Deterring cheating using a complex assessment design: A case study

An Erratum to this article was published on December 31, 2023. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/literacytrek/article/1392516

Abstract

Attempts to translate written examinations normally conducted in a lecture hall to an online environment during emergency remote learning in response to COVID-19 have not proved entirely successful, and have led to a sharp increase in cases of suspected misconduct. This paper describes a case study which gives insights on the relationship between assessment design and academic integrity: Is it possible to deter students from cheating by means of assessment design? Previous research does promote certain assessment types, but also indicates that there is no single assessment type that students think is impossible to cheat on. The solution proposed in this paper is therefore to add complexity to the mixture. An alternative complex assessment design comprising several steps is introduced and exemplified by an assessment procedure piloted in a grammar course for preservice language teachers in mother tongue tuition. The design promotes academic integrity, signature pedagogy, student-centred learning, and collaboration within a community of practice in an online setting.

Keywords

• academic integrity
• contract cheating
• preservice education
• mother tongue tuition
• Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian

References

1. Afzali, Z., & Izadpanah, S. (2021). The effect of the flipped classroom model on Iranian English foreign language learners: Engagement and motivation in English language grammar. Cogent Education, 8(1), 1870801. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1870801
2. Afzali, Z., & Izadpanah, S. (2021). The effect of the flipped classroom model on Iranian English foreign language learners: Engagement and motivation in English language grammar. Cogent Education, 8(1), 1870801. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1870801
3. Altınay, Z. (2017). Evaluating peer learning and assessment in online collaborative learning environments. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(3), 312–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1232752
4. Altınay, Z. (2017). Evaluating peer learning and assessment in online collaborative learning environments. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(3), 312–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1232752
5. Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78, 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006
6. Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78, 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006
7. Beck, V. (2014). Testing a model to predict online cheating—Much ado about nothing. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787413514646
8. Beck, V. (2014). Testing a model to predict online cheating—Much ado about nothing. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787413514646

9. Belland, B. R. (2017). Instructional Scaffolding: Foundations and Evolving Definition. In B. R. Belland (Ed.), Instructional Scaffolding in STEM Education: Strategies and Efficacy Evidence (pp. 17–53). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02565-0_2
10. Bertram Gallant, T. (2017). Academic integrity as a teaching & learning issue: From theory to practice. Theory Into Practice, 56(2), 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2017.1308173
11. Bertram Gallant, T., Binkin, N., & Donohue, M. (2015). Students at risk for being reported for cheating. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13(3), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-015-9235-5
12. Biggs, J. B. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. JSTOR.
13. Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does (2.). The Society for Research into Higher Education.
14. Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does (4., [rev.]). Open University Press.
15. Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does (4., [rev.]). Open University Press.
16. Bjelobaba, S. (2019). Contract cheating in Serbia and in Sweden. Studies for Changing Societies, 1.
17. Bjelobaba, S. (2020). Academic integrity teacher training: Preventive pedagogical practices on the course level. In Z. Khan, C. Hill, & T. Foltýnek (Eds.), Integrity in education for future happiness (pp. 9–18). Mendel University in Brno. http://academicintegrity.eu/conference/proceedings/2020/bjelobaba.pdf
18. Blake, R., Wilson, N. L., Cetto, M., & Ballester, C. P. (2008, October 1). Measuring oral proficiency in distance, face-to-face, and blended classrooms. Language Learning and Technology.
19. Blomberg, G., Renkl, A., Sherin, M. G., Borko, H., & Seidel, T. (2013). Five research-based heuristics for using video in pre-service teacher education. Journal for Educational Research Online, 5(1), 90–114.
20. Blomberg, G., Renkl, A., Sherin, M. G., Borko, H., & Seidel, T. (2013). Five research-based heuristics for using video in pre-service teacher education. Journal for Educational Research Online, 5(1), 90–114.
