Handbook of Academic Integrity [2 ed.] 3031399889, 9783031399886

Citation preview

Sarah Elaine Eaton Editor

Handbook of Academic Integrity Second Edition

Handbook of Academic Integrity

Sarah Elaine Eaton Editor

Handbook of Academic Integrity Second Edition

With 68 Figures and 80 Tables

Editor Sarah Elaine Eaton Werklund School of Education University of Calgary Calgary, AB, Canada

ISBN 978-3-031-39988-6 ISBN 978-3-031-39989-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3 1st edition: © Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

Preface to the Second Edition

Academic integrity, research integrity, research ethics, and the ethical conduct of students, academics, and administrators continues to be a complex and pressing problem across all levels of education worldwide. The first edition of this Handbook was led by Professor Tracey Bretag, whose contributions to the field of academic integrity continue to have an impact. Not only did Professor Bretag conduct original empirical research, in 2005 she launched the International Journal for Educational Integrity, published by BMC Springer. She mentored and inspired hundreds of graduate students, early career scholars, and established scholars who wanted to research academic integrity. The first edition of this Handbook established this major work as the most prestigious and authoritative work in the field. This second edition of Handbook of Academic Integrity shares some fundamental characteristics with the first edition and brings forward new topics that have grown in importance in recent years. Academic and research integrity are complex and transdisciplinary fields of research, and scholars from across the disciplines have taken up the call to provide a substantive evidence base for the field. The Handbook of Academic Integrity (2nd ed.) continues to bring together diverse views from around the world. It provides a comprehensive overview of traditional topics such as plagiarism, student conduct, and how to address breaches of integrity. In addition, in this edition, authors have contributed chapters on artificial intelligence, equity, diversity, inclusion, accessibility, decolonization, and Indigenization. The Handbook of Academic Integrity (2nd ed.) is divided into 11 parts based on key discussions in the field. These are introduced by Section Editors who are internationally recognized scholars and experts in the field of academic integrity. Open peer review was conducted by the Section Editors, and I conducted an additional round of review, reading every chapter myself during the development of the Handbook, to ensure its quality and rigor. The Handbook of Academic Integrity (2nd ed.) remains the definitive work on academic integrity, providing value to readers around the world. Calgary, Canada November 2023

Sarah Elaine Eaton

v

vi

Preface to the Second Edition

References Bretag, T. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of academic integrity. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8.

Preface to the First Edition

Since the 1990s, academic integrity has become a central preoccupation for all stakeholders in education. What may have seemed like a relatively easy topic to address has, in fact, turned out to be a very complex, interdisciplinary field of research requiring contributions from linguists, psychologists, social scientists, anthropologists, teaching and learning specialists, mathematicians, accountants, medical doctors, lawyers, and philosophers, to name just a few. Despite or perhaps because of this broad interest and input, until now there has been no single authoritative reference work which brings together the vast, growing, interdisciplinary, and at times contradictory body of literature. The Handbook of Academic Integrity brings together diverse views from around the world and provides a comprehensive overview, beginning with different definitions of academic integrity through how to create the ethical academy. The Handbook also engages with some of the vigorous debates in the field such as the context and causes of academic integrity breaches and how best to respond to those breaches. For established researchers/practitioners and those new to the field, the Handbook provides both a one-stop shop and a launching pad for new explorations and discussions. The Handbook of Academic Integrity is divided into 10 sections based on key discussions/themes in the field, introduced by Section Editors who are internationally recognized researchers and writers on academic integrity. Double-blind peer review of every chapter has added to the rigor of the Handbook as the definitive work on this subject. The Handbook is available as a print edition and as a fully searchable online version. Adelaide, South Australia January 2016

Tracey Bretag

vii

Acknowledgments

I express my appreciation to the hundreds of people who have contributed to this book in direct and indirect ways. First and foremost, I thank the Section Editors, who took on the challenge and responsibility of overseeing the development and delivery of chapters in their respective sections: Brenda M. Stoesz, Silvia Rossi, Joseph F. Brown, Guy Curtis, Irene Glendinning, Ceceilia Parnther, Loreta Tauginienė, Zeenath Reza Khan, and Wendy Sutherland-Smith. You are the experts who provided leadership, commitment, and guidance to authors in your sections. Your critical eye as open peer reviewers ensured that contributions met the highest standards of scholarly contributions. You pushed the authors to do their best work and your efforts are a testament to our collective commitment to scholarship that meets the most exacting standards. I am grateful to the authors from all over the world who contributed to this Handbook. You brought new insights, while drawing from previous literature. Your many hours of drafting, revising, and refining your work has been invisible work, usually in addition to a busy and unrelenting day job. Your efforts have been worth it, as the quality of the contributions is unparalleled. We remain grateful to those giants in the field on whose shoulders we stand. In particular, I will forever appreciate Tracey Bretag who served as the editor of the first edition of this Handbook. You continue to inspire so many of us in our daily work and long-term commitment to the field. I would also like to thank the team at Springer whose work behind the scenes for the past two years made this work a reality. Special thanks to Nick Melchior who initially brought me into the project; to Astrid Noordermeer, who provided editorial leadership and guidance; and to Neha Thapa, whose superior project management skills are beyond compare. Additional thanks are due to the production team who work in the background and without whom books like this would not happen. Calgary, Canada

Sarah Elaine Eaton

ix

Contents

Volume 1 1

Part I

Comprehensive Academic Integrity (CAI): An Ethical Framework for Educational Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sarah Elaine Eaton Global Perspectives on Academic Integrity

1

..............

15

2

Global Perspectives on Academic Integrity: Introduction . . . . . . Sarah Elaine Eaton

17

3

Academic Integrity in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shuangye Chen and Bruce Macfarlane

23

4

Academic Plagiarism in Malaysia: Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joyce Kim Sim Cheah

31

5

Improving Academic Integrity in Indonesia: Proposed Recommendations for Managing Alleged Misconducts . . . . . . . . Ide Bagus Siaputra and Dimas Armand Santosa

6

Perspectives on Academic Integrity in the ASEAN Region . . . . . Jasper Roe, Mike Perkins, Caroline Wong, and Gi Kunchana Chonu

7

Academic Integrity in South Asia: Focus on India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shiva D. Sivasubramaniam

41 61

77

8

Academic Integrity in Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibek Dahal

95

9

Academic Integrity Perspectives: Insights from Africa . . . . . . . . . Stella-Maris Orim and Anirejuoritse Awala-Ale

117

10

Academic Integrity in Czechia and Slovakia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tomáš Foltýnek, Veronika Krásničan, and Dita Henek Dlabolová

135

xi

xii

Contents

11

The State of Academic Integrity in the Anglophone Caribbean . . . Ruth Baker-Gardner

12

Academic Integrity in North America: A Comparison of Canada and the USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sarah Elaine Eaton and Teresa “Teddi” Fishman

171

Aligning Theoretical and Practical Considerations for Academic Integrity Education: A Canadian Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Matt Rahimian

189

13

Part II Academic Integrity Through Ethical Teaching and Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

15

155

201

Academic Integrity Through Ethical Teaching and Assessment: Overview and Current Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brenda M. Stoesz

203

Academic Integrity and the Affordances and Limitations of Authentic Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jason Openo

217

16

Coordinating Ethical Assessment at the Program Level Susan L. Bens

.......

233

17

Academic Integrity and Accommodations: The Intersections of Ethics and Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meghan E. Norris, Tara A. Karasewich, and Heidi K. Kenkel

249

Guidelines for Creating Online MCQ-Based Exams to Evaluate Higher Order Learning and Reduce Academic Misconduct . . . . Philip M. Newton

269

Integrity Through Experience: Fostering a Culture of Academic Integrity Through an Experiential Learning Approach . . . . . . . . Rebecca M. Brooks

287

18

19

20

Integrating Academic Integrity: An Educational Approach Erica J. Morris

....

305

21

Walking the Talk: Modelling Integrity as University Professionals as Part of Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Activities . . . . . . Amanda White

325

Grading Standards in Higher Education: Trends, Context, and Prognosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gigi Foster

341

22

23

On Recycling Our Own Work in the Digital Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miguel Roig

361

Contents

Part III Supporting Students with Academic Integrity and Ethical Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Supporting Students with Academic Integrity and Ethical Learning: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Silvia L. Rossi

xiii

381

383

25

Teaching Academic Integrity as Good Historical Practice . . . . . . Mairi Cowan and Andrew Nurse

26

Moral Disengagement Leading to Social Acceptance of Academic Misconduct: A Predictor of Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pablo Ayala-Enríquez and Jean Guerrero-Dib

409

Patchwriting, Plagiarism, Pedagogy: Definitions and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sandra Jamieson

433

Plagiarism, International Students, and the Second-Language Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diane Pecorari

451

27

28

29

Modeling Scientific Writing as Scientific Problem-Solving . . . . . . Bronwen M. M. Wheatley

30

Academic Integrity and Creative Order: A Case from South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zander Janse van Rensburg and Sonja van der Westhuizen

389

467

485

31

Framing Students’ Perspectives on Academic Integrity . . . . . . . . Lee Adam

503

32

Academic Integrity in Creative Arts and Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sarah Keith

523

Part IV Student Breaches of Academic Integrity: Plagiarism, Exam Cheating, and More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Student Breaches of Integrity: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joseph F. Brown

34

Challenges and Benefits of an Academic Integrity Office: Sustaining an Academic Integrity Culture Focused on Student Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Camilla J. Roberts

35

Lessons Learned During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Concerns Moving Forward: Academic Leadership Lens . . . . . . . Kara E. Latopolski and James Orr

539 541

547

565

xiv

36

37

38

39

Contents

Academic Integrity and the Canadian University Ombudsperson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Emma J. Thacker

585

Cheating and Honor: Lessons from a Long-Term Research Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Donald McCabe

599

Encountering and Countering Academic Misconduct in Student Mathematical Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katherine A. Seaton

611

Courageous Conversations: Approaching Amnesty Through Honesty as Reparations to a Learning Community . . . . . . . . . . . Kane Murdoch and David House

631

Volume 2 Part V Contract Cheating and the Commodification of Academic Misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

645

40

Contract Cheating: Introduction Guy J. Curtis

.........................

647

41

Understanding Contract Cheating Businesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cath Ellis

663

42

Prevalence, Incidence, and Rates of Contract Cheating . . . . . . . . Guy J. Curtis and Joseph Clare

681

43

Understanding the ‘Supply End’ of Contract Cheating: A Kenyan Youth (Un)Employment Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chloe Walker

697

Writing the Self: Ghostwriter Perspectives and Identity Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Emma J. Thacker

713

44

45

Contract Cheating: Legal, Regulatory, and Policy Responses . . . Michael Draper and Mairéad Boland

46

Contracting During COVID-19: Why Academic Integrity Issues Spread with the Pandemic? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leah P. Hollis

47

Understanding Contract Cheating and Essay Mills Through a Social Lens in the Era of Web 3.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zeenath Reza Khan, Prakash Vel, Elvira Asylguzhina, and Veena Mulani

729

747

763

Contents

48

49

xv

Student Peer-to-Peer File Sharing as an Academic Integrity Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ann M. Rogerson Contract Cheating: Practical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thomas Lancaster

Part VI

Academic Integrity Policy and Quality Assurance . . . . . . .

785 799

813

50

Linking Quality, Standards, and Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irene Glendinning

51

Transformative Change in Academic Integrity Policy at Australian Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saadia Mahmud

825

Academic Integrity in the United Kingdom: The Quality Assurance Agency’s National Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Luke Myer and Andy W. Smith

841

Enhancing Cultures of Academic Integrity in Irish Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sue Hackett, Yvonne Kavanagh, William Kelly, and Iain MacLaren

859

US Accreditation and Quality Assurance: Standards and Processes; Issues and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teresa “Teddi” Fishman

877

Framework of Considerations for Academic Integrity in Quality Assurance in Canadian Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . Patti Dyjur and Kimberley A. Grant

893

Academic Integrity Policies in Hispanic South American Higher Education: Status and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . Beatriz Antonieta Moya

911

Quality Assurance and Academic Integrity in Higher Education in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N. V. Varghese

935

Quality and Policies for Academic Integrity: Challenges Faced by Russian Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anna Abalkina

953

Academic Integrity in China: Challenges for Policy, Practice, and Quality Assurance in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stephen Gow and Qingyang Sun

975

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

815

European Cooperation in Academic Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1001 Tomáš Foltýnek and Irene Glendinning

xvi

Contents

61

Networking and Initiatives on Quality Standards and Integrity in Higher Education in the Middle East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017 Nadia Badrawi and Maha Rashwan

62

Global Networking on Secure Academic Credentials . . . . . . . . . . 1039 Alexander Knoth, Kathleen Clancy, Leo Peters, and Herman de Leeuw

63

“Big Q” and “Small q” Quality: A Taxonomy for Assuring Academic Quality, Standards, and Integrity in Online Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063 Dawn Gilmore

64

Governing Academic Integrity: Conceptualizing the Assurance and Efficacy of Strategies and Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081 Sharon Andrews and Irene Glendinning

Part VII Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Academic Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1113

65

Decolonization, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Academic Integrity: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115 Ceceilia Parnther

66

Inclusion Within a Holistic Approach to Academic Integrity: Improving Policy, Pedagogy, and Wider Practice for All Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129 Mary Davis

67

High Tuition, Low-Quality Education, and Racism: The Spiral Eroding Academic Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1149 Arthur Scarritt

68

Enabling Ableism: Using Academic Integrity Arguments to Create Disability in Testing Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1169 Brenda McDermott

69

Academic Integrity and International Students: An Inclusive Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1187 Elena Denisova-Schmidt

70

Understanding How Faculty Members Act When Faced with Plagiarism: A Cross-Cultural Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1201 Debora Gottardello and Solmaz Filiz Karabag

71

The Integrity of Good Relations: Indigenous Approaches to Respect, Relationality, and Reciprocity in Higher Learning . . . . 1223 Keeta Gladue and Yvonne Poitras Pratt

Contents

xvii

72

Academic Integrity, Ableist Assessment Design, and Pedagogies of Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1245 Ann Gagné

73

An Equitable Approach to Academic Integrity Through Alternative Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1261 Eliana Elkhoury

74

Toward Reflexive Practice: Deconstructing Academic Integrity, EDI, and Awareness Training from an Indigenous Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1273 Gabrielle Weasel Head

Volume 3 Part VIII Ethics and Integrity in Research, Publishing, and Educational Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1287

75

Ethics and Integrity in Research, Publishing, and Educational Leadership: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1289 Loreta Tauginienė

76

Educational Ethical Leadership: Characteristics and Styles . . . . 1295 Vilma Žydžiūnaitė

77

Publication Ethics and Graduate Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1313 Deborah C. Poff

78

Doctoral Supervision as a Bedrock for the Academic Integrity Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1327 Erika Löfström

79

Academic Integrity, Moral Courage, and Whistleblowing in Student Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1339 Libia Lara Carrion and Katrina A. Bramstedt

80

Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Academic Research and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1355 Nader Ghotbi

81

Citizen Science and Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1367 Per Sandin and Patrik Baard

82

Preprints Are Here to Stay: Is That Good for Science? . . . . . . . . 1383 Jadranka Stojanovski and Ana Marušić

