Design and implementation choices > Randomisation

Question 24
To what extent does the randomisation of question parameters, which makes sharing answers between students difficult, adequately address plagiarism?

• Tim Lowe
• Peter Rowlett

It seems that randomised parameters, which produce different questions for students, create a barrier to plagiarism, since a friend’s answer cannot be directly copied. But is this adequate to address plagiarism?

What motivates this question?

The ability to generate randomised versions of questions has been described as a strength of e-assessment, as “students can still discuss types of questions together without lecturers being worried about plagiarism” (Iannone & Simpson, 2012, p. 57). Hermans (2004) suggests randomisation can develop discussion about method in a way that is “educationally far more positive” (p. 5).

However, Rønning (2017) suggests that randomised parameters in questions of the same type leads to widespread production of “a general solution that can be copied” (p. 105).

There are other aspects to plagiarism or academic integrity (Seaton, 2019). Randomisation, if it works, addresses collusion; issues of impersonation and what other resources, e.g. software, are used when answering questions are unresolved.

What might an answer look like?

Further study into student behaviour could illuminate the issue. Attempted replication of the work of Davis et al. (2005), who compared results from an unsupervised e-assessment with a “similar” invigilated paper test and conclude that “cheating in CAA is not a significant problem” (p. 69), would seem to offer potential. Similarly, the study reported by Arnold (2016) could provide a helpful model.

Related questions

• The issue of randomisation/parameterisation is related to:
  • Q25: What effect does the use of random versions of a question (e.g. using parameterised values) have on the outcomes of e-assessment?
  • Q14: To what extent does repeated practice on randomized e-assessment tasks encourage mathematics students to discover deep links between ideas?
• Issues of academic integrity are also discussed in Q37: How can e-assessment support take-home open-book examinations?

References

Arnold, I. J. M. (2016). Cheating at online formative tests: Does it pay off? The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IHEDUC.2016.02.001

Davis, L.E., Harrison, M.C., Palipana, A.S. & Ward, J.P. (2005). Assessment-driven learning of mathematics for engineering students. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 42(1), 63-72. https://doi.org/10.7227/IJEEE.42.1.8

Hermans, D. F. M. (2004). CAA in context: a case study, LTSN MSOR CAA Series. Retrieved from http://www.icse.xyz/mathstore/repository/mathscaa_mar2004.pdf

Iannone, P., & Simpson, A. (2012). Mapping University Mathematics Assessment Practices. University of East Anglia. Retrieved from https://mathshe.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/mu-map.pdf

Rønning, F. (2017). Influence of computer-aided assessment on ways of working with mathematics. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 36(2), 94-107. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrx001

Seaton, K.A. (2019). Laying groundwork for an understanding of academic integrity in mathematics tasks. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 50(7), pp. 1063-1072, https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1640399