21. Boettcher, J. V., & Conrad, R.-M. (2016). The online teaching survival guide: Simple and practical pedagogical tips. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uu/detail.action?docID=4659728
22. Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., Rozenberg, P., Saddiqui, S., & van Haeringen, K. (2019a). Contract cheating: a survey of Australian university students. Studies in Higher Education, 44(11), 1837–1856. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1462788
23. Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., van Haeringen, K., Saddiqui, S., & Rozenberg, P. (2019b). 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
24. Burgason, K. A., Sefiha, O., & Briggs, L. (2019). Cheating is in the eye of the beholder: an evolving understanding of academic misconduct. Innovative Higher Education, 44(3), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-019-9457-3
25. Chang, H., & Windeatt, S. (2016). Developing collaborative learning practices in an online language course. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(8), 1271–1286. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1274331
26. Chang, H., & Windeatt, S. (2016). Developing collaborative learning practices in an online language course. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(8), 1271–1286. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1274331
27. Cheng, T. J. (2015). The reality behind the hype – Online world language teaching and instructional design (1658543392) [Ed.D., Teachers College, Columbia University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; Social Science Premium Collection.
28. Clarke, R., & Lancaster, T. (2006). Eliminating the successor to plagiarism? Identifying the usage of contract cheating sites. Proceedings of 2nd International Plagiarism Conference Newcastle, UK, 14.
29. Clarke, R., & Lancaster, T. (2006). Eliminating the successor to plagiarism? Identifying the usage of contract cheating sites. Proceedings of 2nd International Plagiarism Conference Newcastle, UK, 14.
30. Croft, N., Dalton, A., & Grant, M. (2010). Overcoming isolation in distance learning: Building a learning community through time and space. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 5(1), 27–64. https://doi.org/10.11120/jebe.2010.05010027
31. Danielowich, R. M., & McCarthy, M. J. (2013). Teacher educators as learners: How supervisors shape their pedagogies by creating and using classroom videos with their student teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 35(3), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2013.806231
32. Eaton, S. (2020). Academic Integrity During COVID-19: Reflections from the University of Calgary. International Studies in Educational Administration, 48(1), 80–85.
33. Eaton, S., Brown, B., Schroeder, M., Lock, J., & Jacobsen, M. (2017). Signature pedagogies for e-learning in higher education and beyond, 25. Education Act (2010:800). Sweden. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/skollag-2010800_sfs-2010-800
34. Education Act. (2015/16:173). Fjärrundervisning och entreprenad - nya möjligheter för undervisning och studiehandledning på modersmål.
35. Ellis, C., van Haeringen, K., Harper, R., Bretag, T., Zucker, I., McBride, S., Rozenberg, P., Newton, P., & Saddiqui, S. (2020). Does authentic assessment assure academic integrity? Evidence from contract cheating data. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(3), 454–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1680956
36. Ellis, C., van Haeringen, K., Harper, R., Bretag, T., Zucker, I., McBride, S., Rozenberg, P., Newton, P., & Saddiqui, S. (2020). Does authentic assessment assure academic integrity? Evidence from contract cheating data. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(3), 454–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1680956
37. English, C. (2007). Finding a voice in a threaded discussion group: Talking about literature online. English Journal, 97(1), 56–61. Arts & Humanities Database; Social Science Premium Collection.
38. Enkin, E., & Mejías‐Bikandi, E. (2017). The effectiveness of online teaching in an advanced Spanish language course. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 176–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12112
39. Enkin, E., & Mejías‐Bikandi, E. (2017). The effectiveness of online teaching in an advanced Spanish language course. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 176–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12112
40. Espasa, A., & Meneses, J. (2010). Analysing feedback processes in an online teaching and learning environment: an exploratory study. Higher Education, 59(3), 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9247-4
41. Espasa, A., & Meneses, J. (2010). Analysing feedback processes in an online teaching and learning environment: an exploratory study. Higher Education, 59(3), 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9247-4
42. Esterhazy, R., De Lange, T., & Møystad, A. (2021). How do signature pedagogies get their signatures? The role of assessment and professional artefacts in preparing students for their professions. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2021.1902273
43. Esterhazy, R., De Lange, T., & Møystad, A. (2021). How do signature pedagogies get their signatures? The role of assessment and professional artefacts in preparing students for their professions. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2021.1902273
44. Fuller, R., Joynes, V., Cooper, J., Boursicot, K., & Roberts, T. (2020). Could COVID-19 be our ‘There is no alternative’ (TINA) opportunity to enhance assessment? Medical Teacher, 42(7), 781–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1779206
45. Fuller, R., Joynes, V., Cooper, J., Boursicot, K., & Roberts, T. (2020). Could COVID-19 be our ‘There is no alternative’ (TINA) opportunity to enhance assessment? Medical Teacher, 42(7), 781–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1779206
46. Gacs, A., Goertler, S., & Spasova, S. (2020). Planned online language education versus crisis-prompted online language teaching: Lessons for the future. Foreign Language Annals, 53(2), 380–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12460
47. Gacs, A., Goertler, S., & Spasova, S. (2020). Planned online language education versus crisis-prompted online language teaching: Lessons for the future. Foreign Language Annals, 53(2), 380–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12460
48. Gamage, K. A. A., Silva, E. K. de, & Gunawardhana, N. (2020). Online delivery and assessment during COVID-19: Safeguarding academic integrity. Education Sciences, 10(11), 301. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10110301
49. Gibbons, S., & Farley, A. N. (2020). Learning to think like a teacher: Effects of video reflection on preservice teachers’ practice and pedagogy. Action in Teacher Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2020.1812131
50. Goertler, S., & Gacs, A. (2018). Assessment in online German: Assessment methods and results. Die Unterrichtspraxis, 51(2), 156-174,202. Social Science Premium Collection.
51. González‐Lloret, M. (2020). Collaborative tasks for online language teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 53(2), 260–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12466
52. González‐Lloret, M. (2020). Collaborative tasks for online language teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 53(2), 260–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12466
53. Harper, R., Bretag, T., & Rundle, K. (2021). Detecting contract cheating: examining the role of assessment type. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(2), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1724899
54. Harper, R., Bretag, T., & Rundle, K. (2021). Detecting contract cheating: examining the role of assessment type. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(2), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1724899
55. Harris, L., Harrison, D., McNally, D., & Ford, C. (2020). Academic integrity in an online culture: Do McCabe’s findings hold true for online, adult learners? Journal of Academic Ethics, 18(4), 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-019-09335-3
56. Hart, L., & Morgan, L. (2010). Academic integrity in an online registered nurse to baccalaureate in nursing program. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 41(11), 498–505. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.its.uu.se/10.3928/00220124-20100701-03
57. Hernández, R. (2012). Does continuous assessment in higher education support student learning? Higher Education, 64(4), 489–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9506-7
58. Hernández, R. (2012). Does continuous assessment in higher education support student learning? Higher Education, 64(4), 489–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9506-7
59. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
60. Hodgkinson, T., Curtis, H., MacAlister, D., & Farrell, G. (2016). Student academic dishonesty: The potential for situational prevention. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 27(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2015.1064982
61. Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: a meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896
62. Huisman, B., Saab, N., van Driel, J., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Peer feedback on academic writing: undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 955–968. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318
63. Huisman, B., Saab, N., van Driel, J., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Peer feedback on academic writing: undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 955–968. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318
64. James, R. (2016). Tertiary student attitudes to invigilated, online summative examinations. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0015-0
65. Karim, M. N., Kaminsky, S. E., & Behrend, T. S. (2014). Cheating, reactions, and performance in remotely proctored testing: An exploratory experimental study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(4), 555–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9343-z
66. Karttunen, M., & Juusola, S. (2019). Maintaining quality online: Piloting an online language course for immigrants in Finland. Languages, 4(2), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages4020025
67. Kennedy, K., Nowak, S., & Raghuraman, R. S. (2000). Academic dishonesty and distance learning: student and faculty views. College Student Journal, 34(2), 309–314.
68. Kennedy, K., Nowak, S., & Raghuraman, R. S. (2000). Academic dishonesty and distance learning: student and faculty views. College Student Journal, 34(2), 309–314.
69. Kidwell, L. A., & Kent, J. (2008). Integrity at a distance: A Study of academic misconduct among university students on and off campus. Accounting Education, 17(sup1), S3–S16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639280802044568
70. Ladyshewsky, R. K. (2015). Post-graduate student performance in ‘supervised in-class’ vs. ‘unsupervised online’ multiple choice tests: implications for cheating and test security. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(7), 883–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.956683
71. Ladyshewsky, R. K. (2015). Post-graduate student performance in ‘supervised in-class’ vs. ‘unsupervised online’ multiple choice tests: implications for cheating and test security. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(7), 883–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.956683
72. Lancaster, T., & Cotarlan, C. (2021). Contract cheating by STEM students through a file sharing website: a Covid-19 pandemic perspective. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00070-0
73. Lancaster, T., & Cotarlan, C. (2021). Contract cheating by STEM students through a file sharing website: a Covid-19 pandemic perspective. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00070-0
74. Lanier, M. M. (2006). Academic integrity and distance Learning. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 17(2), 244–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250600866166
75. Lucky, A., Branham, M., & Atchison, R. (2019). Collection-based education by distance and face to face: Learning outcomes and academic dishonesty. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(4), 414–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-9770-8
76. Medina, M. S., & Castleberry, A. N. (2016). Proctoring strategies for computer-based and paper-based tests. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 73(5), 274–277. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp150678
77. Medina, M. S., & Castleberry, A. N. (2016). Proctoring strategies for computer-based and paper-based tests. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 73(5), 274–277. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp150678
78. Miller, A., & Young-Jones, A. D. (2012). Academic integrity: Online classes compared to face-to-face classes. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 39(3/4), 138–145. Social Science Premium Collection.
79. Moallem, M., Chen, S., & Kermani, H. (2005). Using handheld, wireless computers to improve assessment of learning and instruction. Educational Technology, 45(6), 12–21. JSTOR.
80. Moneypenny, D. B., & Aldrich, R. S. (2016, July 1). Online and face-to-face language learning: A comparative analysis of oral proficiency in introductory Spanish. Journal of Educators Online. https://doaj.org
81. Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001
82. Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001
83. Moranski, K., & Kim, F. (2016). ‘Flipping’ lessons in a multi‐section Spanish course: Implications for assigning explicit grammar instruction outside of the classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 830–852. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12366
84. Newton, P. M. (2018). How common is commercial contract cheating in higher education and is it increasing? A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 3, 67. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00067
85. Nguyen, J. G., Keuseman, K. J., & Humston, J. J. (2020). Minimize online cheating for online assessments during COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 3429–3435. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00790
86. Olt, M. R. (2002). Ethics and distance education: Strategies for minimizing academic dishonesty in online assessment. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(3). https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall53/olt53.html
87. Pardede, P. (2019). Pre-service EFL teachers’ perception of blended learning. JET (Journal of English Teaching), 5(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.33541/jet.v5i1.955
88. Peeters, W. (2018). Applying the networking power of Web 2.0 to the foreign language classroom: a taxonomy of the online peer interaction process. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 905–931. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1465982
89. Peeters, W. (2018). Applying the networking power of Web 2.0 to the foreign language classroom: a taxonomy of the online peer interaction process. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 905–931. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1465982
90. Pettersson, F., & Hjelm, P. (2020). Feature: Researching and developing remote teaching in mother tongue tuition. https://doi.org/10.26203/R9KJ-TF14
91. Pettersson, F., & Hjelm, P. (2020). Feature: Researching and developing remote teaching in mother tongue tuition. https://doi.org/10.26203/R9KJ-TF14
92. Reedy, A., Pfitzner, D., Rook, L., & Ellis, L. (2021). Responding to the COVID-19 emergency: student and academic staff perceptions of academic integrity in the transition to online exams at three Australian universities. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00075-9
93. Reedy, A., Pfitzner, D., Rook, L., & Ellis, L. (2021). Responding to the COVID-19 emergency: student and academic staff perceptions of academic integrity in the transition to online exams at three Australian universities. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00075-9
94. Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1). Publicly Available Content Database; Social Science Premium Collection.
95. Salcedo, C. S. (2010). Comparative analysis of learning outcomes in face-to-face foreign language classes vs. language lab and online. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 7(2), 43–54. Social Science Premium Collection.
96. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59. JSTOR.
97. Simonson, M. R., Smaldino, S. E., & Zvacek, S. (2019). Teaching and learning at a distance: foundations of distance education (7th ed.). Information Age Publishing, Inc.
98. Slade, C., Rowland, S., & McGrath, D. (2019). Talking about contract cheating: facilitating a forum for collaborative development of assessment practices to combat student dishonesty. International Journal for Academic Development, 24(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2018.1521813
99. Slade, C., Rowland, S., & McGrath, D. (2019). Talking about contract cheating: facilitating a forum for collaborative development of assessment practices to combat student dishonesty. International Journal for Academic Development, 24(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2018.1521813
100. Stoytcheva, M. (2021). Developing a sense of belonging in a collaborative distance learning course: Breaking isolation in online learning. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2333(1). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0043330
101. Stoytcheva, M. (2021). Developing a sense of belonging in a collaborative distance learning course: Breaking isolation in online learning. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2333(1). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0043330
102. Stuber-McEwen, D., Wiseley, P., & Hoggatt, S. (2009). Point, click, and cheat: Frequency and type of academic dishonesty in the virtual classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(3). https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall123/stuber123.html
103. UKÄ. (2021). Disciplinärenden 2019 och 2020 vid universitet och högskolor (2021:8). Universitetskanslersämbetet. https://www.uka.se/download/18.3fca4e4d177db4cf57265e2/1615828497166/Rapport%202021-03-16%20Disciplin%C3%A4renden%202019%20och%202020%20vid%20universitet%20och%20h%C3%B6gskolor.pdf
104. UKÄ. (2021). Disciplinärenden 2019 och 2020 vid universitet och högskolor (2021:8). Universitetskanslersämbetet. https://www.uka.se/download/18.3fca4e4d177db4cf57265e2/1615828497166/Rapport%202021-03-16%20Disciplin%C3%A4renden%202019%20och%202020%20vid%20universitet%20och%20h%C3%B6gskolor.pdf
105. van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A. (2006). Designing student peer assessment in higher education: analysis of written and oral peer feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510500527685
106. van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A. (2006). Designing student peer assessment in higher education: analysis of written and oral peer feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510500527685
107. van Es, E. A., Cashen, M., Barnhart, T., & Auger, A. (2017). Learning to notice mathematics instruction: Using video to develop preservice teachers’ vision of ambitious pedagogy. Cognition and Instruction, 35(3), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2017.1317125
108. Watt, D. (2019). Video production in elementary teacher education as a critical digital literacy practice. Media and Communication (Lisboa), 7(2), 82–99. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i2.1967
109. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
110. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
111. Yanto, E. S., Triyani, G., & Pravitasari, H. (2020). Engaging students in a flipped classroom instruction: Junior high school grammar program. Research and Innovation in Language Learning, 3(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.33603/rill.v3i2.3468
112. Yates, R. W., & Beaudrie, B. (2009). The impact of online assessment on grades in community college distance education mathematics courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640902850601