83

Understanding and Addressing Drivers of Corruption in Academic Publishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1403 Irene Glendinning and Sarah Elaine Eaton

xviii

Contents

Part IX Role of Technology and Cybersecurity in Academic Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1423

84

Role of Technology and Cybersecurity in Academic Integrity: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1425 Zeenath Reza Khan

85

Cybersecurity: The Next Defense Against Academic Misconduct? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1431 Clare Johnson, Mike Reddy, and Ross Davies

86

Forensic Assignment Stylometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1447 Robin Crockett

87

Reframing and Broadening Adversarial Stylometry for Academic Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1467 Jamie J. Carmichael

88

Machine Translation in the Writing Process: Pedagogy, Plagiarism, Policy, and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1487 Daniel G. Dusza

89

Remote Proctoring: Understanding the Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1511 Phillip Dawson

90

Framework for Ethical Implementation of Remote Proctoring in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1527 Jarret Dyer

91

Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Academia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1551 Zeenath Reza Khan

92

Academic Integrity and Artificial Intelligence: An Overview Rahul Kumar, Sarah Elaine Eaton, Michael Mindzak, and Ryan Morrison

93

Games and Gamification: Can Playful Student Engagement Improve Academic Integrity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1597 Mike Reddy and Clare Johnson

94

Considering the Dimensions of Trust, Privacy, and Technology Innovations to Enable Quality-Assured Credential Assessment Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1611 Joanne Duklas

Part X 95

. . . 1583

Integrity as a Field of Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1627

Integrity as a Field of Scholarship: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1629 Sarah Elaine Eaton

Contents

xix

96

Academic and Research Integrity as Transdisciplinary Fields of Scholarship and Professional Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1633 Sarah Elaine Eaton

97

Academic Integrity Scholarship: The Importance of Theory . . . . 1651 Guy J. Curtis and Joseph Clare

98

Academic Misconduct Through a Criminological Lens . . . . . . . . 1671 Rebecca Awdry

99

Design, Run, and Interpret Survey-Based Research in the Fields of Academic Integrity and Misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1689 Philip M. Newton

100

Designing International Research to Promote Academic Integrity: From Funding to Educating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1707 Martine Peters, Irene Glendinning, and Sandra Jamieson

101

Streamlined Collaboration to Face Academic Integrity Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1723 Salim Razı

102

Building a Multinational Transdisciplinary Integrity Project: Insights from the BRIDGE Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1739 Sonja Bjelobaba and Inga Gaižauskaitė

103

Rebooting a Legend: The ICAI/McCabe Student Survey . . . . . . 1751 David A. Rettinger, Courtney Cullen, Andrew H. Perry, and Darragh McNally

Part XI Academic Integrity Leadership at National and International Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1767

104

Academic Integrity Leadership at National and International Levels: Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1769 Wendy Sutherland-Smith

105

Legislative Leadership in the Academic Integrity Space . . . . . . . 1773 Wendy Sutherland-Smith and Michael Draper

106

ENRIO’s Leading Pathway to Research Integrity Promotion . . . 1789 Helga Nolte, Kalle Videnoja, Loreta Tauginienė, Hjördis Czesnick, and Siret Rutiku

107

Academic Integrity in Africa: Role of Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . 1807 Goolam Mohamedbhai

108

History of the International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI): Exigence, Genesis, and Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1827 Teresa “Teddi” Fishman

xx

Contents

109

Academic Integrity Leadership and Community Building in Canadian Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1847 Sarah Elaine Eaton, Brenda M. Stoesz, and Amanda McKenzie

110

Commercialization of Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1867 Adrianna Kezar and Samantha Bernstein-Sierra

111

Leveraging Institutional Integrity for the Betterment of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1889 Tricia Bertram-Gallant

112

Challenges and Solutions: A National Perspective from Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1905 Helen Gniel, Karen Treloar, Rosemary Marcon, and Alistair Maclean

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1921

About the Editor

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is an associate professor at the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Canada. She has received research awards of excellence for her scholarship on academic integrity from the Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education (CSSHE) (2020) and the European Network for Academic Integrity (ENAI) (2022). Dr. Eaton has written and presented extensively on academic integrity and ethics in higher education and is regularly invited as a media guest to talk about academic misconduct. Dr. Eaton is the editor-in-chief of the International Journal for Educational Integrity (Springer). Her books include Plagiarism in Higher Education: Tackling Tough Topics in Academic Integrity (2021), Academic Integrity in Canada: An Enduring and Essential Challenge (Eaton & Christensen Hughes, eds.), Contract Cheating in Higher Education: Global Perspectives on Theory, Practice, and Policy (Eaton, Curtis, Stoesz, Clare, Rundle, & Seeland, eds.), Ethics and Integrity in Teacher Education (Eaton & Khan, eds.), and Fake Degrees and Fraudulent Credentials in Higher Education (Eaton, Carmichael, & Pethrick, eds.). She is also the editor-in-chief of the Handbook of Academic Integrity (2nd ed., Springer). Eaton leads a transdisciplinary research project, “Understanding the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Higher Education,” funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

xxi

Section Editors

Joseph F. Brown Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO, USA

Guy J. Curtis School of Psychological Science University of Western Australia Perth, Western Australia, Australia

Sarah Elaine Eaton University of Calgary Calgary, Alberta, Canada

xxiii

xxiv

Section Editors

Irene Glendinning Coventry University Shawell, Lutterworth, UK

Zeenath Reza Khan University of Wollongong Al Qudra, Dubai, UAE

Ceceilia Parnther Executive Leadership Purcell School of Professional Studies Le Moyne College Syracuse, NY, USA

Section Editors

xxv

Silvia L. Rossi Student Learning Services Mount Royal University Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Brenda M. Stoesz Centre for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Wendy Sutherland-Smith Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning (CRADLE) Deakin University Geelong, Australia

xxvi

Section Editors

Loreta Tauginienė Hanken School of Economics Helsinki, Finland Office of the Ombudsperson for Academic Ethics and Procedures Vilnius, Lithuania

Contributors

Anna Abalkina Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany Lee Adam Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand Sharon Andrews School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Elvira Asylguzhina University of Wollongong in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates Anirejuoritse Awala-Ale Affiliated to the Faculty of Business and Law, Coventry University, Coventry, UK Rebecca Awdry Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia Pablo Ayala-Enríquez Tecnológico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico Patrik Baard Department of Philosophy, Classics, History of Art and Ideas, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Nadia Badrawi Arab Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, Cairo, Egypt Ruth Baker-Gardner The Department of Library and Information Studies, The University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica Susan L. Bens Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching and Learning, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada Samantha Bernstein-Sierra Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Tricia Bertram-Gallant Academic Integrity Office, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA Sonja Bjelobaba Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics and Department of Modern Languages, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden xxvii

xxviii

Contributors

Mairéad Boland Academic Integrity Regulation & Strategic Partnerships, Quality and Qualifications Ireland, Dublin, Ireland Katrina A. Bramstedt Bond University Medical Program, Gold Coast, Australia Rebecca M. Brooks Centre for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada Joseph F. Brown The Institute for Learning and Teaching, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA Jamie J. Carmichael Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada Libia Lara Carrion Khalifa University College of Medicine & Health Sciences, Abu Dhabi, UAE Joyce Kim Sim Cheah Petaling Jaya, Malaysia Shuangye Chen Department of Educational Administration and Policy, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong Gi Kunchana Chonu James Cook University, Singapore, Singapore Kathleen Clancy German Academic Exchange Service, Berlin, Germany Joseph Clare School of Law, University Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia Mairi Cowan Department of Historical Studies and Institute for the Study of University Pedagogy, University of Toronto Mississauga, Toronto and Mississauga, ON, Canada Robin Crockett University of Northampton, Northampton, UK Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK Courtney Cullen University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA Guy J. Curtis School of Psychological Science, University Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia Hjördis Czesnick German Research Ombudsman, Berlin, Germany Bibek Dahal University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Ross Davies University of South Wales, Pontypridd, UK Mary Davis Business School, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK Phillip Dawson Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Herman de Leeuw UNESCO, Groningen, The Netherlands Elena Denisova-Schmidt University of St. Gallen (HSG), St. Gallen, Switzerland Center for International Higher Education (CIHE), Boston College, Chestnut Hill, USA

Contributors

xxix

Dita Henek Dlabolová European Network for Academic Integrity, Brno, Czechia Michael Draper Hillary Rodham Clinton School of Law, Swansea University, Swansea, UK Joanne Duklas Duklas Cornerstone Consulting Inc, Toronto, ON, Canada Daniel G. Dusza Kanda Institute of Foreign Languages, Chiyoda-Ku, Tokyo, Japan Jarret Dyer College of DuPage, Glen Ellyn, IL, USA Patti Dyjur University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Sarah Elaine Eaton Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Eliana Elkhoury Athabasca University, Athabasca, AB, Canada Cath Ellis Faculty of Arts, Design and Architecture,UNSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia Teresa “Teddi” Fishman Richmond, VA, USA Tomáš Foltýnek Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia Gigi Foster University of New South Wales, School of Economics, Sydney, NSW, Australia Ann Gagné Institute for the Study of University Pedagogy, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, ON, Canada Inga Gaižauskaitė Institute of Sociology, Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, Vilnius, Lithuania Nader Ghotbi Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, Beppu, Japan Dawn Gilmore RMIT Online, Melbourne, Australia Keeta Gladue University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada Irene Glendinning Office of Teaching and Learning, Coventry University, Coventry, UK Helen Gniel Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, Melbourne, Australia Debora Gottardello University of Edinburgh Business School, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK Stephen Gow University of York, York, UK Kimberley A. Grant University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Jean Guerrero-Dib Universidad de Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico

xxx

Contributors

Sue Hackett Quality & Qualifications, Dublin, Ireland Gabrielle Weasel Head Humanities, Mount Royal University, Calgary, AB, Canada Leah P. Hollis Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA David House UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia Sandra Jamieson Drew University, Madison, NJ, USA Clare Johnson University of South Wales, Pontypridd, UK Solmaz Filiz Karabag Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden Department of Civil and Industrial Engineering, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden Tara A. Karasewich Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada Yvonne Kavanagh South East Technological University, Carlow, Ireland Sarah Keith Department of Media, Communications, Creative Arts, Languages, and Literature, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, Australia William Kelly Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland Heidi K. Kenkel Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada Adrianna Kezar School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Zeenath Reza Khan University of Wollongong in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates Alexander Knoth German Academic Exchange Service, Berlin, Germany Veronika Krásničan European Network for Academic Integrity, Brno, Czechia Rahul Kumar Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada Thomas Lancaster Imperial College London, London, UK Kara E. Latopolski Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA Erika Löfström Department of Education, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland Bruce Macfarlane Centre for Higher Education at Southampton, School of Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK Iain MacLaren University of Galway, Galway, Ireland Alistair Maclean Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, Melbourne, Australia

Contributors

xxxi

Saadia Mahmud Australian Institute of Business, Adelaide, SA, Australia Rosemary Marcon Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, Melbourne, Australia Ana Marušić University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia Donald McCabe Rutgers Business School, Newark, NJ, USA Brenda McDermott University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Amanda McKenzie University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada Darragh McNally University of Maryland Global Campus, Adelphi, MD, USA Michael Mindzak Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada Goolam Mohamedbhai Independent Higher Education Consultant, Rose-Hill, Mauritius Erica J. Morris University of Northampton, Northampton, UK Ryan Morrison George Brown College, Toronto, ON, Canada Beatriz Antonieta Moya Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Veena Mulani Al Diyafah High School, Dubai, United Arab Emirates Kane Murdoch Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia Luke Myer The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA, 2020– 2022), The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR 2022–Present), Cardiff, UK Philip M. Newton Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Singleton Park Campus, Swansea, Wales, UK Helga Nolte Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany CoachInScience, Coaching Mediation, Consulting on Good Scientific Practice, Hamburg, Germany Meghan E. Norris Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada Andrew Nurse Centre for Canadian Studies, Mount Allison University, Sackville, NB, Canada Jason Openo Medicine Hat College, Medicine Hat, Canada Stella-Maris Orim Department of Information Systems, Faculty of Engineering and Computing, Coventry University, Coventry, UK James Orr The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA Ceceilia Parnther Executive Leadership, Purcell School of Professional Studies, Le Moyne College, Syracuse, NY, USA

xxxii

Contributors

Diane Pecorari School of Education, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Mike Perkins British University Vietnam, Hung Yen, Vietnam Andrew H. Perry The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA Leo Peters German Academic Exchange Service, Berlin, Germany Martine Peters Department of Education, Université du Québec en Outaouais, Gatineau, QC, Canada Deborah C. Poff Philosophy Department, Adjunct Research Faculty, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada Yvonne Poitras Pratt University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada Matt Rahimian Huron University College, London, ON, Canada Maha Rashwan National Authority for Quality Assurance and Accreditation of Education, Cairo, Egypt Salim Razı Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Dardannelles, Turkey Mike Reddy Faculty of Computing Engineering and Science, University of South Wales, Pontypridd, UK David A. Rettinger University of Mary Washington, Fredericksburg, VA, USA Camilla J. Roberts Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA Jasper Roe James Cook University, Singapore, Singapore Ann M. Rogerson Faculty of Business and Law, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia Miguel Roig Department of Psychology, St. John’s University, Staten Island, NY, USA Silvia L. Rossi Student Learning Services, Mount Royal University, Calgary, AB, Canada Siret Rutiku University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia Per Sandin Department of Crop Production Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden Dimas Armand Santosa Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia Arthur Scarritt Department of Sociology, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA Katherine A. Seaton Department of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Ide Bagus Siaputra Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia

Contributors

xxxiii

Shiva D. Sivasubramaniam Biomedical and Forensic Science, University of Derby, Derby, UK Andy W. Smith The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA, 2018–present), Cardiff, UK Brenda M. Stoesz Centre for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Jadranka Stojanovski University of Zadar, Zadar, Croatia Ruđer Bošković Institute, Zagreb, Croatia Qingyang Sun Xi’an Jiaotong Liverpool University, Suzhou, China Wendy Sutherland-Smith Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning (CRADLE), Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia Loreta Tauginienė Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland Loreta Tauginienė Office of the Ombudsperson for Academic Ethics and Procedures, Vilnius, Lithuania Emma J. Thacker University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Karen Treloar Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, Melbourne, Australia Zander Janse van Rensburg North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa Sonja van der Westhuizen North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa N. V. Varghese National Institute for Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi, India Prakash Vel University of Wollongong in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates Kalle Videnoja Finnish National Board of Research Integrity TENK, Helsinki, Finland Chloe Walker Faculty of Humanities and Education University of the West Indies, Cave Hill, St. Michael, Barbados Bronwen M. M. Wheatley University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Amanda White University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia Caroline Wong James Cook University, Singapore, Singapore Vilma Žydžiūnaitė Educational Research Institute, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania

1

Comprehensive Academic Integrity (CAI): An Ethical Framework for Educational Contexts Sarah Elaine Eaton

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions of Academic Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Comprehensive Academic Integrity (CAI) Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Everyday Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Institutional Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ethical Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Professional and Collegial Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instructional Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Academic Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Integrity and Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Publication Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Call to Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 3 4 4 5 5 6 7 7 8 9 9 10 10 10 11

Abstract

In this introductory chapter, the Comprehensive Academic Integrity (CAI) framework is introduced. The CAI framework includes eight (8) overlapping and intertwined elements: (1) everyday ethics, (2) institutional ethics, (3) ethical leadership, (4) professional and collegial ethics, (5) instructional ethics, (6) student academic conduct, (7) research integrity and ethics, and (8) publication ethics. The central argument of this framework is that academic integrity must encompass, but extend beyond, notions of student conduct, and should be considered a foundation of all aspects of education.

