Enhancing academic integrity education through a focus on academics’ discipline-based and contextualised approaches, aligned to evidence-based practice

Friday 5 July: Conference day three, 10:30am – 11:00am parallel session

Venue

Room 8 – 303 B09 Sem

Presenters

Dr Michelle Striepe
Curtin University, Australia

Sheona Thomson
Queensland University of Technology
s.thomson@qut.edu.au

Dr Lesley Sefcik
Curtin University, Australia

Overview

Concern about the impact of academic integrity breaches on the quality and reputation of higher education in Australia has resulted in national quality agencies directing higher education providers to identify and implement solutions that minimise academic integrity issues and student breaches (HESF, 2015; TEQSA, 2017).

It has been argued that to decrease student breaches, providers need to focus on improving students’ understanding of academic integrity at the classroom level. (Bertram Gallant, 2017; Bealle, 2017; Christensen Hughes & Bertram Gallant, 2015) Others propose that for academic integrity education to be effective, the influence of contextual factors need to be considered (Leask, 2006; Kisamore, Stone & Jawahar, 2007).

While existing research into academic Integrity education informs a view of ‘best practice’, we still lack a comprehensive picture of how academic integrity education is approached within the classroom environment and how those approaches consider contextual factors such as disciplinary needs and lecturers’ and students’ perspectives (Leask, 2006).

A project conducted across two Australian universities investigated how academic integrity concepts are taught and assessed at the classroom level across a range of discipline areas, including design, law, education, health, science and business. Focus groups, concept mapping, individual semi-structured interviews and document analysis were used to capture participants’ approaches to AI education.  These data were then analysed through a grounded theory methodology to illuminate the different approaches to AI education, the extent to which those approaches were influenced by contextual factors and the extent to which these various approaches aligned with best practice according to the literature. The study exposed the power of discipline norms and professional expectations to inform a range of effective authentic in situ and ‘just-in-time’ guidance for students.

In light of the recommendation that academic integrity education should comprise a “multi-pronged and systematic approach” (East, 2009) this round table will summarise the findings of the project, and invite debate on the possible challenges and benefits of explicitly preparing academics to engage authentic, contextual and disciplinary factors in their approach to academic integrity education in the classroom towards applied concept mastery as a more effective approach than “telling them the rules”.

References

Bertram Gallant, T. (2017). Academic integrity as a teaching and learning issue: From theory to practice. Theory Into Practice, 56(2), 88-94. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2017.1308173
East, J. (2009). Aligning policy and practice: An approach to integrating academic integrity. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 3(1), 38-51. Available at: http://journal.aall.org.au/index.php/jall/article/viewFile/66/62
Christensen Hughes, J., & Bertram Gallant, T. (2015). Infusing ethics and ethical decision making into the curriculum. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 1–15). Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_12-1
Leask,B. (2006). Plagiarism, cultural diversity and metaphor—implications for academic staff development.  Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 183-199. doi: 10.1080/02602930500262486.
Kisamore, J. L. Stone, T.H., & Jawahar, I.M. (2007). Academic integrity: The relationship between individual and situational factors on misconduct contemplations.  Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 381-394. doi 10.1007/s10551-006-9260-9.

Presentation topic

Academics – Academic Development