Dynamic Evidence Collection Ecosystem for Assessment Integrity and Authentic Competence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.16016v1
• Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 02:19:30 GMT
• Title: Dynamic Evidence Collection Ecosystem for Assessment Integrity and Authentic Competence
• Abstract summary: "Dynamic Evidence Collection Ecosystem" shifts assessment toward continuous, authentic, multi-source evidence of student learning over time.<n>The framework collects process evidence through iterative artefacts, design logs, activity rounds, self-reflection, and peer collaboration.<n>This paper builds on the hypothesis that academic integrity is strengthened when it is treated as an assessment design rather than as an AI detection problem.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) can produce high-quality essays, code, and design artefacts, challenging the validity of conventional assessments that rely on single-point submissions and product-only grading. This paper proposes a design framework called "Dynamic Evidence Collection Ecosystem" that shifts assessment toward continuous, authentic, multi-source evidence of student learning over time. The framework collects process evidence through iterative artefacts, design logs, activity rounds, self-reflection, and peer collaboration, supported by an AI-enabled layer for learning analytics, formative feedback, and transparency. The approach is grounded in recent assessment-redesign scholarship in AI-rich contexts and aligned with contemporary views of authenticity in assessment. This paper builds on the hypothesis that academic integrity is strengthened when it is treated as an assessment design rather than as an AI detection problem. The tools have limitations and risks of use that carry academic penalties. This paper presents an implementation scenario to support institutional adoption.

Related papers

• AI for Auto-Research: Roadmap & User Guide [107.0834449839233]
  We present an end-to-end analysis of AI across the complete research lifecycle.<n>We identify a sharp, stage-dependent boundary between reliable assistance and unreliable autonomy.<n>We show that greater automation can obscure rather than eliminate failure modes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T17:08:26Z)
• ScholarPeer: A Context-Aware Multi-Agent Framework for Automated Peer Review [48.60540055009675]
  ScholarPeer is a search-enabled multi-agent framework designed to emulate the cognitive processes of a senior researcher.<n>We evaluate ScholarPeer on DeepReview-13K and the results demonstrate that ScholarPeer achieves significant win-rates against state-of-the-art approaches in side-by-side evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T06:54:55Z)
• Beyond Static Scoring: Enhancing Assessment Validity via AI-Generated Interactive Verification [0.4260312058817663]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) challenge the validity of traditional open-ended assessments by blurring the lines of authorship.<n>This paper introduces a novel Human-AI Collaboration framework that enhances assessment integrity by combining rubric-based automated scoring with AI-generated, targeted follow-up questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-14T08:13:53Z)
• Designing AI-Resilient Assessments Using Interconnected Problems: A Theoretically Grounded and Empirically Validated Framework [0.0]
  The rapid adoption of generative AI has undermined traditional modular assessments in computing education.<n>This paper presents a theoretically grounded framework for designing AI-resilient assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-11T15:53:19Z)
• Automatic Reviewers Fail to Detect Faulty Reasoning in Research Papers: A New Counterfactual Evaluation Framework [55.078301794183496]
  We focus on a core reviewing skill that underpins high-quality peer review: detecting faulty research logic.<n>This involves evaluating the internal consistency between a paper's results, interpretations, and claims.<n>We present a fully automated counterfactual evaluation framework that isolates and tests this skill under controlled conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T08:48:00Z)
• CoCoNUTS: Concentrating on Content while Neglecting Uninformative Textual Styles for AI-Generated Peer Review Detection [60.52240468810558]
  We introduce CoCoNUTS, a content-oriented benchmark built upon a fine-grained dataset of AI-generated peer reviews.<n>We also develop CoCoDet, an AI review detector via a multi-task learning framework, to achieve more accurate and robust detection of AI involvement in review content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T06:03:11Z)
• Teaching at Scale: Leveraging AI to Evaluate and Elevate Engineering Education [3.557803321422781]
  This article presents a scalable, AI-supported framework for qualitative student feedback using large language models.<n>The system employs hierarchical summarization, anonymization, and exception handling to extract actionable themes from open-ended comments.<n>We report on its successful deployment across a large college of engineering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-01T20:27:40Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• Machine vs Machine: Using AI to Tackle Generative AI Threats in Assessment [0.0]
  This paper presents a theoretical framework for addressing the challenges posed by generative artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education assessment.<n>Large language models like GPT-4, Claude, and Llama increasingly demonstrate the ability to produce sophisticated academic content.<n>Surveys indicate 74-92% of students experimenting with these tools for academic purposes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-31T22:29:43Z)
• Ratas framework: A comprehensive genai-based approach to rubric-based marking of real-world textual exams [3.4132239125074206]
  RATAS (Rubric Automated Tree-based Answer Scoring) is a novel framework that leverages state-of-the-art generative AI models for rubric-based grading of textual responses.<n> RATAS is designed to support a wide range of grading rubrics, enable subject-agnostic evaluation, and generate structured, explainable rationales for assigned scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T22:17:27Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [51.26815896167173]
  We present a comprehensive tertiary analysis of PAMI reviews along three complementary dimensions.<n>Our analyses reveal distinctive organizational patterns as well as persistent gaps in current review practices.<n>Finally, our evaluation of state-of-the-art AI-generated reviews indicates encouraging advances in coherence and organization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.