S. E. Eaton (*) Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_194

1

2

S. E. Eaton

Keywords

Academic integrity · Student conduct · Student affairs · Research ethics · Research integrity · Publication ethics · Instructional ethics · Pedagogy · Everyday ethics · Experiential learning · Definition · Ethical decision-making · Morals · Values · Virtues

Introduction Academic integrity has long been viewed only as a matter of student conduct, but there is a need for a more updated understanding that extends beyond the prevention of plagiarism or exam cheating. There is a substantive body of literature that discusses the destructive impact of adversarial and antagonistic relationships that can develop between students and educators, or students and administrators, when student cheating dominates the discourse relating to academic integrity (e.g., Eisner & Vicinus, 2008; Miron et al., 2022; Vaux, 2016; Zwagerman, 2008). The Comprehensive Academic Integrity (CAI) framework presents ethical decision-making as an essential skill across the academy in all matters of teaching, learning, assessment, research, publication, leadership, and everyday decisionmaking. This introductory chapter is intended to serve as a unifying thread that knits together themes and ideas woven throughout the chapters in this handbook (Fig. 1). In the sections that follow I explain the core elements of the CAI framework, with a description of each. But before that, I examine some definitions of academic integrity.

Fig. 1 Comprehensive Academic Integrity (CAI) framework

1

Comprehensive Academic Integrity (CAI): An Ethical Framework. . .

3

Definitions of Academic Integrity There is no singular or universal definition of academic integrity. I have argued elsewhere that there is no singular definition of plagiarism (Eaton, 2017, 2021). Extending that line of thinking, I assert that there is no singular, absolute, or universal definition of academic integrity. Definitions may depend on values, principles, virtues, and culture (including, but not limited to, ancestral or organizational cultures). Various organizations have proffered different definitions over the years. In the first edition of this handbook, the Editor in Chief Tracey Bretag highlighted this definition from the Asia Pacific Forum on Educational Integrity (APFEI): APFEI defines educational integrity as a commitment to the key values of honesty, trust, fairness, equity, respect and responsibility, and the translation of these values into action (adapted from the Center for Academic Integrity The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity 1999). This view of integrity involves much more than a commitment from students not to cheat or plagiarise. Educational integrity is multi-dimensional and is enabled by all those in the educational enterprise, from students to teachers, librarians, advisors, research colleagues and administrators. It is for this reason that APFEI prefaces ‘integrity’ with ‘educational’ rather than just the more conventional ‘academic’. Additionally, from the first conference in 2003, APFEI has sought to be inclusive in our approach to the numerous stakeholders of integrity across the various educational sectors. (APFEI, as cited in Bretag, 2016, p. 28)

The APFEI definitions build from the Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity developed by the International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI). The fundamental values project was launched in 1999 as a set of five values: fairness, honesty, respect, responsibility, and trust (Center for Academic Integrity, 1999). The document was updated in 2014, under the editorship of Teddi Fishman, and a sixth value was added: courage (ICAI, 2014). Today, the ICAI defines academic integrity as “a commitment to six fundamental values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage” (ICAI, 2021, p. 4). Meanwhile, the European Network for Academic Integrity (ENAI) defines academic integrity as: “Compliance with ethical and professional principles, standards, practices and consistent system of values, that serves as guidance for making decisions and taking actions in education, research and scholarship” (Tauginienė et al., 2018, pp. 8–9). The ENAI definition published in 2018 pointed toward a shift in thinking beyond academic integrity merely as a matter of student conduct in classes and examinations and extended the definition to include research and scholarship. In 2023, ENAI renamed their annual conference to the European Conference on Ethics and Integrity in Academia, removing the word “plagiarism,” which had been in previous conference titles. This subtle, but important change signaled to the world that integrity and ethics extended to all aspects of the academy.

4

S. E. Eaton

Our understandings of academic integrity evolve over time (Curtis, 2021) and this chapter offers an updated way of looking at academic integrity, regardless of particular definitions we might use. Indeed, academic integrity is about much more than plagiarism or exam cheating, and it is also about more than regulatory compliance (Israel, 2016). A central argument to this chapter is that adhering to policies and procedures related to ethical conduct is important, but insufficient. Academic integrity provides a foundation for ethical decision-making in everyday life.

The Comprehensive Academic Integrity (CAI) Framework The CAI framework does not propose a new definition for academic integrity. The examples above show that there are already a variety of definitions available that institutions can use to help them with policy development and the advancement of an organizational culture of integrity. Instead, the CAI framework shows how our understandings of academic integrity must include, but also extend beyond, student conduct. The idea of a wholistic approach to academic integrity is not new. Similar ideas have been proposed, in some form or another, repeatedly by experts all over the world (e.g., Bertram Gallant, 2008; Boud & Bearman, 2022; Bretag et al., 2014; Carroll & Duggan, 2005; Löfström et al., 2015; Morris & Carroll, 2016; Turner & Beemsterboer, 2003). The CAI framework synthesizes ideas that have been repeated for decades in various iterations. The CAI framework encompasses eight (8) overlapping and intertwined elements: (1) everyday ethics, (2) institutional ethics, (3) ethical leadership, (4) professional and collegial ethics, (5) instructional ethics, (6) student academic conduct, (7) research integrity and ethics, and (8) publication ethics. Each of these are discussed in the sections that follow.

Everyday Ethics Academic integrity is a foundation for ethical decision-making in everyday life. Academic integrity has historically been framed as behavior that happens in the classroom and in examination halls, but in today’s world even formal learning extends beyond the boundaries of our campuses. Since the turn of the millennium, there has been a steady increase in the incorporation of field placements, practicums, work-integrated learning, co-op programs, cocurricular learning, and other forms of experiential learning across higher education; and ethical decision-making matters just as much in these contexts as it does in the classroom (Bradford, 2018; BakerGardner, 2019; Miron, 2022).

1

Comprehensive Academic Integrity (CAI): An Ethical Framework. . .

5

By teaching academic integrity skills such as citing and referencing, we are teaching students “epistemological empowerment” (Hendricks & Quinn, 2000, p. 447). In other words, when we teach the skills related to academic integrity, we are teaching students how to behave in ethical ways as agents of their own learning. In turn, this can help to cultivate a sense of personal ethics. Personal ethics can be described as the extent to which individuals bring “their values, beliefs and attributes to the decision making process” (Hannah & Jindal-Snape, 2014, p. 7). Personal ethics transfers to a myriad of contexts beyond the classroom, including in the workplace (Guerrero-Dib et al. 2020). Civility, politeness, and generally treating others with respect, kindness, and compassion can also be considered aspects of ethical living. By upholding academic integrity, individuals are demonstrating their personal ethics through their decisions and their behavior.

Institutional Ethics In order for individuals to act with integrity on a daily basis, there must be organizational systems in place that support ethical decision-making. Institutional ethics, or organizational ethics, refers to having an institutional culture of integrity. Because members of a learning community coexist together within an organization, ethics must be infused across the institution (Bertram Gallant & Drinan, 2008; McCabe et al., 2012). Building a sustainable culture of integrity takes time, effort, and resources. It is not enough for policies relating to ethics and integrity merely to exist. Policies without the institutional support to enact them are merely lip service (Bretag et al., 2011; McCabe et al., 2012). Institutional integrity in higher education includes concrete mechanisms to promote and enact ethical governance and policy, as well as transparency and fiscal responsibility, among other things. In addition, explicit and well-resourced policies, procedures, and practices to prevent and address fraud and corruption are hallmarks of an ethical educational institution.

Ethical Leadership We can only have an ethical organization when leaders themselves act with integrity. It is possible to have an ethical organization only when leaders themselves commit to ethics both as an aspirational goal and a matter of daily practice (Bertram Gallant & Drinan, 2006, 2011; Drinan, 2011; Kezar & Sam, 2011). There is no question that educational leadership has come to be synonymous with leading

6

S. E. Eaton

organizations that are in a state of perpetual change. As Kezar and Sam (2011) note, “leaders must not only examine the ethical ends of the change agenda and their interactions with others, but also build the ethical capacity of others” (p. 153). One responsibility of the ethical leader is to cultivate capacity and competence in others around them to act with integrity. Ethical leadership includes, but is not limited to, insisting that institutional policies, procedures, and governance adhere to ethical norms, but also that the daily interactions between individuals are civil, respectful, and ethical. When leaders turn a blind eye to ethical transgressions, it sends a message to others that integrity does not matter. It is up to leaders to do the hard work of upholding expectations for ethical conduct through their own daily practice of leadership.

Professional and Collegial Ethics Working in an educational institution carries with it an expectation of ethical conduct as part of one’s daily professional practice. Professional ethics refers to a set of behavioral norms, values, and moral principles governing professional groups such as doctors, law enforcement, engineers, and psychologists (Hannah & Jindal-Snape, 2014). As a global sector, higher education lacks regulatory bodies to govern the ethical conduct of professors (Eaton, 2021). It has simply been assumed that professors and others in higher education know how to conduct themselves professionally, but this is not always the case (Braxton, 2011; Braxton & Bayer, 1999; Christensen Hughes & Eaton, 2022; Eaton, 2021). Unprofessional conduct, incivility, bullying, harassment, coercion, and any other action that threatens or harms the welfare of others are all examples of breaches of professional ethics in higher education (Braxton, 2011). Institutional codes of conduct, anti-bullying, and anti-harassment policies and procedures should be a staple of every learning organization, along with the systems and resources to implement them. Holding an academic role can bring with it trust and prestige, and as a result that also means that professors and others who work in the academy should be held to a high standard of ethical conduct, particularly in terms of respectful treatment of others. This is not to say that professors should be prohibited from disagreeing with others or censored in any way. On the contrary, debate and intellectual provocation are part of the academic tradition. Censorship is antithetical to the traditions, norms, and goals of education at all levels. However, disagreeing with someone can – and should – be done in a civil and respectful manner. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to engage in a robust discussion of the role academic freedom plays in academic ethics but suffice to say that having academic freedom does not mean that professors are at liberty to mistreat students, colleagues, staff, or anyone else for that matter.

1

Comprehensive Academic Integrity (CAI): An Ethical Framework. . .

7

Instructional Ethics If teachers and administrators expect students to act with integrity, they should model ethical behavior themselves. When educators and leaders misbehave, it sends a message to students that such behavior is acceptable (Braxton, 2011; Braxton & Bayer, 1999; Christensen Hughes & Eaton, 2022; McCabe et al., 2012). It is up to educators to set the stage for ethical conduct in their classrooms by serving as role models for their students. This includes, but is not limited to, pedagogical and assessment practices such as: • Ensuring feedback is designed to help students learn, not merely to punish them for making errors (e.g., Barrett & Malcolm, 2006; Dawson, 2021; Macdonald & Carroll, 2006) • Understanding that it is impossible to create cheat-proof assessments, and instead focus on designing assessments that allow students to demonstrate what they have learned (e.g., Ellis et al., 2019) • Updating learning assessments on a regular basis (i.e., avoid reusing or recycling the same assignments over and over again, year after year) (e.g., Eaton, 2021) • Communicating course expectations clearly to students (i.e., writing and following a course syllabus that is clear and precise) (e.g., Glendinning, 2016) • Avoiding unethical and immoral practices such as posting fake answers (also known as a honeypot) on file-sharing sites (i.e., entrapment) (Eaton, 2020; Sheinerman & Shevin, 2020) • Modeling citation, referencing, and acknowledgment of others’ ideas in teaching materials (e.g., Löfström et al., 2015) These are just a few examples of how instructional ethics can be practiced in teaching and assessment. The point is that educators are responsible for teaching and assessing students in a manner that demonstrates integrity and ethical conduct.

Student Academic Conduct When we think about students in reference to academic integrity, we should resist the temptation to stereotype students as cheaters and instead consider students as partners in promoting, upholding, and enacting integrity. Student conduct remains an essential element of academic integrity. Ethical decision-making can guide student conduct in, and beyond, the classroom. It is fair to say that the concept of academic integrity evolved from student conduct and

8

S. E. Eaton

student judicial affairs (Eerkes, 2010). In the USA, honor codes have shaped the expectations for student conduct for a few hundred years (Mackenzie, 1899; McCabe et al., 2002; Pavela, 2022). Academic misconduct and academic integrity policies have long been framed within the context of student conduct (see Bretag et al., 2011; Glendinning, 2013; Möller, 2022; Razı et al., 2022; Stoesz & Eaton, 2022). It is rare to see an academic integrity policy that includes faculty, researchers, and administrators, although there is good reason to call for such policies to set the expectations for ethical conduct for all educational stakeholders (including executive leaders). Furthermore, academic integrity policies often have a punitive, rather than an educational focus (Bretag et al., 2011; Miron et al., 2021; Stoesz & Eaton, 2022). There is room in educational policies to include restorative justice, educational or remedial responses, as well as sanctions and penalties. Like all aspects of higher education, our understanding of academic integrity must also evolve. This means that although we might always include student behavior and comportment as one aspect of academic integrity, it is overly reductionist and myopic to regard academic integrity as only relating to student conduct. The role that students themselves play in promoting academic integrity to their peers must not be overlooked. There can be a tendency among those engaged in academic misconduct case management and policy enactment to think of cheaters when we talk about students and academic integrity. Any temptation to demonize or judge the majority of students as being somehow amoral or immoral ought to be avoided at all costs. Students are also agents of change who have the capacity to support – and even to drive – the promotion and development of academic integrity across the organization. Engaging students as partners in academic integrity can help to build and sustain an institutional culture of integrity (Bretag, 2019; Bretag & Mahmud, 2016; Lancaster, 2022).

Research Integrity and Ethics The terms “research integrity” and “research ethics” are sometimes used interchangeably (Hyytinen & Löfström, 2017; Tammeleht et al., 2019, 2022). However, research ethics is also understood as regulatory compliance with ethical standards that can be directly tied to oversight from Research Ethics Boards (REBs) (also known as Independent or Institutional Review Boards or IRBs) and research funding (Israel, 2016; Israel & Thomson, 2013). It is beyond the scope of this chapter to delve into the differences and nuances of these terms and the complexities around them. Suffice to say that an updated understanding of academic integrity must include research ethics and integrity, as these are intertwined with ethical decisionmaking and behavior in all forms of scholarly activity. Including the ethical treatment of humans, animals, and the environment as part of academic integrity is nonnegotiable. Research ethics and integrity are, at their core, the sustained practices of ethical decision-making throughout the process of scientific and intellectual

1

Comprehensive Academic Integrity (CAI): An Ethical Framework. . .

9

inquiry. Ethical decision-making should be infused into the entire process, from the literature review to the research design and project setup, to participant recruitment, to data collection and analysis, and finally to the mobilization of knowledge learned from the research. Although in some countries there are highly developed practices relating to research ethics and integrity, there is still a significant opportunity globally to ensure adequate training is available to researchers at every stage of their career, from trainee to senior researcher.

Publication Ethics Publication ethics means acting with integrity in all forms of knowledge dissemination and knowledge translation. This includes, but is not limited to, journal articles, books, conference presentations, and any other means by which scientific or scholarly knowledge is shared. Ethics in scholarly and scientific publishing continues to be a major concern. Violations of publishing ethics can include unethical authorship (e.g., gift and guest authorship), fabrication and falsification of data and results and image manipulation, as well as duplicate or redundant publication, just to name a few offenses (for starters, see Abalkina, 2021; Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), 2021; Vaux, 2016). Paper retraction and paper mills have become a growing aspect of the corruption of scholarly publishing that requires urgent attention (e.g., Bik, 2022; Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and International Association of Scientific Technical and Medical Publishers (STM), 2022). Since the early 2000s, there is an increasing worldwide trend in students publishing or copublishing during their undergraduate and graduate degrees. For example, obtaining a PhD by publication (also known as the manuscript-based thesis) is becoming more common across disciplines in an increasing number of countries and, in some cases, publication is a requirement for graduation (Brien, 2008; Freeman, 2018; Sharmini et al., 2015). As such, it is imperative that students, postdoctoral fellows, early career researchers, and even experienced scholars receive explicit and ongoing training and mentorship about the importance of publication ethics (▶ Chap. 23, “On Recycling Our Own Work in the Digital Age”). This is why publication ethics must be included in our understanding of academic integrity.

Summary Comprehensive academic integrity is a transdisciplinary field of research, policy, and practice. Throughout the Handbook of Academic Integrity (2nd ed.), authors address integrity from a variety of perspectives. This edition of the handbook presents

10

S. E. Eaton

updated understandings of academic integrity and includes chapters on all the elements included in the CAI framework. As with any good introduction, this chapter was written after all the rest of chapters for the handbook had been submitted and reviewed. In many respects, this chapter is simultaneously complete and incomplete, insofar as it serves as both an introduction to the handbook, and as an invitation to puzzle through some of the nuances of the CAI framework in more detail.

Limitations The descriptions in this chapter of each element of the CAI framework are brief and limited. It will be the work of the academic integrity community to further develop the high-level ideas I have presented here. One criticism of the CAI framework could be that it is too complicated or that it contains too many elements. One reason for the inclusion of eight (8) overlapping elements is that academic integrity itself is complex, nuanced, and sometimes ill-defined. I have presented this framework as a unifying concept for the entire handbook, but the framework itself has yet to be tested, both in concept and in practice.

Call to Action Chapters throughout this handbook provide various points of departure to unpack the ideas presented in this chapter in more depth. So, I conclude with a call to action for academic integrity leaders, scholars, professionals, and students to consider academic integrity from a comprehensive and wholistic perspective. It is time to think beyond academic integrity as only a matter of student conduct and insist that acting with integrity be an expected norm of everyone in learning and research institutions.

Cross-References ▶ Academic Integrity Leadership at National and International Levels: Overview ▶ Academic Integrity Through Ethical Teaching and Assessment: Overview and Current Trends ▶ Contract Cheating: Introduction ▶ Decolonization, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Academic Integrity: Introduction ▶ Ethics and Integrity in Research, Publishing, and Educational Leadership: Introduction ▶ Linking Quality, Standards, and Integrity ▶ Role of Technology and Cybersecurity in Academic Integrity: Introduction

1

Comprehensive Academic Integrity (CAI): An Ethical Framework. . .

11

▶ Student Breaches of Integrity: Introduction ▶ Supporting Students with Academic Integrity and Ethical Learning: Introduction Acknowledgments Thanks are due to several individuals who offered open peer review on this chapter on tight timeline. I am grateful to the two section editors of this Handbook who took extra time just as the book was nearing production to provide feedback, Brenda M. Stoesz and Guy Curtis. I am also grateful to my friend and colleague, Rahul Kumar, and two PhD students, Beatriz Moya and Bibek Dahal, all of whom provided comments to further strengthen this work.

References Abalkina, A. (2021, February 4). Unethical practices in research and publishing: Evidence from Russia. The Scholarly Kitchen. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2021/02/04/guest-postunethical-practices-in-research-and-publishing-evidence-from-russia/ Baker-Gardner, R. (2019). The state of academic integrity in the Caribbean. 27th Annual Conference of the International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI), New Orleans. Barrett, R., & Malcolm, J. (2006). Embedding plagiarism education in the assessment process. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.21913/IJEI.v2i1.23 Bertram Gallant, T. (2008). Academic integrity in the twenty-first century: A teaching and learning imperative. Wiley. Bertram Gallant, T., & Drinan, P. (2008). Toward a model of academic integrity institutionalization: Informing practice in postsecondary education. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 38(2), 25–43. https://journals.sfu.ca/cjhe/index.php/cjhe/article/view/508 Bertram Gallant, T., & Drinan, P. (2006). Organizational theory and student cheating: Explanation, responses, and strategies. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 839–860. http://www.jstor. org/stable/3838789 Bertram Gallant, T., & Drinan, P. (2011). The future of the ethical academy: Preliminary thoughts and suggestions. In T. Bertram Gallant (Ed.), Creating the ethical academy: A systems approach to understanding misconduct and empowering change in higher education (pp. 215–218). Routledge. Bik, E. (2022, September 15). The Iranian plant paper mill. Science Integrity Digest. https:// scienceintegritydigest.com/2022/09/15/the-iranian-plants-paper-mill/ Boud, D., & Bearman, M. (2022). The assessment challenge of social and collaborative learning in higher education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857. 2022.2114346 Bradford, D. L. (2018). Ethical issues in experiential learning. Journal of Management Education, 43(1), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562918807500 Braxton, J. M. (2011). Improprieties in teaching and learning. In T. Bertram Gallant (Ed.), Creating the ethical academy: A systems approach to understanding misconduct and empowering change in higher education (pp. 63–81). Routledge. Braxton, J. M., & Bayer, A. E. (1999). Faculty misconduct in collegiate teaching. Johns Hopkins University Press. Bretag, T. (2016). Educational integrity in Australia. In T. A. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 1–13). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_2-1 Bretag, T. (2019). From ‘perplexities of plagiarism’ to ‘building cultures of integrity’: A reflection on fifteen years of academic integrity research, 2003–2018. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 6. www.herdsa.org.au/herdsa-review-higher-education-vol-6/5-35 Bretag, T., & Mahmud, S. (2016). A conceptual framework for implementing exemplary academic integrity policy in Australian higher education. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 463–480). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_24

12

S. E. Eaton

Bretag, T., Mahmud, S., East, J., Green, M., & James, C. (2011). Academic integrity standards: A preliminary analysis of the academic integrity policies at Australian universities. Proceedings of AuQF 2011 demonstrating quality, Melbourne. Bretag, T., Mahmud, S., Wallace, M., Walker, R., McGowan, U., East, J., Green, M., Partridge, L., & James, C. (2014). ‘Teach us how to do it properly!’ An Australian academic integrity student survey. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7), 1150–1169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079. 2013.777406 Brien, D. L. (2008). Publish or perish? Investigating the doctorate by publication in writing. 13th conference of the Australian Association of Writing Programs, University of Technology. Carroll, J., & Duggan, F. (2005, December 2–5). Institutional change to deter student plagiarism: What seems essential to a holistic approach? 2nd Asia-Pacific educational integrity conference, University of Newcastle. Center for Academic Integrity. (1999). The fundamental values of academic integrity: Honesty, trust, respect, fairness, responsibility. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED452778.pdf Christensen Hughes, J., & Eaton, S. E. (2022). Academic misconduct in Canadian higher education: Beyond student cheating. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge (pp. 81–102). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-030-83255-1 Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2021). Authorship and contributorship. https:// publicationethics.org/authorship Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), & International Association of Scientific Technical and Medical Publishers (STM). (2022). Paper mills – Research report from COPE & STM. https:// doi.org/10.24318/jtbG8IHL Curtis, G. (2021, June 9). Evolving an understanding of academic integrity: Keynote address. European Conference on Academic Integrity and Plagiarism (ECAIP), Online https:// academicintegrity.eu/conference/proceedings/2021/book_of_abstracts2021.pdf Dawson, P. (2021). Defending assessment security in a digital world: Preventing e-cheating and supporting academic integrity in higher education. Routledge. Drinan, P. (2011). Expanding the radius of trust to external stakeholders: Value infusions for a more ethical academy. In T. Bertram Gallant (Ed.), Creating the ethical academy: A systems approach to understanding misconduct and empowering change in higher education (pp. 183–197). Routledge. Eaton, S. E. (2017). Comparative analysis of institutional policy definitions of plagiarism: A pan-Canadian university study. Interchange: A quarterly review of education, 48(3), 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-017-9300-7 Eaton, S. E. (2020). Let’s talk about the other pandemic: Academic cheating. Learning, Teaching and Leadership. https://drsaraheaton.wordpress.com/2020/05/17/lets-talk-about-the-other-pan demic-academic-cheating/ Eaton, S. E. (2021). Plagiarism in higher education: Tackling tough topics in academic integrity. Libraries Unlimited. Eerkes, D. (2010). Student judicial affairs and academic integrity. In D. G. Hardy Cox & C. C. Strange (Eds.), Achieving student success: Effective student services in Canadian higher education (pp. 100–111). McGill-Queen’s University Press. Eisner, C., & Vicinus, M. (2008). Introduction: Originality, imitation, and plagiarism: Teaching writing in the age of the internet. In C. Eisner & M. Vicinus (Eds.), Originality, imitation, and plagiarism (pp. 1–10). University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv65sxk1.3 Ellis, C., van Haeringen, K., Harper, R., Bretag, T., Zucker, I., McBride, S., Rozenberg, P., Newton, P., & Saddiqui, S. (2019). Does authentic assessment assure academic integrity? Evidence from contract cheating data. Higher Education Research & Development, 1–16. https://doi.org/10. 1080/07294360.2019.1680956 Freeman, S. J. (2018). The manuscript dissertation: A means of increasing competitive edge for tenure-track faculty positions. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13, 273–292. https:// doi.org/10.28945/4093

1

Comprehensive Academic Integrity (CAI): An Ethical Framework. . .

13

Glendinning, I. (2013). Impact of Policies for Plagiarism in Higher Education Across Europe (IPPHEAE). http://plagiarism.cz/ippheae/ Glendinning, I. (2016). European perspectives of academic integrity. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 55–74). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_3 Guerrero-Dib, J. G., Portales, L., & Heredia-Escorza, Y. (2020). Impact of academic integrity on workplace ethical behaviour. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 16(1), 2. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40979-020-0051-3 Hannah, E. F. S., & Jindal-Snape, D. (2014). Setting the scene: Personal, professional and interprofessional ethics. In D. Jindal-Snape & E. F. S. Hannah (Eds.), Exploring the dynamics of ethics (pp. 3–18). Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.46692/9781447309000.001 Hendricks, M., & Quinn, L. (2000). Teaching referencing as an introduction to epistemological empowerment. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(4), 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 713699175 Hyytinen, H., & Löfström, E. (2017). Reactively, proactively, implicitly, explicitly? Academics’ pedagogical conceptions of how to promote research ethics and integrity. Journal of Academic Ethics, 15(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-016-9271-9 International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI). (2014). T. Fishman (Ed.), The fundamental values of academic integrity (2nd ed.). https://www.chapman.edu/academics/academicintegrity/_files/the-fundamental-values-of-academic-integrity.pdf International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI). (2021). The fundamental values of academic integrity (3rd ed.). https://academicintegrity.org/resources/fundamental-values Israel, M. (2016). Research ethics and integrity for social scientists: Beyond regulatory compliance (2nd ed.). SAGE. Israel, M. G., & Thomson, A. C. (2013, November 27–29). The rise and much-sought demise of the adversarial culture in Australian research ethics. 2013 Australasian Ethics Network Conference, Perth. Kezar, A. J., & Sam, C. (2011). Enacting transcendental leadership: Creating and supporting a more ethical campus. In T. Bertram Gallant (Ed.), Creating the ethical academy: A systems approach to understanding misconduct and empowering change in higher education (pp. 153–167). Routledge. Lancaster, T. (2022). Addressing contract cheating through staff-student partnerships. In S. E. Eaton, G. J. Curtis, B. M. Stoesz, J. Clare, K. Rundle, & J. Seeland (Eds.), Contract cheating in higher education: Global perspectives on theory, practice, and policy (pp. 219–232). Springer/Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12680-2_15 Löfström, E., Trotman, T., Furnari, M., & Shephard, K. (2015). Who teaches academic integrity and how do they teach it? Higher Education, 69(3), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-0149784-3 Macdonald, R., & Carroll, J. (2006). Plagiarism: A complex issue requiring a holistic institutional approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 233–245. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02602930500262536 Mackenzie, J. C. (1899). Honor in student life. School Review, 7(2), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1086/ 433997 McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2002). Honor codes and other contextual influences on academic integrity: A replication and extension to modified honor code settings. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 357–378. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40196458 McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Treviño, L. K. (2012). Cheating in college: Why students do it and what educators can do about it. Johns Hopkins University Press. Miron, J. B. (2022). Academic integrity in work-integrated learning (WIL) settings. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge (pp. 233–247). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1 Miron, J. B., McKenzie, A., Eaton, S. E., Stoesz, B. M., Thacker, E., Devereaux, L., Persaud, N., Steeves, M., & Rowbotham, K. (2021). Academic integrity policy analysis of publicly-funded universities in Ontario, Canada: A focus on contract cheating. Canadian Journal of Educational

14

S. E. Eaton

Administration and Policy, 197, 62–75. https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjeap/ article/view/72082 Möller, A. (2022). An analysis of university academic integrity policies in New Zealand. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2022.2130195 Morris, E. J., & Carroll, J. (2016). Developing a sustainable holistic institutional approach: Dealing with realities “on the ground” when implementing an academic integrity policy. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 449–462). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-981-287-098-8_23 Pavela, G. (2022, October 11). Creating institutional memory: University of Maryland honor council history. Medium.com. https://medium.com/@gpavela/creating-institutional-memoryuniversity-of-maryland-honor-council-history-86dcd2972334 Razı, S., Glendinning, I., Sivasubramaniam, S. D., Eaton, S. E., Çelik, Ö., Khan, Z. R., Bjelobaba, S., Fishman, T., & Waddington, L. (2022, May 5). Changing trends in academic integrity policy development: Implications for the post-COVID era. European conference on academic integrity and plagiarism 2022, Porto and online. Sharmini, S., Spronken-Smith, R., Golding, C., & Harland, T. (2015). Assessing the doctoral thesis when it includes published work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(1), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.888535 Sheinerman, M.-R., & Shevin, Z. (2020). Math TA posted false solution online to catch students in violation of academic integrity. The Daily Princetonian. https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/ article/2020/05/princeton-teaching-assistant-math-department-slader-mat202-academic-integ rity-cheating-covid Stoesz, B. M., & Eaton, S. E. (2022). Academic integrity policies of publicly funded universities in western Canada. Educational Policy, 36(6), 1529–1548. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0895904820983032 Tammeleht, A., Rodríguez-Triana, M. J., Koort, K., & Löfström, E. (2019). Collaborative casebased learning process in research ethics. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 15(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-019-0043-3 Tammeleht, A., Löfström, E., & Rodríguez-Triana, j. M. J. (2022). Facilitating development of research ethics and integrity leadership competencies. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 18(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-022-00102-3 Tauginienė, L., Gaižauskaitė, I., Glendinning, I., Kravjar, J., Ojsteršek, M., Ribeiro, L., Odiņeca, T., Marino, F., Cosentino, M., Sivasubramaniam, S. & Foltýnek, T. (2018, October). Glossary for academic integrity. ENAI report 3G [online]: Revised version. https://www.academicintegrity. eu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/EN-Glossary_revised_final_24.02.23.pdf Turner, S. P., & Beemsterboer, P. L. (2003). Enhancing academic integrity: Formulating effective honor codes. Journal of Dental Education, 67(10), 1122–1129. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.00220337.2003.67.10.tb03705.x Vaux, D. L. (2016). Scientific misconduct: Falsification, fabrication, and misappropriation of credit. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 895–911). Springer. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-981-287-098-8_26 Zwagerman, S. (2008). The scarlet P: Plagiarism, panopticism, and the rhetoric of academic integrity. College Composition and Communication, 59(4), 676–710. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/20457030

Part I Global Perspectives on Academic Integrity

2

Global Perspectives on Academic Integrity: Introduction Sarah Elaine Eaton

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of Global Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 18 20 21 21 21

Abstract

In this part of the handbook, authors from around the world present perspectives on academic integrity from their particular country or region. These perspectives include historical insights, cultural positionings, and descriptions of how academic integrity and misconduct are defined and addressed in different contexts. One key takeaway of this section is that there is no singular correct way to understand or define academic integrity. Keywords

Academic integrity · Academic misconduct · Academic dishonesty · Global perspectives · International

Introduction In the first edition of the Handbook of Academic Integrity, Tracey Bretag (2016) opened the book by stating that, “There can be no debate that academic integrity is fundamental to teaching, learning, research, and the advance of knowledge. In fact, it S. E. Eaton (*) Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_83

17

18

S. E. Eaton

is critical to every aspect of the educational process” (p. 3). Those words are still true today. In this introductory section of the Handbook of Academic Integrity, authors from around the world present historical insights, cultural positionings, definitions of key terms (e.g., “academic integrity,” “academic dishonesty,” “academic misconduct,” “plagiarism,” “cheating”), and descriptions of how academic misconduct is addressed in their particular contexts.

Overview of Global Perspectives As this book is intended to provide the most up-to-date and cutting-edge advice on academic integrity, we must also acknowledge the ways in which the world is changing. Since the mid-2010s, the impact of machine learning and artificial intelligence has become part of our everyday lives. In March 2023, at the time this chapter was in preparation, Generative Pre-trained Transformer-4 (GPT-4) was released. Although the topic of artificial intelligence is addressed in full detail in other chapters in the handbook, it seems appropriate to begin by acknowledging that artificial intelligence has become ubiquitous in our everyday lives. Before highlighting the original contributions made by the chapter authors in this introductory section, it seemed reasonable to do exactly what a student might do if they were looking to understand different cultural perspectives on academic integrity: Ask GPT-4. The following passage was supplied by Dr. Rahul Kumar, at Brock University in Ontario, Canada, using this prompt to generate a summary produced by GPT-4: Can you please summarize the different understandings of academic integrity across cultures? Can you present this information in a table? GPT-4 Response Certainly! Here is a summary of some of the different understandings of academic integrity across cultures. The result produced by GPT-4 is reproduced exactly in Table 1. It could be argued that this summary is over-generalized and lacks citations; however, the synopsis is also clear, concise, and arguably accurate. It is likely that students and scholars everywhere will come to rely on artificial intelligence (AI) tools to summarize information. It is also important to remember that largelanguage models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 aggregate existing content already available on the Internet. As such, it remains important that high-quality, accurate information is readily available both to human readers and to artificial intelligence tools that trawl the Internet looking for content. That is where this book comes in. Contributors to this book are among the most knowledgeable experts in the world on academic integrity. Some cultural perspectives summarized in Table 1 are addressed in other sections of the handbook. For example, ▶ Chap. 26, “Moral Disengagement Leading to Social Acceptance of Academic Misconduct: A Predictor of Behavior,” by Pablo Ayala-Enríquez and Jean Guerrero-Dib offer insights from Mexico. Also noteworthy are co-authors, Keeta Gladue and Yvonne Poitras Pratt (▶ Chap. 71, “The Integrity

2

Global Perspectives on Academic Integrity: Introduction

19

Table 1 Summary of different understandings of academic integrity across cultures Culture Western individualistic cultures (e.g., USA, Canada, Europe)

Eastern Confucian-influenced cultures (e.g., China, Japan, Korea)

Middle eastern and African cultures

Latin American cultures

Indigenous cultures

Understanding of academic integrity Emphasizes personal responsibility, originality, and autonomy. Plagiarism, cheating, and other forms of academic misconduct are seen as serious violations of personal integrity Emphasizes respect for authority and the importance of conformity. Originality is not as highly valued, and students may be expected to draw on the work of others without proper attribution. Group harmony is prioritized over individual achievement Emphasizes hospitality, generosity, and honor. Students may be more likely to share their work with others and to view copying as a form of flattery rather than a violation of academic integrity Emphasizes personal relationships and reciprocity. Students may view sharing their work with others as a way of building relationships and supporting one another, rather than as a violation of academic integrity Emphasizes community and connection to the land. Oral traditions and storytelling may be highly valued, and students may be more likely to draw on the work of others without proper attribution

of Good Relations: Indigenous Approaches to Respect, Relationality, and Reciprocity in Higher Learning”), who provide examples of Indigenous understandings of academic integrity from their own backgrounds. None of the chapters in this handbook are intended to speak for all perspectives within a given culture, region, or country. There are risks to reductionist approaches resulting from over-generalizing what ethics and integrity mean in a particular context. Chapters in the handbook are intended to bring forward examples and insights, but not generalizations or universalities. Readers should take note that there is no single universal understanding of academic integrity that fits every single context. Instead, there are multiple and complementary understandings, and it is imperative that those involved in academic integrity work seek to comprehend and appreciate nuances. This plurality of perspectives on what it means to learn, teach, assess, research, and write with integrity contributes to epistemological and ontological richness, and it is important to resist the temptation to conflate difference with deficiency. Contributors to this introductory section include experts from around the world who offer insights into a particular country or region. The handbook opens with chapters carried forward from the first edition. Chen and Macfarlane (▶ Chap. 3, “Academic Integrity in China”) provide insights into academic integrity in China, followed by Joyce Kim Sim Cheah’s (▶ Chap. 4, “Academic Plagiarism in Malaysia: Perspectives”) updated chapter sharing perspectives from Malaysia. Then, Ide Bagus Siaputra and Dimas Amand Santosa (▶ Chap. 5, “Improving Academic Integrity in Indonesia: Proposed Recommendations for Managing Alleged

20

S. E. Eaton

Misconducts”) extend and update their work from the first edition of the handbook by providing fresh insights into academic integrity in Indonesia. Following, Roe et al. (▶ Chap. 6, “Perspectives on Academic Integrity in the ASEAN Region”) offer a synopsis of academic integrity in the member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN): Cambodia, Brunei, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. From there, we move to South Asia. Shivadas (Shiva) Sivasubramaniam (▶ Chap. 7, “Academic Integrity in South Asia: Focus on India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka”) presents an overview of academic integrity of three South Asian countries with much in common: India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Then, Bibek Dahal (▶ Chap. 8, “Academic Integrity in Nepal”) explores academic and research integrity in Nepal, noting that unlike other countries in the region, Nepal was never subjected to colonization, a factor which has influenced the country’s educational development in a variety of ways. Stella-Maris Orim and Anirejuoritse Awala-Ale (▶ Chap. 9, “Academic Integrity Perspectives: Insights from Africa”) provide an overview of academic integrity in the African context. They include examples from South Africa, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Egypt, Ethiopia, and other countries in East Africa. In the next chapter, Foltýnek et al. (▶ Chap. 10, “Academic Integrity in Czechia and Slovakia”) discuss academic integrity in Czechia and Slovakia. This chapter presents useful insights into countries that share historical and cultural commonalities and yet stand today as separate countries. Moving to the Americas, Ruth Baker-Gardner (▶ Chap. 11, “The State of Academic Integrity in the Anglophone Caribbean”) examines academic integrity in the Anglophone Caribbean: Antigua, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago, as well as Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, and the Turks and Caicos Islands. She explains the historical development of the region and the British influence on the educational system of these countries. She also speaks to the topic of corruption, which is a through line of other chapters as well. Eaton and Fishman (▶ Chap. 12, “Academic Integrity in North America: A Comparison of Canada and the USA”) round out the section by comparing and contrasting differences between Canada and the USA with regard to academic integrity.

Limitations There are numerous regions and countries that are not covered in this introductory section or anywhere in the handbook. This is not intended to signal that perspectives on academic integrity from these places are unimportant. It is not a limitation of the places that are not represented, but rather a limitation of this book. There is room in future editions of this handbook to include more voices from more countries. That will be the work of the editors and authors of future editions of this handbook.

2

Global Perspectives on Academic Integrity: Introduction

21

Summary Academic integrity is of utmost concern across primary, secondary, and tertiary education all over the world. Academic integrity is a complex, nuanced, and transdisciplinary field of research, practice, and policy. This section has situated the Handbook of Academic Integrity in a broader global context. Chapters provide important cultural and historical background, as well as insights into current geo-political factors that have resulted in different approaches to upholding and enacting integrity, as well as addressing academic misconduct, corruption, and malpractice. It is clear that academic integrity is about more than plagiarism or exam cheating, but rather that integrity practices learned in school are the foundation for ethical decision-making in everyday life.

Cross-References ▶ Academic Integrity in China ▶ Academic Integrity in Czechia and Slovakia ▶ Academic Integrity in Nepal ▶ Academic Integrity in North America: A Comparison of Canada and the USA ▶ Academic Integrity Perspectives: Insights from Africa ▶ Academic Plagiarism in Malaysia: Perspectives ▶ Improving Academic Integrity in Indonesia: Proposed Recommendations for Managing Alleged Misconducts ▶ Moral Disengagement Leading to Social Acceptance of Academic Misconduct: A Predictor of Behavior ▶ Perspectives on Academic Integrity in the ASEAN Region ▶ The State of Academic Integrity in the Anglophone Caribbean Acknowledgments I am grateful to Dr. Rahul Kumar, Brock University (Ontario, Canada), for sharing the overview of academic integrity across cultures as generated by GPT-4 on March 15, 2023.

References Bretag, T. (2016). Defining academic integrity: International perspectives – Introduction. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 3–5). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-981-287-098-8_76

3

Academic Integrity in China Shuangye Chen and Bruce Macfarlane

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Framings of Academic Integrity in Chinese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Cultural and Institutional Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24 24 26 28 28

Abstract

The chapter will explore academic integrity in relation to the research (mis) conduct of academic faculty in universities in China (excluding Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan). The academic profession in China is state sponsored rather than autonomous and has one of the lowest basic salary levels internationally. The rapid growth of higher education in China, allied with performative pressures in the ranking race, has led to increasing concerns about research integrity focused mainly on the conventional misconduct categories of falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism. However, research integrity in China also needs to be understood by reference to cultural norms, including the building of relationships and courtesy toward and respect for authority. Norms based on a Western conceptualization of research integrity do little to challenge or alter practices associated with guanxi and the intensive norms of reciprocity which dominate academic life in China. Weak professional self-regulation and poor academic socialization have also contributed to the current problematic situation of academic integrity in China. S. Chen (*) Department of Educational Administration and Policy, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong B. Macfarlane Centre for Higher Education at Southampton, School of Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_32

23

24

S. Chen and B. Macfarlane

Keywords

High Education System · Research Integrity · Academic Integrity · Research Misconduct · Academic Misconduct

Introduction The term “academic integrity” is open to a wide range of interpretations including “the values, behaviour and conduct of academics in all aspects of their practice” (Macfarlane et al., 2014, p. 339). Given the limitations of space, this short essay will mainly focus on issues in relation to the research conduct of academic faculty in the People’s Republic of China (hereafter referred to as “China”). It will exclude consideration of the higher education systems in Hong Kong and Macau which, as special administrative regions of China under the “one country, two systems” policy, are governed by a substantially different set of economic, social, and cultural conditions. The chapter further excludes consideration of Taiwan, otherwise known as The Republic of China, which has never been part of the People’s Republic of China. Academic integrity in China needs to be understood by reference to the rapid expansion of the higher education system over the last 15 years. According to government figures published in 2013, there are 1145 universities and 1,013,957 faculty members in China (Ministry of Education of China, 2014). The desire for China to compete on the global stage as a major knowledge producer (Xie et al., 2014), as well as its emerging position as an economic superpower, is evidenced by the fact that its research and development spending have tripled since 1995 (Sun & Cao, 2014) and its research output has increased sixfold since 2000 (Hvistendahl, 2013). It is against this backdrop that serious concerns about standards of academic integrity in China have arisen. Such concerns have been highlighted in an international science context by journals such as Nature (Cyranoski, 2012), Science (Yang, 2013), and The Lancet (Editor, 2010).

Framings of Academic Integrity in Chinese In Chinese, there are two binary words corresponding to academic integrity as both negative and positive framings (Macfarlane et al., 2014). “Xueshuchengxin” is the positive framing to indicate desirable academic values of honesty, credibility, and reliability. The negative framing in Chinese is “Xueshubuduan.” From the literal meaning, “buduan” means not upright. Academic misconduct and academic corruption are also used interchangeably as a negative way of framing academic integrity. The number of published research articles on the theme of academic integrity (both positively and negatively framed) in the Chinese Database of Full-text Core

3

Academic Integrity in China

25

Academic Integrity Academic Misconduct 250 200 150 100 50 0

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

Fig. 1 Number of Chinese journal articles on the theme of academic integrity and academic misconduct from 1999 to 2013. (Source: From the Chinese database of full-text core journal articles (1999–2013))

Journal Articles was just 1 in 2000. By 2013, this figure had risen to 1074 (see Fig. 1). It is notable that articles focused on the negative framing of academic integrity as academic misconduct predominate. The growth in output closely mirrors substantial increases in government funding for projects addressing academic integrity and misconduct issues during this period (Chen & Lin, 2012; Sun & Cao, 2014). Correspondingly, the Ministry of Education in China has issued six separate policies on academic misconduct since 2009. Data released by the Department of Audit within the National Natural Science Foundation in 2013 cites 204 cases where 318 persons have been disciplined for academic misconduct between 1999 and 2010 (National Natural Science Foundation Council, 2013). The most commonly reported offenses have been falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, and double-dipping of publications (Chen et al., 2014). Perhaps even more worryingly, Chinese academics themselves regard academic misconduct as a common phenomenon. For example, based on a large-scale survey with 30,000 scientists and academics, half of the respondents confirmed that among the researchers they knew, there existed at least one of the four types of academic misconduct: plagiarism, falsification of data, double-dipping of publications, and ghost authorship (Zhao & Deng, 2012). The integrity problems are thought by Chinese academics not only to be widespread but also entrenched. In a 2010 survey, over three quarters of academics from top universities in Beijing agreed that academic misconduct could not be eliminated despite a series of government policy initiatives (Yan & Zhang, 2010).

26

S. Chen and B. Macfarlane

The Cultural and Institutional Context As these reports indicate, academic integrity is a complicated phenomenon to address in China and demands a close understanding of the context. The cultural and institutional context has constituted rules and social regularities to shape the social actions of individual academics beyond their own power. This does not deny individual agency to uphold academic integrity, but provides an approach to examine entrenched social rules and deep structures. The embedded cultural and institutional context in China has far-reaching impact beyond academic culture itself (Ren, 2012; Yang, 2013). Academic salaries are among the lowest in the world, well below those of developing nations such as Ethiopia and Kazakhstan. In a comparative study involving 28 countries, only academics in Armenia and Russia had lower salaries than their Chinese counterparts, while China paid the lowest entry-level salary of all (Altbach et al., 2012). The study also reported that China has the largest salary variation in the world. Another empirical study of professors’ income level in Beijing, the capital city with a cost of living comparable to New York, found the average income of university professors in 2010 was lower than the average income level in the city (Zhang & Zhao, 2014). This means that Chinese academics must look to find ways to significantly supplement their very low basic income by a range of activities, including teaching at other institutions, contract research, as well as research funding and publication. The Chinese cultural practice of “guanxi” means the building of relationships with a view to future reciprocal benefits differing from Western norms connected with selfinterested individualism (Hwang, 1987). Guanxi as a culturally ingrained practice underpins a range of authorship issues. For example, by contrast with Western counterparts, payment for publication by Chinese academic journals is a widespread practice, which encourages quantity rather than quality of output. Adding the name of a well-known professor to the list of authors is a tacit means of increasing the chances of a paper getting published. Authorship order is usually based on a taken-for-granted hierarchical structure. Normally, “the boss,” either the doctoral supervisor or the principal research grant holder, will get the most credit regardless of his or her real contribution to the paper. Doctoral students, sitting at the base of the hierarchy, will be expected to gift first authorship credit to supervisors on academic papers. However, doctoral students toward the end of their registration period in China, as in other Asian contexts such as Japan, are normally expected to publish as a first author as a precondition to the award of a doctorate. They will, therefore, be permitted a first authorship credit in order to graduate, assuming that they have complied with expectations to gift credit for some of their earlier academic work to others within the hierarchy. This leads to patterns of reciprocal obligation underpinned by cultural norms connected with indebtedness, respect for authority, and relationship building (Macfarlane & Saitoh, 2009; Salita, 2010; Zeng & Resnik, 2010).

3

Academic Integrity in China

27

Chinese universities commonly employ an incentive pay system to reward publications in high-impact journals. The more prestigious the journal, the higher the reward, particularly if the journal has a high impact factor in an international index, such as the Science Citation Index (SCI). This can be the equivalent of anything up to 6 months’ salary for a single paper, thereby acting as an important material incentive for lowly paid Chinese academics. While a publication incentive system has started to emerge in other contexts, notably in South Africa (Tongai, 2013), the scale and significance of its distorting effects cannot be compared with China, given the extent to which Chinese academics depend on it as a means of supplementary salary generation. The academic promotion system in China overemphasizes the number of papers as opposed to their quality. This can result in double-dipping, where papers are published more than once in different Chinese journals as well as in Chinese and English. Being the first (or corresponding) author on a paper is critical to gain promotion. This encourages a misrepresentative manipulation of authorship credit on the basis of circumstances and personal needs. Plagiarism in the writing of papers and the falsification of data also appear to be examples of where corrupt practice is “embedded in academe” according to extensive reports in the news media (Altbach, 2009, p. 23). Bribery in the university admissions system and in the awarding of grades is another area in which corruption in some less prominent Chinese universities is acknowledged (Altbach, 2009). However, more indirect means of gaining advantages also play a role in the Chinese context given the cultural importance of guanxi. Treating sexual favors as a tradeable commodity in return for granting requests is a part of guanxi (Yang, 1994). Such practices have long been associated with admission to a university following the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1977 and beyond (Rene, 2013). Beyond the actual provision of sexual services, the use of sexuality or “charm” plays a more subtle role as part of the art of guanxi (Yang, 1994). These cultural and contextual factors and performative pressures – norms of reciprocity associated with guanxi, low salary levels, payment by publication, bribery, and the importance of first authorship in academic promotion and doctoral graduation – have proven a recipe for academic corruption in China. Research misconduct is usually identified and judged by academic communities through professional self-regulation (Gorman, 2014). The Chinese academy though is a state-sponsored profession (Lo, 1991). It is controlled and patronized through its dependence on the state as the major research patron. The state has also become the moral judge of academic (mis)conduct, leaving little room for the development of professional autonomy and reflectivity. Academic salaries are largely performance and incentive based, which makes transgressions of academic integrity more likely. The values central to academic life, including sincerity in the reporting of data, humility in making knowledge claims, and respectfulness for the precedence of others, are undermined as a result.

28

S. Chen and B. Macfarlane

Summary Academic misconduct is widespread and entrenched within the Chinese higher education system. The state in China has played a paradoxical role in both shaping the conditions which have led to research misconduct and, more recently, regulating academic ethics. They have created the conditions within the higher education system which have caused academic misconduct to flourish while at the same time seeking to publicly scapegoat individuals who are frequently victims of a system which has normalized certain unethical practices in academe. Despite attempts by government to tackle academic corruption (Ren, 2012) and recent system-wide reforms of research funding management, this situation is unlikely to improve in the absence of professional self-regulation. Efforts, however, are taking place at the institutional level. Peking University established its own academic misconduct policies in 2001 based on the American FFP (falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism) formula. Subsequently, a number of other institutions have followed suit (Zeng & Resnik, 2010). However, these policies are based on a Western conceptualization of research integrity and do little to challenge or alter practices associated with guanxi and the intensive norms of reciprocity which dominate academic life in China. Socialization is the key mechanism by which academics learn about professional values and conduct. Current ingrained practices connected with gift and ghost authorship, for example, corrupt doctoral students and junior academics, leading to a cycle of abuse from one generation to another. One survey indicates that around 40% of early-stage doctoral graduates do not see academic misconduct as a problem (Zhao, 2008). Hence, the cycle of abuse will not end until the assumptions which underpin academic integrity malpractices are openly discussed and challenged. Meanwhile, the malpractices embedded in the higher education system will continue to undermine international trust in China’s growing scientific output.

References Altbach, P. G. (2009). One-third of the globe: The future of higher education in China and India. Prospects, 39, 11–31. Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., Yudkevich, M., Androushchak, G., & Pacheco, I. F. (2012). Paying the professoriate: A global comparison of compensation and contracts. Routledge. Chen, S. Y., & Lin, X. Y. (2012). Chinese universities: Supporting a new knowledge economy. In P. Temple (Ed.), Universities in the Knowledge Economy (pp. 157–175). Routledge. Chen, D., Fang, Y., Chen, J., Ouyang, J., & Huang, J. (2014). Thoughts on improving the measures to punish academic misconducts under the guidance of ‘rules of NSFC’. Science Foundation in China, 28(2), 99–102. (In Chinese). Cyranoski, D. (2012). Research ethics: Zero tolerance. Nature, 481(7380), 134–136. Editor, T. (2010). Scientific fraud: Action needed in China. The Lancet, 375(9709), 94. Gorman, E. H. (2014). Professional self-regulation in North America: The cases of law and accounting. Sociology Compass, 8(5), 491–508. Hvistendahl, M. (2013). China’s publication bazaar. Science, 342(6162), 1035–1039.

3

Academic Integrity in China

29

Hwang, K.-k. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92(4), 944–974. Lo, L. N. K. (1991). State patronage of intellectuals in Chinese higher education. Comparative Education Review, 35(4), 690–720. Macfarlane, B., & Saitoh, Y. (2009). Research ethics in Japanese higher education: Faculty attitudes and cultural mediation. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(3), 181–195. Macfarlane, B., Zhang, J., & Pun, A. (2014). Academic integrity: A literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), 339–358. Ministry of Education of China. (2014). Yearly statistics of Chinese education. http://www.moe. gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s7567/list.html (In Chinese). Accessed 24 Sept 2014. National Natural Science Foundation Council. (2013). Report and announcement of typical cases of academic misconduct in the grant application and usage. Science Foundation in China, 27(5), 257. (In Chinese). Ren, K. (2012). Fighting against academic corruption: A critique of recent policy developments in China. Higher Education Policy, 25(1), 19–38. Rene, H. K. (2013). China’s sent-down generation: Public administration and the legacies of Mao’s rustication program. Georgetown University Press. Salita, J. T. (2010). Authorship practices in Asian cultures. The Write Stuff: The Journal of the European Medical Writers Association, 19(1), 36–38. Sun, Y., & Cao, C. (2014). Demystifying central government R&D spending in China. Science, 345(6200), 1006–1008. Tongai, I. (2013). Incentives for researchers drive up publication output. University World News. http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story¼20130712145949477. Accessed 26 Sept 2014. Xie, Y., Zhang, C., & Lai, Q. (2014). China’s rise as a major contributor to science and technology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(26), 9437–9442. Yan, G., & Zhang, Y. (2010). An empirical study on academic anomie at universities. Peking University Education Review, 8(2), 121–134. (In Chinese). Yang, M. M.-h. (1994). Gifts, favors, and banquets: The art of social relationships in China. Cornell University. Yang, W. (2013). Research integrity in China. Science, 342(6162), 1019. Zeng, W., & Resnik, D. (2010). Research integrity in China: Problems and prospects. Developing World Bioethics, 10(3), 164–171. Zhang, J., & Zhao, W. H. (2014). Studies on income distribution and incentives of the Chinese university teachers. Social Sciences Academic Press of China. (In Chinese). Zhao, Y. (2008). Analysis of PhD graduates’ attitude towards scientific misconduct and its causes. China Soft Science, 29(3), 45–51. (In Chinese). Zhao, Y., & Deng, D. (2012). Views of Chinese scientists and scholars on academic misconduct: A survey result of 30,000 academics. Science Research Management, 33(8), 90–97. (In Chinese).

4

Academic Plagiarism in Malaysia: Perspectives Joyce Kim Sim Cheah

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plagiarism Among Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plagiarism Among Academic Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recent Trends and Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32 33 34 35 36 37 37

Abstract

Plagiarism is one of the major issues faced by institutions of higher learning in Malaysia. The demands for quality tertiary education and the government’s aspirations to be the regional education hub have resulted in the bourgeoning of private universities in this country. In order to remain competitive in producing graduates who are marketable and globally accepted, universities in Malaysia have adopted a more focused stand to address the issue of plagiarism by implementing academic integrity policies and procedures to prevent and discourage plagiarism. This chapter discusses studies done by Malaysian researchers on the definition and perception of plagiarism and the issue of plagiarism among undergraduates and academics in Malaysian universities. Keywords

Academic integrity · Academic misconduct · Policy · Malaysia · Higher education · Plagiarism

J. K. S. Cheah (*) Petaling Jaya, Malaysia © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_5

31

32

J. K. S. Cheah

Introduction The Malaysian government’s aspiration and vision to promote Malaysia as the regional hub for higher education is reaping results as there is a marked increase in student numbers from foreign countries, specifically the Asian region, as well as a large number of Malaysian students who have chosen to complete their tertiary studies locally. The government’s aim to internationalize higher education in Malaysia is evident in its target to increase the number of international students in Malaysian higher education institutions to 250,000 by 2025 (Azuar, 2022). Despite a decline in the number of applications from international students to pursue their studies in Malaysia in 2020 due to the movement restrictions brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, the numbers have picked up in the year 2021. This uptrend is most evident with an increase of 82.9% in the number of applications to pursue PhD programs from 2020 to 2021 (Education Malaysia Global Services, 2022). This development has directly encouraged the burgeoning of higher education institutions in Malaysia. According to the Malaysian official website of the Department of Higher Education (Ministry of Higher Education, 2022), as of June 2022, there are a total of 20 public universities, 53 private universities, 40 university colleges, 10 foreign branch campuses, and 331 colleges in Malaysia. However, with the existence of a large number of higher education institutions of learning, there is a growing concern among academicians regarding the quality of graduates, in terms of ethics and integrity. The decline in academic integrity, which has shown no signs of improving (Sabli et al., 2016), has led to calls for academic institutions to not only be more stringent in investigating cases of academic misconduct, but also find solutions to prevent further tainting of academic integrity (Ishak et al., 2019). Academic dishonesty, specifically plagiarism, is becoming more noticeable among undergraduate and graduate students causing concerns among academics that these graduates would likely encounter problems at the workplace as they would be working without adequate knowledge and skills (Hogan & Jaska, 2000). In facing such challenges, the probability of these graduates engaging in unethical practices in their work life, as they did during their student life, would be high (Hogan & Jaska, 2000; Nazir & Aslam, 2010; Nonis & Swift, 2001; Rujoiu & Rujoiu, 2014; Sabli et al., 2016) which, if found to be more evident among graduates of a certain university, would tarnish the reputation of that university. This concern is even greater when they occur among students pursuing fields where professional conduct of honesty and integrity is essential in establishing public trust (Smith et al., 2007). As graduates start their work life, the rules of plagiarism become even less significant when practices of the real world are incongruent with the practices they have learned in the academic world (Md. Yusof, 2009). Hence, with Malaysia recording a positive growth in graduate employability rates “from 84.4% in 2020 to 85.5% in 2021 despite the COVID-19 pandemic” as reported by Noraini Ahmad, the Malaysian Minister of Higher Education from 2020 to 2022 (Azuar, 2022), it is crucial that these graduates entering the workforce are equipped with adequate skills, knowledge and a sense of ethics and integrity.

4

Academic Plagiarism in Malaysia: Perspectives

33

Plagiarism Among Students Instances of plagiarism are common among students in both public and private universities. Research findings have identified a number of factors that have contributed toward plagiarism in Malaysia, namely, lack of awareness, lack of understanding, lack of competence and personal attitudes (Smith et al., 2007), poor time management skills, work or family commitments, and poor language skills (Md. Yusof, 2009). Many students unfamiliar with citation conventions have the misconception that ideas obtained from other sources do not require referencing if they are expressed in their own words. Some students unfamiliar with the conventions of referencing also believe that open-access information available online is public information that does not need to be referenced. Furthermore, the students’ inadequate knowledge of citation conventions is exacerbated by lecturers who accept inadequately referenced pieces of work from students (Ting, 2013). Students in Malaysia are also experiencing difficulty in adjusting to a different education system. What students in Malaysia experience is similar to what many international students face when they pursue their higher education abroad, i.e., a school system that has not provided them with the analytical and critical skills required in tertiary education (Yang & Lin, 2009), nor exposure to the issue of plagiarism. This is evident in instances of “mosaic plagiarism” whereby students merge information from different sources into a paragraph with little or no input, without crediting the author (Ting, 2013). In addition, the practice of “cut and paste” from internet sources without crediting the author is commonplace. Thus, students struggle to adjust not only to a more demanding academic system but also to one that requires strict adherence to academic integrity. So, it is understandable that students with lower CGPAs record more instances of plagiarism (Smith et al., 2007). Another factor to take note of is that each culture may have a different understanding of plagiarism, and this causes problems in truly comprehending what plagiarism is and how it is applied (Md. Yusof, 2009). For instance, many Malaysian students perceive plagiarism as a norm and are tolerant of academic misconducts which involve collaboration, due to the collectivistic behavior of Malaysians (Shafie & Nayan, 2012). As a result, cases involving collusion are common, for example, students collaborating on assignments which are supposed to be individual assignments and believing that it is acceptable to copy a friend’s piece of work if consent has been obtained (Ting, 2013). In addition, the internet era has promoted a “sharing culture” whereby file sharing among students is common practice (Hayden et al., 2021). In the past decade, the dependence of teaching and learning activities on technology has become more evident, reaching its peak in the years 2020 and 2021 when classes and assessments were conducted online during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research has shown that the opportunities for students to cheat with online courses are abundant (Kennedy et al., 2000; Miller & Young-Jones, 2012). Moreover, internet-savvy students can easily access the internet and online resources which makes the process of plagiarism much simpler (Hayden et al., 2021; Mustapha and Ali, 2017; Mustapha et al., 2017; Padil et al., 2020).

34

J. K. S. Cheah

The penalty imposed on students who plagiarize is based on the severity of the misconduct and can range from lighter penalties like resubmission and counseling for inadvertent plagiarism to harsher penalties like zero mark for blatant plagiarism. Thus, penalties for plagiarism are generally fairly meted out, whereby penalties commensurate with the severity of plagiarism. However, such penalties can only serve as a deterrent to students if plagiarism is duly reported by their lecturers.

Plagiarism Among Academic Staff A number of cases of plagiarism among academics have been brought to the public’s attention. The most publicized case, dubbed the first case of plagiarism at Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) by its vice-chancellor, involved two public university academics that were found to have plagiarized a reference book produced for their management students in 2003. They were ultimately imposed penalties that included repaying the university the royalties received and receiving a “severe reprimand on their personal file” (UPM Duo in Plagiarism Scandal, 2009). Some other publicized cases include an academic at a public university who was promoted not long after the said incident of plagiarism (Do We Want Malaysia To Be Seen As Promoting Plagiarism?, 2013), a professor who plagiarized his masters and doctoral students’ work (Moten, 2014) and a lecturer whose teaching materials were plagiarized from the internet (Zejno, 2018). The issue of plagiarism resurfaced again in the media in 2019 with allegations of academic dishonesty occurring among academic staff. In response, the president of the Malaysian Academic Association Congress (MAAC) Mohd Idrus maintains that “Malaysian academicians are ethical and can differentiate between what is right and wrong, what is ethical or unethical and the difference between being honest and being a liar” (Public Universities Always Worked Hard, 2019). He admits that debating the issue might settle the issue of plagiarism, but is reluctant to do so as the reputation of academicians and institutions of higher learning in Malaysia are at stake. This raises great concern as evading public scrutiny of the issue of plagiarism only encourages the proliferation of such misconduct. There are several reasons for the rise in cases of plagiarism among academic staff. Firstly, academics are pressured to “publish or perish.” The fact that the ranking of universities is quite substantially determined by publication rates (Ishak et al., 2019) compels universities to push their academics to publish extensively. Furthermore, promotion and recognition are awarded to those who have published abundantly, a criterion included in the key performance indicator (KPI) of the academic’s performance. Coupled with many other responsibilities academics have, the pressure to achieve many publications leads to research misconduct (Olesen et al., 2018) including plagiarism, and the mindset that the quantity of publications is more valued than the quality (Abad-García, 2019; Alatas, 2021). Secondly, cases of plagiarism are often not reported. Underreporting of plagiarism stems from not only the avoidance of a time-consuming investigation, but also the fear of possible repercussions for reporting such cases. As a result, “possible

4

Academic Plagiarism in Malaysia: Perspectives

35

loopholes in the monitoring system” allow for such misconduct to occur (Olesen et al., 2018). Thirdly, the absence of a proper law to deal with plagiarism makes the act of plagiarism seem less serious, as plagiarism is not considered a legal concept but rather an ethical issue (Mohd Zain et al., 2021; Moten, 2014). Furthermore, the study conducted by Mohd Zain et al. (2021) found that “the Educational Institution (Discipline) Act 1976 is not comprehensive enough to deal with academic plagiarism.” The lack of severity in cases of plagiarism and the reluctance of certain parties to accept that such issues do occur among academics in institutions of higher learning have caused an outcry among academics and political leaders regarding the lack of severe punishment for serious breaches of academic conduct. Many Malaysian critics have questioned the leniency of penalties imposed and have appealed for acts of plagiarism among academics to be viewed more seriously. In fact, a number of academics attest to the widespread plagiarism at their workplace. A former academician who has served a local university for 25 years has identified plagiarism as “the most endemic academic fraud in the Malaysian higher education system” claiming that plagiarism is rampant among not just students but professors and associate professors as well, due to the lack of stern actions taken against offenders (Ramasamy: Plagiarism Most Endemic Academic Fraud, 2009). As such, steps need to be taken to curb academic misconduct especially among academics to ensure that the credibility of higher educational institutions in Malaysia is not tarnished.

Recent Trends and Measures Many universities view academic misconduct as a serious offense and have taken measures to educate their students about academic integrity. This is indeed a step forward for Malaysian universities as structured positive measures go a long way in instilling a respect for academic integrity. Many higher educational institutions in Malaysia have written handbooks that provide guidelines on cases involving academic misconduct. These include handbooks that guide students on how to avoid plagiarism, as well as handbooks that guide academic staff on how to deal with cases of plagiarism. In addition, policies, procedures, and documents pertaining to academic integrity are duly documented and made available to all staff in most universities. This ensures the provision of clear guidelines on how academic misconduct among staff and students should be handled. Apart from handbooks, workshops and training programs are also organized to provide new students with a better understanding of what plagiarism is and how they could avoid plagiarism. These sessions teach the students the skills required to effectively quote, summarize, and paraphrase information, as well as introduce the referencing systems that are used in that particular university. Ensuring students are sufficiently educated about ethical academic conduct is more fruitful than imposing punitive actions for breaches of academic integrity (Mohd Salleh et al., 2013).

36

J. K. S. Cheah

Text-matching software such as Turnitin is also widely used in higher education to detect possible instances of plagiarism. They serve the dual purpose of identifying plagiarism for punitive as well as educational measure to support development of better academic writing skills among students (Hayden et al. 2021). Moreover, universities have embraced innovation in combatting plagiarism. Zaidatun Tasir, a professor and former dean of a public university, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), stated that their researchers have created an “in-house plagiarism software” that “can detect beyond copyright content – the flow of ideas, writing style, as well as data similarities across different languages including English, Malay, Persian, and Arabic” (Karim, 2019). In addition, academics are moving toward setting exams and assessments that require application of knowledge and critical reflection, rather than regurgitation of memorized facts. This move allows for better assessment of student learning apart from reducing plagiarism as students would not easily find the answers online and thus be prevented from copying and pasting answers found online. To address issues of plagiarism among academics, many universities have also set up committees to vet materials before they are submitted for publication or conferences. This helps to ensure that academics are kept on their toes and that the credibility of the university is not tarnished by indiscriminate acts of plagiarism by their academics. It is timely that vice-chancellors of public universities have stated their university’s stand of non-tolerance toward all types of academic misconduct including plagiarism. They have indicated the existence of official channels for complaints of misconduct to be reported, and provided assurance that all cases would be investigated and violators duly punished (Rajendram, 2019; UTEM Does Not Compromise on Plagiarism, 2019). Nevertheless, concern has been raised that cases of plagiarism are managed by the individual universities; hence, indicating the need for the development of a comprehensive and uniform legislation addressing plagiarism across all institutions (Mohd Zain et al., 2021), so that all cases are dealt with in a fair, consistent manner.

Summary For incidences of academic misconduct such as plagiarism to be contained and reduced in the academic arena, concerted effort has to be taken by all parties involved in academia, from the student right up to the education ministry. Students need to be aware of the importance of academic integrity and to ensure that they behave ethically and with integrity during their studies and later on in their work life. Lecturers need to instill in students the desire to be ethical. They also have to be more vigilant in ensuring that the rules of copyright are understood (Padil et al., 2020) and intellectual property is appropriately acknowledged (Ting, 2013), both in their own writings and in students’ work. It is vital that all lecturers within the university cooperate and commit toward ensuring that academic integrity is adhered to by all students. Higher education institutions and the education ministry have to

4

Academic Plagiarism in Malaysia: Perspectives

37

ensure that all cases of plagiarism and academic misconduct are investigated and punishment is meted out in accordance with the severity of the misconduct in order to deter further breaches of academic integrity. Perhaps when all parties collaborate toward achieving a culture of academic integrity, the issue of academic misconduct in universities in Malaysia will be better addressed and controlled, and the penalties imposed for breaches of academic integrity will no longer be a topic of contention among academics and politicians. This is essential if Malaysia is to advance further as a regional education hub for higher education and remain competitive in the field of academia, in line with the Department of Higher Education’s (2017) mission of “ensuring quality higher education in attaining global excellence.”

Cross-References ▶ An Equitable Approach to Academic Integrity Through Alternative Assessment ▶ Contracting During COVID-19: Why Academic Integrity Issues Spread with the Pandemic? ▶ Governing Academic Integrity: Conceptualizing the Assurance and Efficacy of Strategies and Outcomes ▶ Inclusion Within a Holistic Approach to Academic Integrity: Improving Policy, Pedagogy, and Wider Practice for All Students ▶ Leveraging Institutional Integrity for the Betterment of Education ▶ Patchwriting, Plagiarism, Pedagogy: Definitions and Implications ▶ Plagiarism, International Students, and the Second-Language Writer ▶ Role of Technology and Cybersecurity in Academic Integrity: Introduction ▶ Student Peer-to-Peer File Sharing as an Academic Integrity Issue ▶ Understanding How Faculty Members Act When Faced with Plagiarism: A CrossCultural Study

References Abad- García, M. F. (2019). Plagiarism and predatory journals: A threat to scientific integrity. Anales de Pediatria (English Edition), 90(1), 57.e1–57.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpede. 2018.11.006 Alatas, S. M. (2021, December 2). Plagiarism continues to plague public universities. Free Malaysia Today. https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2021/12/02/plagiarismcontinues-to-plague-public-universities/. Retrieved 8 Aug 2022. Azuar, A. (2022, June 21). Malaysia attracts international students with offshore programmes. The Malaysian Reserve. https://themalaysianreserve.com/2022/06/21/malaysia-attracts-interna tional-students-with-offshore-programmes/. Retrieved 9 Aug 2022. Department of Higher Education Strategic Plan 2018-2022. (2017). Ministry of Higher Education. https://jpt.mohe.gov.my/portal/index.php/en/corporate/development-plan/15-jpt-strategic-plan2018-2021. Retrieved 2 Aug 2022.

38

J. K. S. Cheah

Do we want Malaysia to be seen as promoting plagiarism? (2013). The Ant Daily. http://www. theantdaily.com/Top-Stories/Do-we-want-Malaysia-to-be-seen-as-promoting-plagiarism/. Retrieved 2 Oct 2014. Education Malaysia Global Services. (2022). EMGS in position to welcome more international students together with Malaysian Higher Education institutions. EMGS media release. https:// educationmalaysia.gov.my/media_release/emgs-in-position-to-welcome-more-international-stu dents-together-with-malaysian-higher-education-institutions/. Retrieved 7 Aug 2022. Hayden, K. A., Eaton, S. E., Pethrick, H., Crossman, K., Lenart, B. A., & Penaluna, L. E. (2021). A scoping review of text-matching software used for student academic integrity in higher education. Hindawi Education Research international, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/4834860 Hogan, P. T., & Jaska, P. V. (2000). Academic dishonesty: A study of CIS student cheating. Journal of Information Systems Education, 11(3–4), 169–174. Ishak, N. K., Haron, H., & Ismail, I. (2019). Ethical leadership, ethical climate and unethical behaviour in institutions of higher learning. FGIC 2nd Conference on Governance and Integrity. KnE Social Sciences, 3(22), 408–422. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i22.5064 Karim, M. A. (2019, November 27). Be alert to plagiarism. New Straits Times. https://www.nst. com.my/education/2019/11/542580/be-alert-plagiarism. Retrieved 7 Aug 2022. Kennedy, K., Nowak, S., & Raghuraman, R. S. (2000). Academic dishonesty and distance learning: Student and faculty views. College Student Journal, 34(2), 309–314. Md. Yusof, D. S. (2009). A different perspective on plagiarism. The Internet TESL Journal, 15(2), 1–6. http://iteslj.org/Articles/Yusof-Plagiarism.html. Retrieved 17 Mar 2014 Miller, A., & Young-Jones, A. D. (2012). Academic integrity: Online classes compared to face-toface classes. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 39(3–4), 138–145. Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE). (2022). The official website of Department of Higher Education. http://jpt.mohe.gov.my. Retrieved 10 Oct 2022. Mohd Salleh, M. I., Alias, N. R., Abdul Hamid, H., & Yusoff, Z. (2013). Academic dishonestyamong undergraduates in the higher education. International Journal of Academic Research, 5(2), 222–227. https://doi.org/10.7813/2075-4124.2013/5-2/B.34 Mohd Zain, M. I., Rahmat, N. E., Zulkarnain, M. N., & Awasthi, S. (2021). Plagiarism of academic writing in Malaysian universities: A legal analysis. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 6(16). https://doi.org/10.21834/ebpj.v6i16.2709 Moten, A. R. (2014). Academic dishonesty and misconduct: Curbing plagiarism in the Muslim world. Intellectual Discourse, 22(2), 167–189. Mustapha, R., & Ali, N. A. N. (2017). An empirical survey of an academic dishonesty at a major public universities in recent years: The Malaysian evidence. Asian Journal of Educational Research, 5(3), 43–49. Mustapha, R., Hussin, Z., Siraj, S., & Darusalam, G. (2017). Academic dishonesty among higher education students: The Malaysian evidence (2014 to 2016). KATHA– The Official Journal of the Centre for Civilisational Dialogue, 13(1), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.22452/KATHA. vol13no1.4 Nazir, M. S., & Aslam, M. S. (2010). Academic dishonesty and perceptions of Pakistani students. International Journal of Education Management, 24(7), 655–668. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 09513541011080020 Nonis, S., & Swift, C. O. (2001). An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Journal of Education for Business, 77(2), 69–77. Olesen, A. P., Amin, L., & Mahadi, Z. (2018). In their own words: Research misconduct from the perspective of researchers in Malaysian universities. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(2), 1755–1776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9997-9 Padil, H. M., Azmi, A. F., Ahmad, N. L., Shariffuddin, N., Nudin, N. A., & Razak, F. A. (2020). Awareness on copyright among students. International Invention, Innovative & Creative (InIIC) Conference Series, 1/2020, 0-15. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344151791_Aware ness_on_Copyright_among_Students. Retrieved 5 Aug 2022.

