. B., & Blanford, C. F. (2016). Plagiarism and detection. Journal of Materials Science, 51(15), 7047–7048. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-016-0004-7
Cassidy, C. (2023, January 10). Australian universities to return to ‘pen and paper’ exams after students caught using AI to write essays. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/10/universities-to-return-to-pen-and-paper-exams-after-students-caught-using-ai-to-write-essays
Cross, S., Aristeidou, M., Rossade, K.-D., Wood, C., & Brasher, A. (2023). The impact of online exams on the quality of distance learners’ exam and exam revision experience: Perspectives from The Open University UK. Online Learning, 27(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i2.3761
Dawson, P. (2020). Cognitive Offloading and Assessment. In M. Bearman, P. Dawson, R. Ajjawi, J. Tai, & D. Boud (Eds.), Re-imagining university assessment in a digital world (pp. 37–48). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41956-1_4
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00797.x
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social Exchange Theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2(1), 335–362. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003
Forsyth, R. (2022). Confident assessment in higher education (1st ed). Sage Publications.
Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension: PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183
Gallant, T. B. (2022). The ICAI Reader (2nd ed): 44.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003
Gough, N. (2013). Towards deconstructive nonalignment: A complexivist view of curriculum, teaching and learning. South African Journal of Higher Education, 27(5), 1213–1233.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 890–898. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.5.890
Hartnett, M., St. George, A., & Dron, J. (2011). Examining motivation in online distance learning environments: Complex, multifaceted and situation-dependent. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(6), 20. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i6.1030
Ibarra-Sáiz, M. S., Rodríguez-Gómez, G., & Boud, D. (2021). The quality of assessment tasks as a determinant of learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(6), 943–955. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1828268
Jantos, A. (2021). Motives for cheating in summative e-assessment in higher education—A Quantitative Analysis. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2021.1764
Juul, J. (2013). The art of failure: An essay on the pain of playing video games. MIT Press.
Kanat-Maymon, Y., Benjamin, M., Stavsky, A., Shoshani, A., & Roth, G. (2015). The role of basic need fulfillment in academic dishonesty: A self-determination theory perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 43, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.08.002
Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.591717
Kirchner, J. H., Ahmad, L., Aaronson, S., & Leike, J. (2023). New AI classifier for indicating AI-written text. https://openai.com/blog/new-ai-classifier-for-indicating-ai-written-text
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (Fourth edition). The University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1962)
Lee, K., & Fanguy, M. (2022). Online exam proctoring technologies: Educational innovation or deterioration? British Journal of Educational Technology, n/a(n/a). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13182
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
Maehr, M. L., & Meyer, H. A. (1997). Understanding motivation and schooling: where we’ve been, Where we are, and where we need to go. Educational Psychology Review, 9(4).
Media Officer. (2022). Essay mills are now illegal—Skills Minister calls on internet service platforms to crack down on advertising—The Education Hub. https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2022/04/28/essay-mills-are-now-illegal-skills-minister-calls-on-internet-service-providers-to-crack-down-on-advertising/
Morin, E. (2014). Introduction à la pensée complexe. Éd. Points.
Morin, E. (2015). Les sept savoirs nécessaires à l’éducation du futur.
Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.001
Newton, P. M. (2018). How Common Is Commercial Contract Cheating in Higher Education and Is It Increasing? A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Education, 3. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2018.00067
Park, S. (2020). Goal contents as predictors of academic cheating in college students. Ethics & Behavior, 30(8), 628–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2019.1668275
Pépin, C. (2018). Les vertus de l’échec. Pocket.
Ross, J. (2023). Digital futures for learning: Speculative methods and pedagogies. Routledge.
Ross, J., & Macleod, H. (2018). Surveillance, (dis)trust and teaching with plagiarism detection technology. Networked Learning, 8.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65(3), 529–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x
Skinner, B. F. (1965). Science and human behavior (First Free Press Paperback edition). The Free Press.
Sutherland-Smith, W., & Dawson, P. (2022). Higher education assessment design. In S. E. Eaton, G. J. Curtis, B. M. Stoesz, J. Clare, K. Rundle, & J. Seeland (Eds.), Contract Cheating in Higher Education: Global Perspectives on Theory, Practice, and Policy (pp. 91–105). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12680-2_7
Townley, C., & Parsell, M. (2004). Technology and academic virtue: Student plagiarism through the looking glass. Ethics and Information Technology, 6(4), 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-005-5606-8
Turner, S., & Harder, N. (2018). Psychological safe environment: A concept analysis. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 18, 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2018.02.004
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Henrietta CARBONEL, Angelo Belardi, Jen Ross, Jean-Michel Jullien
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions
