Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T16:51:04.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Assessment and Plagiarism

from Systemic Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2019

By
Thomas Lancaster ,
Anthony V. Robins  and
Sally A. Fincher
Edited by
Sally A. Fincher  and
Anthony V. Robins
Sally A. Fincher
Affiliation:
University of Kent, Canterbury
Anthony V. Robins
Affiliation:
University of Otago, New Zealand
Get access

Summary

This chapter consolidates findings on student assessment, plagiarism and academic misconduct of interest to computing researchers and instructors. This builds on the literature recommendation that savvy assessment design can reduce the opportunities for student plagiarism. Despite this recommendation, it is uncommon for assessment research and plagiarism research to be considered on an equal footing. Computing courses are unusual in that they include both technical situations, such as computer programming classes, alongside more general activity, such as writing reports. This requires instructors to use of a diverse range of assessments. Many traditional assessment practices are susceptible to plagiarism and cheating, including contract cheating, the behaviour where students engage a third party to complete their assessments for them. The chapter provides practical suggestions for designing robust assessments and promoting academic integrity. It also identifies technical solutions that can be deployed to reduce the threat of academic misconduct. The chapter concludes by exploring opportunities for future computing research in the assessment and plagiarism areas.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research , pp. 414 - 444
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ala-Mutka, K. M. (2005). A survey of automated assessment approaches for programming assignments. Computer Science Education, 15(2), 83–102.Google Scholar
Alam, L. (2004). Is plagiarism more prevalent in some forms of assessment than others. In Beyond the Comfort Zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 48–57). Tugun, Australia: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education.Google Scholar
Amelung, M., Piotrowski, M., & Rösner, D. (2006). EduComponents: Experiences in e-assessment in computer science education. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITICSE ‘06) (pp. 88–92). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J. & Wittrock, M. C. (Eds.) (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning and Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
Assessment Reform Group (1999). Assessment for Learning: Beyond the Black Box. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Astrachan, O., Walker, H., Stephenson, C., Diaz, L., & Cuny, J. (2009). Advanced placement computer science: the future of tracking the first year of instruction. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 397–398.Google Scholar
Attwood, R. (2008). Institutions limit access to anti-cheat software. Times Higher Education, June 26, 2008. Retrieved from www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=402540&c=2Google Scholar
Austin, M., & Brown, L. (1999). Internet plagiarism: Developing strategies to curb student academic dishonesty. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(1), 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baugh, J., Kovacs, P., & Davis, G. (2012). Does the computer programming student understand what constitutes plagiarism. Issues in Information Systems, 13(2), 138–145.Google Scholar
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University, 3rd edn. Maidenhead, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Google Scholar
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Birenbaum, M., DeLuca, C., Earl, L., Heritage, M., Klenowski, V., Looney, A., Smith, K., Timperley, H., Volant, L., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2015). International trends in the implementation of assessment for learning: Implications for policy and practice. Policy Futures in Education, 13(1), 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longmans.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S., Hasting, T., & Madaus, G. (1971). Handbook of Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Boywer, K., & Hall, L. (1999). Experience using “MOSS” to detect cheating on programming assignments. In 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. 18–22). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Brookhart, S., & Durkin, D. (2003). Classroom assessment, student motivation, and achievement in high school social studies classes. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(1), 27–54.Google Scholar
Brown, N., & Janssen, R. (2017). Preventing plagiarism and fostering academic integrity: A practical approach. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 5(3), 102–109.Google Scholar
Brown, S., & Knight, P. (2012). Assessing Learners in Higher Education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Buffum, P. S., Lobene, E. V., Frankosky, M. H., Boyer, K. E., Wiebe, E. N., & Lester, J. C. (2015). A practical guide to developing and validating computer science knowledge assessments with application to middle school. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘15) (pp. 622–627). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Caceffo, R., Wolfman, S., Booth, K. S., & Azevedo, R. (2016). Developing a computer science concept inventory for introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE ‘16) (pp. 364–369). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Cadmus (2017). What is Cadmus? Retrieved from http://cadmus.ioGoogle Scholar
Cardell-Oliver, R. (2011). How can software metrics help novice programmers? In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference Volume 114 (pp. 55–62). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar
Carter, J., Ala-Mutka, K., Fuller, U., Dick, M., English, J., Fone, W., & Sheard, J. (2003). How shall we assess this? ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(4), 107–123.Google Scholar
Clare, J., Walker, S., & Hobson, J. (2017). Can we detect contract cheating using existing assessment data? Applying crime prevention theory to an academic integrity issue. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 13, 4.Google Scholar
Clarke, R., & Lancaster, T. (2006). Eliminating the successor to plagiarism? Identifying the usage of contract cheating sites. In 2nd Plagiarism: Prevention, Practice and Policy Conference 2006. Newcastle, UK. Retrieved from www.plagiarism.org/paper/eliminating-the-successor-to-plagiarismGoogle Scholar
Clear, T., Whalley, J., Lister, R. F., Carbone, A., Hu, M., Sheard, J., Simon, B., & Thompson, E. (2008). Reliably classifying novice programmer exam responses using the SOLO taxonomy. In 21st Annual conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications (NACCQ 2008) (pp. 23–30). Auckland, New Zealand: National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications.Google Scholar
College Board (2018). AP Computer Science A. Retrieved from https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses/ap-computer-science-a/courseGoogle Scholar
Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Culwin, F. (2009). The efficacy of Turnitin and Google. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Higher Education Academy Conference in Information and Computer Sciences (pp. 65–69). Newtownabbey, UK: HE Academy Subject Centre for ICS.Google Scholar
Culwin, F., MacLeod, A., & Lancaster, T. (2001). Source code plagiarism in UK HE computing schools. In 2nd Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences. London, UK: LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences.Google Scholar
Curtis, G., & Clare, J. (2017). How prevalent is contract cheating and to what extent are students repeat offenders? Journal of Academic Ethics, 15(2), 115–124.Google Scholar
Cutts, Q., Connor, R., Michaelson, G., & Donaldson, P. (2014). Code or (not code). In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE ‘14) (pp. 20–28). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Daly, C., & Waldron, J. (2004). Assessing the assessment of programming ability. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(1), 210–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, M., & Carroll, J. (2009). Formative feedback within plagiarism education: Is there a role for text-matching software? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 5(2), 58–70.Google Scholar
Denny, P., Hamer, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Purchase, H. (2008). PeerWise: Students sharing their multiple choice questions. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 51–58). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Simon, B. (2008). Evaluating a new exam question: Parsons problems. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘08) (pp. 113–124). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Dick, M., Sheard, J., Bareiss, C., Carter, J., Joyce, D., Harding, T., & Laxer, C. (2003). Addressing student cheating: Definitions and solutions. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(2), 172–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dikli, S. (2006). An overview of automated scoring of essays. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 5(1), 36 pages.Google Scholar
Doctupus (2017). Contract Cheating Detection. Retrieved from https://angel.co/doctupusGoogle Scholar
Dunlosky, J. (2013). Strengthening the student toolbox: Study strategies to boost learning. American Educator, 37(3), 12–21.Google Scholar
Ďuračík, M., Kršák, E., & Hrkút, P. (2017). Current trends in source code analysis, plagiarism detection and issues of analysis big datasets. Procedia Engineering, 192, 136–141.Google Scholar
Earl, L. M. (2012). Assessment as Learning: Using Classroom Assessment to Maximize Student Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
Ebel, R., & Frisbie, D. (1986). Essentials of Educational Measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Engels, S., Lakshmanan, V., & Craig, M. (2007). Plagiarism detection using feature-based neural networks. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(1), 34–38.Google Scholar
Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120.Google Scholar
Evans, C. (2016). Enhancing assessment feedback practice in higher education: The EAT framework. Retrieved from https://eatframework.org.uk/Google Scholar
Ferrero, J., Agnès, F., Besacier, , , L., & Schwab, D. (2017). Using word embedding for cross-language plagiarism detection. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 2, Short Papers (pp. 415–421). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Fincher, S., & Finlay, J. (2016). Computing graduate employability: Sharing practice. Project report. Council of Professors and Heads of Computing, Kent, UK. Retrieved from https://kar.kent.ac.uk/53848/Google Scholar
Fincher, S., & Knox, D. (2013). The porous classroom: Professional practices in the computing curriculum. Computer, 9, 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fincher, S., Kölling, M., Utting, , Brown, I., , N., & Stevens, P. (2010). Repositories of teaching material and communities of use: nifty assignments and the greenroom. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 107–114). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Fincher, S., Petre, M., & Clark, M. (Eds.) (2001). Computer Science Project Work: Principles and Pragmatics. London, UK: Springer.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, S., Hanks, B., McCauley, R., Lister, R., & Murphy, L. (2013). What are we thinking when we grade programs? In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '13) (pp. 471–476). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Fraser, R. (2014). Collaboration, collusion and plagiarism in computer science coursework. Informatics in Education – An International Journal, 13(2), 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, U., Johnson, C. G., Ahoniemi, T., Cukierman, D., Hernán–Losada, I., Jackova, , Lahtinen, J., Lewis, E., Thompson, T. L., Riedesel, D. M., , C., & Thompson, E. (2007). Developing a computer science-specific learning taxonomy. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(4), 152–170.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. (2009). Software reuse and plagiarism: a code of practice. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(3), 55–59.Google Scholar
Gillam, L., Marinuzzi, J., & Ioannou, P. (2010). Turnitoff – Defeating plagiarism detection systems. In 11th Annual Conference of the Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences (pp. 84–88). Heslington, UK: Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
Gilliver-Brown, K., & Ballinger, D. (2017). The integrity games: Using interactive comics to teach academic integrity concepts. ATLAANZ Journal, 2(1), 68–81.Google Scholar
Giordano, D., Maiorana, F., Csizmadia, A. P., Marsden, S., Riedesel, C., Mishra, S., & Vinikienė, L. (2015). New horizons in the assessment of computer science at school and beyond: Leveraging on the viva platform. In Proceedings of the 2015 ITiCSE on Working Group Reports (pp. 117–147). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Goldman, K., Gross, P., Heeren, C., Herman, G. L., Kaczmarczyk, L., Loui, M. C., & Zilles, C. (2010). Setting the scope of concept inventories for introductory computing subjects. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(2), 5.Google Scholar
Gouws, L. A., Bradshaw, K., & Wentworth, P. (2013). Computational thinking in educational activities. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘13) (pp. 10–15). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Grieve, A., & Ross, B. (2016). Plagiarism by contract writing: Insights from forensic linguistics. In Learning and Teaching Conference. Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from www.academia.edu/26115664/Plagiarism_by_contract_writing_Insights_from_forensic_linguisticsGoogle Scholar
Guzdial, M. (2010). How computing and physics learning differ. Retrieved from https://computinged.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/how-computing-and-physics-learning-differ/Google Scholar
Hahn, J. H., Mentz, E., & Meyer, L. (2009). Assessment strategies for pair programming. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 8, 273–284.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, L., Auvinen, T., & Korhonen, A. (2015). The effect of achievement badges on students’ behavior: An empirical study in a university-level computer science course. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 10(1), 18–29.Google Scholar
Halgamuge, M. (2017). The use and analysis of anti-plagiarism software: Turnitin tool for formative assessment and feedback. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 25(6), 895–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrick, C., & MacPherson, R. (2017) What Does This Look Like in the Classroom?: Bridging the Gap between Research and Practice. Woodbridge, UK: John Catt Educational.Google Scholar
Ibáñez, M. B., Di-Serio, A., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2014). Gamification for engaging computer science students in learning activities: A case study. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7(3), 291–301.Google Scholar
ICAI (2014). Fundamental values of academic integrity. Retrieved from https://academicintegrity.org/fundamental-valuesGoogle Scholar
Ihantola, P., Ahoniemi, T., Karavirta, V., & Seppälä, O. (2010). Review of recent systems for automatic assessment of programming assignments. In Proceedings of the 10th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 86–93). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Jenkins, T., & Helmore, S. (2006). Coursework for cash: The threat from online plagiarism. In Proceedings of 7th Annual Higher Education Academy Conference in Information & Computer Sciences (pp. 121–126). Newtownabbey, UK: HE Academy Subject Centre for ICS.Google Scholar
Jones, M., & Sheridan, L. (2015). Back translation: An emerging sophisticated cyber strategy to subvert advances in “digital age” plagiarism detection and prevention. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(5), 712–724.Google Scholar
Joy, M., & Luck, M. (1999). Plagiarism in programming assignments. IEEE Transactions on Education, 42(2), 129–133.Google Scholar
Joy, M., Cosma, G., Yau, J., & Sinclair, J. (2011). Source code plagiarism – A student perspective. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54(1), 125–132.Google Scholar
Juola, P. (2017). Detecting contract cheating via stylometric methods. In Plagiarism Across Europe and Beyond 2017 (pp. 187–198). Brno, Czech Republic: European Network for Academic Integrity.Google Scholar
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Koh, K. H., Basawapatna, A., Nickerson, H., & Repenning, A. (2014). Real time assessment of computational thinking. In Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) (pp. 49–52). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.Google Scholar
Lancaster, T. (2013a). The application of intelligent context-aware systems to the detection of student cheating. In Complex, Intelligent, and Software Intensive Systems (CISIS) (pp. 517–522). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Lancaster, T. (2013b). The use of text matching tools for the prevention and detection of student plagiarism. In Plagiarism Phenomenon In Europe: Research Contributes To Prevention (pp. 37–49). Braga, Portugal: Aletheia – Associação Científica e Cultural da Faculdade de Filosofia da Universidade Católica Portuguesa.Google Scholar
Lancaster, T. (2017). Plagiarism and assessment. Retrieved from http://thomaslancaster.co.uk/blog/plagiarism-and-assessmentGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, T., & Clarke, R. (2007). Assessing contract cheating through auction sites – A computing perspective. In 8th Annual Higher Education Academy Conference in Information and Computer Sciences (pp. 91–95). Newtownabbey, UK: HE Academy Subject Centre for ICS.Google Scholar
Lancaster, T., & Clarke, R. (2014). An initial analysis of the contextual information available within auction posts on contract cheating agency websites. In Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops (WAINA) (pp. 548–553). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Lancaster, T., & Clarke, R. (2015). The implications of plagiarism and contract cheating for the assessment of database modules. In 13th International Workshop on Teaching, Learning and Assessment of Databases (TLAD 2015) (pp. 55–66). York, UK: Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
Lancaster, T., & Clarke, R. (2016). Contract cheating – The outsourcing of assessed student work. In Bretag, T. (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 639–654). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Lancaster, T., & Culwin, F. (2004). A comparison of source code plagiarism detection engines. Journal of Computer Science Education, 14(2), 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linn, R., & Gronlund, N. (1995). Measurement and Assessment in Teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Lister, R. (2000). On blooming first year programming, and its blooming assessment. In Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Computing Education (pp. 158–162). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Lister, R., Clear, T., Bouvier, D. J., Carter, P., Eckerdal, A., Jacková, J., Lopez, , McCartney, M., Robbins, R., P., Seppälä, O., & Thompson, E. (2010). Naturally occurring data as research instrument: Analyzing examination responses to study the novice programmer. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(4), 156–173.Google Scholar
Lister, R., Simon, B., Thompson, E., Whalley, J. L., & Prasad, C. (2006). Not seeing the forest for the trees: Novice programmers and the SOLO taxonomy. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(3), 118–122.Google Scholar
Lukashenko, R., Graudina, V., & Grundspenkis, J. (2007). Computer-based plagiarism detection methods and tools: an overview. In Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies (p. 40). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Luxton-Reilly, A., & Petersen, A. (2017). The compound nature of novice programming assessments. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp. 26–35). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
McCracken, M., Almstrum, V., Diaz, D., Guzdial, M., Hagan, H., Kolikant, Y. B., Laxer, C., Thomas, L., Utting, I., & Wilusz, T. (2001). A multi-national, multi-institutional study of assessment of programming skills of first-year CS students. SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(4), 125–180.Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., Roscoe, R. D., Allen, L. K., & Dai, J. (2015). A hierarchical classification approach to automated essay scoring. Assessing Writing, 23, 35–59.Google Scholar
Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2010). Learning computer science concepts with scratch. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘10) (pp. 69–76). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Milligan, S., & Kennedy, G. (2017). To what degree? Alternative micro-credentialing in a digital age. In James, R., French, S. & Kelly, P. (Eds.), Visions for Australian Tertiary Education (pp. 41–54). Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education.Google Scholar
O’Malley, M., & Roberts, T. (2012). Plagiarism on the rise? Combating contract cheating in science courses. International Journal of Innovation in Science & Mathematics Education, 20(4), 16–24.Google Scholar
Ottenstein, K. (1976). An algorithmic approach to the detection and prevention of plagiarism. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 8(4), 30–41.Google Scholar
Palomba, C. A., & Banta, T. W. (1999). Assessment Essentials: Planning, Implementing, and Improving Assessment in Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Parker, A., & Hamblen, J. (1989). Computer algorithms for plagiarism detection. IEEE Transactions on Education, 32(2), 94–99.Google Scholar
Parker, M. C., Guzdial, M., & Engleman, S. (2016). Replication, validation, and use of a language independent CS1 knowledge assessment. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 93–101). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Parlante, N. (2018) Nifty Assignments. Retrieved from http://nifty.stanford.edu/Google Scholar
Parsons, D., & Haden, P. (2006). Parson’s programming puzzles: a fun and effective learning tool for first programming courses. In Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education (pp. 157–163). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar
Parsons, D., Wood, K., & Haden, P. (2015). What are we doing when we assess programming? In Proceedings of the 17th Australasian Computing Education Conference, CPIT 160 (pp. 119–127). Sydney, Australia: ACS.Google Scholar
Patterson, B. F., & Ewing, M. (2013). Validating the use of AP exam scores for college course placement. College Board Research Report 2013-2. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED558108.pdfGoogle Scholar
Petersen, A., Craig, M., & Zingaro, D. (2011). Reviewing CS1 exam question content. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘11) (pp. 631–636). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Prechelt, L., Malpohl, G., & Philippsen, M. (2002). Finding plagiarisms among a set of programs with JPlag. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 8(11), 1016–1038.Google Scholar
Project Quantum (2016). Project Quantum: Tests worth teaching. Retrieved from http://community.computingatschool.org.uk/resources/4382/singleGoogle Scholar
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education, 2nd edn. Abingdon, UK: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
Riedesel, C., Clear, A., Cross, G., Hughes, J., Simon, , & Walker, H. (2012). Academic integrity policies in a computing education context. In Proceedings of the Final Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education 2012 Working Groups (pp. 1–15). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Roberts, E. (2002). Strategies for promoting academic integrity in CS courses. In Frontiers in Education (FIE 2002) (pp. F3G-14–F3G-19). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Rogerson, A., & McCarthy, G. (2017). Using Internet based paraphrasing tools: Original work, patchwriting or facilitated plagiarism? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 13, 2.Google Scholar
Rowntree, D. (1977). Assessing Students: How Shall We Know Them. London, UK: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Sanders, K., Ahmadzadeh, M., Clear, T., Edwards, S. H., Goldweber, M., Johnson, C., Lister, L., McCartney, R., Patitsas, E., & Spacco, J. (2013). The Canterbury questionbank: Building a repository of multiplechoice CS1 and CS2 questions. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE) – Working Group Reports (pp. 33–52). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Schleimer, S., Wilkerson, D. S., & Aiken, A. (2003). Winnowing: Local algorithms for document fingerprinting. In Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (pp. 76–85). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In Stake, R. E. (Ed.), Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation Vol. 1 (pp. 39–55). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Sheard, J. (2012). Exams in computer programming: What do they examine and how complex are they? In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (pp. 283–291). Barton, Australia: Engineers Australia.Google Scholar
Sheard, J., & Dick, M. (2011). Computing student practices of cheating and plagiarism: A decade of change. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 233–237). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Sheard, J., & Dick, M. (2012). Directions and dimensions in managing cheating and plagiarism of IT students. In Proceedings of the 14th Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp. 177–185). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar
Sheard, J., Carbone, A., D’Souza, D. & Hamilton, M. (2013). Assessment of programming: pedagogical foundations of exams. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 141–146). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Sheard, J., Carbone, A., Lister, R., Simon, B., Thompson, E., & Whalley, J. L. (2008). Going SOLO to assess novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(3), 209–213.Google Scholar
Sheard, J., Markham, S., & Dick, M. (2003). Investigating differences in cheating behaviours of IT undergraduate and graduate students: The maturity and motivation factors. Journal of Higher Education Research and Development, 22(1), 91–108.Google Scholar
Sheard, J., Simon, , Butler, M., Falkner, K., Morgan, M., & Weerasinghe, A. (2017). Strategies for maintaining academic integrity in first-year computing courses. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 244–249). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Sheard, J., Simon, , Carbone, A., Chinn, D., Laakso, M. J., Clear, T., De Raadt, M., D’Souza, D., Harland, J., Lister, R., Philpott, A., & Warburton, G. (2011). Exploring programming assessment instruments: A classification scheme for examination questions. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 33–38). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Si, A., Leong, H., & Lau, R. (1997). Check: a document plagiarism detection system. In Proceedings of the 1997 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (pp. 70–77). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, , Cook, B., Sheard, J., Carbone, A., & Johnson, C. (2014). Student perceptions of the acceptability of various code-writing practices. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 105–110). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Simon, , Sheard, J. Carbone, , A., Chinn, D., Laakso, M., Clear, T., de Raadt, M., D’Souza, D., Lister, R., Philpott, A., Skene, A., & Warburton, G. (2012). Introductory programming: Examining the exams. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (pp. 61–70). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar
Simon, , Sheard, J., Morgan, M., Petersen, A., Settle, A., Sinclair, J., Cross, G., & Riedesel, C. (2016). Negotiating the maze of academic integrity in computing education. In Proceedings of the 2016 ITiCSE Working Group Reports (pp. 57–80). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Singh, A. (2013). Detecting plagiarism in MS Access assignments. Journal of Information Systems Education, 24(3), 177–180.Google Scholar
Sorva, J. (2012). Visual Program Simulation in Introductory Programming Education (doctoral dissertation). Aalto University.Google Scholar
Šprajc, P., Urh, , Jerebic, M., Trivan, J., , D., & Jereb, E. (2017). Reasons for plagiarism in higher education. Organizacija, 50(1), 33–45.Google Scholar
Staubitz, T., Klement, H., Renz, J., Teusner, R., & Meinel, C. (2015). Towards practical programming exercises and automated assessment in Massive Open Online Courses. In Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE 2015) (pp. 23–30). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Taylor, C., Zingaro, D., Porter, L., Webb, K. C., Lee, C. B., & Clancy, M. (2014). Computer science concept inventories: past and future. Computer Science Education, 24(4), 253–276.Google Scholar
Tew, A. E., & Dorn, B. (2013). The case for validated tools in computer science education research. Computer, 46(9), 60–66.Google Scholar
Tew, A. E., & Guzdial, M. (2010). Developing a validated assessment of fundamental CS1 concepts. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 97–101). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Tew, A. E., & Guzdial, M. (2011). The FCS1: A language independent assessment of CS1 knowledge. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 111–116). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Thompson, E., Luxton–Reilly, A., Whalley, J. L., Hu, M., & Robbins, P. (2008). Bloom’s taxonomy for CS assessment. In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Australasian Computing Education (ACE ‘08) (pp. 155–161). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar
Utting, I., Tew, A. E., McCracken, M., Thomas, L., Bouvier, D., Frye, R., Paterson, J., Caspersen, M., Kolikant, Y., Sorva, J., & Wilusz, T. (2013). A fresh look at novice programmers’ performance and their teachers’ expectations. In Proceedings of the ITICSE Working Group Reports Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 15–32). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Vasilevskaya, M., Broman, D., & Sandahl, K. (2014). An assessment model for large project courses. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘14) (pp. 253–258). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Wallace, M., & Newton, P. (2014). Turnaround time and market capacity in contract cheating. Educational Studies, 40(2), 233–236.Google Scholar
Whalley, J. L., Lister, R., Thompson, E., Clear, T., Robbins, P., Ajith Kumar, P. K., & Prasad, C. (2006). An Austalasian study of reading and comprehension skills in novice programmers, using the Bloom and SOLO taxonomies. In Proceedings of the 8th Australian Conference on Computing Education (ACE ‘06) (pp. 243–252). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar
Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 2(2), 6.Google Scholar
Wittie, L., Kurdia, A., & Huggard, M. (2017). Developing a concept inventory for computer science 2. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1–4). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477–501.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Lo, D., Kochhar, P., Xia, X., Li, Q., & Sun, J. (2017). Detecting similar repositories on GitHub. In IEEE 24th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER) (pp. 13–23). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×