4

Academic Plagiarism in Malaysia: Perspectives

39

Public universities always worked hard to do away with dishonesty and unethical working culture: MACC. (2019, July 24). The Sun Daily. https://www.thesundaily.my/local/public-universitiesalways-worked-hard-to-do-away-with-dishonesty-and-unethical-working-culture-maacHB1146898. Retrieved 7 Aug 2022. Rajendram, R. (2019, July 14). Public varsities to get tough on plagiarism. The Star. https://www.thestar. com.my/news/education/2019/07/14/public-varsities-to-get-tough-on-plagiarism. Retrieved 7 Aug 2022. Ramasamy: plagiarism most endemic academic fraud. (2009). The Sun Daily. http://www. thesundaily.my/node/151219. Retrieved 26 Sept 2014. Rujoiu, O., & Rujoiu, V. (2014, November). Academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty: An overview. Proceedings of the 8th International Management Conference, 8, 928–938. Sabli, N., Rahim, N. M., Dangi, M. R. M., Hamid, N. A., Adnan, M. F., Wahab, R. A., & Haron, N. H. (2016). Erosion of academic integrity in higher education system: Symbolization of dishonesty. Malaysian Journal of Education, 41(1), 53–64. Shafie, L. A., & Nayan, S. (2012). The net generation and academic dishonesty in Malaysia. In Technology innovations in education (pp. 181–186). www.wseas.org/cms.action?id¼2514. Retrieved 10 Oct 2014 Smith, M., Ghazali, N., & Noor Minhad, S. F. (2007). Attitudes towards plagiarism among undergraduate accounting students: Malaysian evidence. Asian Review of Accounting, 15(2), 122–146. https://doi.org/10.1108/13217340710823350 Ting, S. H. (2013). Academic writing: Citation is troublesome and plagiarism is no big deal. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Science Research (ICCSR) (pp. 1533–1542). UPM Duo in Plagiarism Scandal. (2009). The Sun Daily. http://www.thesundaily.my/node/151347. Retrieved 26 Sept 2014. UTEM does not compromise on plagiarism, academic integrity issues. (2019, April 7). The Sun Daily. https://www.thesundaily.my/local/utem-does-not-compromise-on-plagiarism-academicintegrity-issues-JC1062812. Retrieved 7 Aug 2022. Yang, M., & Lin, S. (2009). The perception of referencing and plagiarism amongst students coming from Confucian heritage cultures. In 4th Asia Pacific conference on education integrity. http:// ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article¼1011&context¼apcei. Retrieved 1 Oct 2014 Zejno, B. (2018). Plagiarism in academic writing among students of higher learning institutions in Malaysia: An Islamic perspective. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 9(3), 1–14.

5

Improving Academic Integrity in Indonesia: Proposed Recommendations for Managing Alleged Misconducts Ide Bagus Siaputra and Dimas Armand Santosa

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ministerial Regulation on Academic Integrity in Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of 2010 and 2021 Ministerial Regulations on Academic Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . Transformation from Academic Misconduct to Academic Integrity Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Integrity Campaign in Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AK.SA.RA: AcKnowledge, ParaphrASe, IntegRAtion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ABC of Similarity Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Improvements to Academic Integrity and Misconduct Taxonomies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Academic Misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Proposed Recommendations for Managing Alleged Misconducts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42 45 46 46 47 48 49 50 50 52 57 57 58

Abstract

This chapter has been written to communicate two key points. The first message conveys the present condition of dealing with plagiarism, which has shifted from identifying and addressing academic misconduct to fostering academic integrity in Indonesia. This was motivated by the issuance of the Regulation of the Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia Number 39 of 2021 on Academic Integrity in Producing Scientific Works. This modification resulted in a reclassification of academic infractions, namely, violations committed in an attempt to produce scientific works and personal violations in the academic settings. The second message is sharing best practices that have been promoted since 2012 in an effort to combat plagiarism more effectively. In the new normal period, the differentiation between plagiarism, imitation, and copyright infringement and I. B. Siaputra (*) · D. A. Santosa Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_4

41

42

I. B. Siaputra and D. A. Santosa

efficient ways to avoid plagiarism has been consistently pushed and has grown increasingly widespread online. In addition, it is believed that attempts to generate key indicators (breach of the truth, trust violation, and potential risks) as diagnostic aids are more effective for anticipating changes in methodologies and technical improvements in the production of scientific works for the domains of education, research, and community service. Keywords

Academic integrity · Academic misconduct · Authorship manipulation · Conflict of interest · Fabrication · Falsification · Multiple publication · Plagiarism · Research integrity · Indonesia

Introduction Plagiarism, multiple submissions, self-citations, and citation manipulation are just some of the things that should be avoided and watched out for in scientific publishing. Even the threat of sanctions and harsh punishments can’t stop people from doing things that aren’t good. In the same way, corruption seems to still be popular even though many people have been caught doing it. Resnik et al. (2015) researched international research policies and found this information. Resnik et al. study the relationship between research policy and funding rankings for R&D. Indonesia was one of 40 countries with the largest research budgets studied. Cross-border research shows that Indonesia is one of 22 countries with national research ethics policies. Eighteen countries have not yet developed national research codes of conduct policies. Resnik et al. (2015) found a link between the existence of a research code of ethics and the ranking of countries based on how much money they spend on research and development (higher ranking) and how much of their gross national income (GNP) goes to research (the greater the percentage). Countries that pay more attention to research and give more money to it tend to have a national research code of conduct. In other words, the national research code of conduct is usually only owned by countries with big budgets for research. In this situation, Indonesia is a unique case that needs to be looked at. Indonesia is ranked last out of 40 countries, and its gross national product (GNP) has the lowest amount and percentage compared to other countries. Indonesia has a research code of ethics, even though it has the smallest research and development budget (both in terms of money and as a share of GNP). This could mean how serious our country is compared to other big countries like France, India, and Russia (included in the ten countries with the largest budgets). Indonesia has more than ten legal regulations about academic misconduct (see Table 1). Some legal documents regulate one thing, like plagiarism and copyright. Others regulate educational standard or research in general. This table contains only documents from Directorate General or Ministry agencies. Many other legal

5

Improving Academic Integrity in Indonesia: Proposed Recommendations. . .

43

Table 1 Collection of State documents on cheating and academic conduct No 1

Year 1999

2 3

2002 2003

4

2010

5

2010

6

2011

7

2012

8

2013

9

2014

10

2016

11

2021

State documents Circular Letter of the Director General of Higher Education Number 3298/D/T/99 (Brodjonegoro, 1999) Law of the Republic of Indonesia 19 of 2002 Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 20 of 2003 Regulation of the Minister of National Education of the Republic of Indonesia Number 17 of 2010 (Minister of National Education, 2010) Circular Letter of the Director General of Higher Education number 1311/D/C/2010 Circular Letter of the Director General of Higher Education Number 190/D/T/2011 Law of the Republic of Indonesia number 12 of 2012 Decree of the State Minister of Research and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia Number 25 /M/KP/III/2013 Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 28 of 2014 Regulation of the Minister of Research, Technology and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia Number 57 of 2016 Regulation of the Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia Number31 of 2021 (Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia, 2021)

Subject Efforts to Prevent Plagiarism

Issue of Copyright National Education System Prevention and Control of Plagiarism in Higher Education Prevention and Control of Plagiarism Validation of Scientific Papers Higher Education Guidelines for Preparing a Code of Ethics for Research Actors Copyright Guidelines for the construction of integrity zones towards WBKa and WBMMb within the Kemristekdikti Academic integrity in producing scientific works

a

WBK: Wilayah Bebas Korupsi (Corruption-Free Area) WBMM: Wilayah Birokrasi Bersih dan Melayani (WBBM) (Clean and Serving Bureaucratic Area)

b

documents are derivatives of educational and professional associations’ issuances. All kinds of legal documents show that the government and institutional leaders in Indonesia are concerned about academic fraud. Since 1999, the Ministry has raised legal documents or policies to stop fraud or academic violations. At that time, the Director General of Higher Education detected incidences of applying shortcuts in producing scientific work by way of plagiarism. Facts revealed these academic crimes occurred among students and teachers and even professors and college presidents. The Director General of Higher Education appealed to each college for the strict prevention and control of plagiarism. To prevent a breach of academic standards, the Director General of Higher Education set a norm, related to normal faculty workload in producing academic

44

I. B. Siaputra and D. A. Santosa

reports. The main logic is that quality work takes time to process and finish. If there are people who are able to produce a lot of work in a short time, it will be classified as “unnatural.” These irregularities can only occur if the individual either has a special ability to produce many quality works in a relatively short time or the works produced are relatively poor due to unsystematic and messy operation. An even worse alternative is that the work produced is of a relatively high quality but done illegally, such as by the act of plagiarism. Unfortunately, the circular from the Director General of Higher Education was considered ineffective because it does not provide details of the definition and range of academic misconduct. In addition, there is no unanimity on sanctions for violations. The rules were applied according to the local policy of each university, resulting in weak enforcement, ambiguity, fraud, and abuse. The following regulation and guidelines seem to consist of many forms of prohibitions. Plagiarism is strictly forbidden, which resulted in campaigns with slogans such as “Stop plagiarism” and “Anti-plagiarism.” The Regulation of the Minister of National Education No. 17 of 2010, on higher education plagiarism prevention and control, is the most obvious. This regulation was issued to ensure that each student/ lecturer/researcher/educator will always uphold academic honesty and ethics, including avoiding plagiarism in producing scientific papers. The ministerial regulation contains related terms such as plagiarism and plagiarist (or plagiator – a unique Indonesian terminology). This regulation also serves as an official definition regarding the “what,” “who,” “where,” and “when” elements of plagiarism. The MNER also details various ways to prevent and control plagiarism, including providing detailed categories of sanctions. However, such rules and sanctions lead to new violations. Many people deliberately find loopholes and change their behavior to stay in violation but avoid punishment. Self-plagiarism is an example of a new type of violation that is becoming more common. This made people think that rules for scientific publications that only say what can’t be done are not enough. The reason for this is that if there are no things that are not against the rules, it might be seen as acceptable. The problem is that there are things that did not exist or had not been thought of when the rules were made that also need to be avoided. On the other hand, there are some things that can’t be completely banned or thought of as breaking the law. Some things are allowed, but only under certain or limited circumstances. In 2016, there were instructions and directives from the Ministry of Research and Technology about how to set up integrity zones. This is one way in which the way cheating or wrongdoing is dealt with has changed and become more interesting. No longer did the government only try to stop bad behavior (like fraud or breaking the law), but it also started to do things to encourage or improve good behavior (signing of pacts of integrity, openness, and public services). This is done to make sure that a Ministry that is clean and free of corruption, collusion, and nepotism is put into place. In the 2021 Ministry regulation (Permendikbudristek Number 31 year 2021), there is a new way of thinking about academic integrity. This is different from the previous legal documents, which paid more attention and tried to stop problems by using threats and supervision. Just by looking at the name, we can tell that this

5

Improving Academic Integrity in Indonesia: Proposed Recommendations. . .

45

version of the Permendikbudristek is more proactive and optimistic. This rule not only addresses reducing infractions; it also talks about building a culture of academic integrity. More people are aware of and care about academic integrity’s core values, such as honesty, trust, fairness, responsibility, respect, and courage. The Permendikbudristek addressed fundamental values and proposed the use of learning, training, and coaching approaches. Fortunately, Indonesia don’t have to start from scratch with educational activities and teaching students to be honest in school. When it comes to academic integrity, we need to learn from the International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI), which has 30 years of experience in developing policies and evaluating academic integrity for individuals or higher education institutions. For the ethical aspects of publication, the main source of reference is the document produced by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE).

Ministerial Regulation on Academic Integrity in Indonesia The Regulation of the Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia Number 39 of 2021 on Academic Integrity in Producing Scientific Works consists of five chapters. It contains regulation about the general provisions until the statement of implementation of the ministerial regulation. The contents of each chapter are as follows. Chapter I (General provisions) includes a glossary of terms and their definitions (article 1), the academic integrity values (article 2), and the purposes of these regulations (article 3). Chapter II (Development of academic integrity value in producing scientific works) includes a list of people who are involved in coaching (article 4) and the differentiation of roles between universities and ministries until the variety of coaching activities (article 5). This chapter also contains regulation about the content and process of establishing academic integrity regulations (article 6), the requirement that socialization be conducted every semester (article 7), and the role of the ministry in conducting guidance (article 8). Chapter III (Violations and procedures for reporting, investigation, and imposition of sanctions) contains the greatest number of chapters. It contains 13 articles, starting from description regarding 6 different violations (article 9) and the definition of each type of violation and its specification (article 10). The following are description about the level of violation, its use in determining sanctions (article 11), and procedures for reporting, starting with who can report until procedures for handling reports (article 12). The next articles contain follow-up of reports by higher-education leaders (article 13) and by ministries (article 14), followed by guidelines and procedures for investigating alleged violations (article 15) and regulations about actors and sanctioning procedures for academics and university leaders (article 16). The last articles contain information about various administrative sanctions for students and lecturers (articles 17 and 18), prohibition for reporting back on the same alleged violation (article 19), opportunity to file written objections (article 20), and examination site or venue (article 21).

46

I. B. Siaputra and D. A. Santosa

In Chapter IV (Transitional provisions), it is explained what will happen to people who violate before (article 22) and after different ministerial regulations are put into place (article 23). Lastly, Chapter V (Closing provisions) requires higher-education institutions to compile or harmonize their institution regulations within 1 year (article 24), repeal the previous regulation (article 25), and implement the new regulation (article 26).

Comparison of 2010 and 2021 Ministerial Regulations on Academic Integrity There are several major differences between the ministerial regulations from 2010 and the ministerial regulations from 2021. For example, the most recent regulations are more complete and have more details. Five new types of violations were added: fabrication, falsification, authorship manipulation, conflict of interest, and multiple publication or submission. In terms of depth, the 2021 ministerial regulation gives more fundamental specification about plagiarism so that it covers the issue of self-plagiarism. Self-plagiarism has always been controversial, and people who break the law often use it as an excuse. The main reason is that the idea of plagiarism always has to do with someone else. This problem has been fixed by giving more accurate details so that the definition of plagiarism is more in line with the proposed academic integrity glossary from the European Network on Academic Integrity or ENAI (2018), which says that plagiarism is “presenting work or ideas taken from other sources without giving credit.” This definition expands the kinds of things that can be considered plagiarism to include both other people’s and one’s own work, as well as collaborative efforts involving oneself and other people (Meuschke & Gipp, 2013). This definition is more accurate because it focuses on how people plagiarize, not on the wrongdoers or the people they victimized. With this understanding, the definition of plagiarism still applies, even if the one doing the stealing and the one being stolen from are not people but robots, computers, or artificial intelligence (▶ Chaps. 91, “Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Academia,” and ▶ 92, “Academic Integrity and Artificial Intelligence: An Overview”). This is very important as we are able to see in the present day works that were created by using artificial intelligence (GPT Generative Pretrained Transformer, et al., 2022; Hutson, 2022; O’Connor & ChatGPT, 2023; Tauginienė et al., 2018).

Transformation from Academic Misconduct to Academic Integrity Policies Decades of experience in various countries that have seriously tried to tackle the problem of violations of academic integrity (Kalichman, 2016) make us realize how difficult it is to find the right recipe. Especially if academic cheating is only interpreted as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP), which will actually foster other actions such as the emergence of ghost writers (Ross et al., 2008), data

5

Improving Academic Integrity in Indonesia: Proposed Recommendations. . .

47

omission (Doshi, 2009), false statements (Psaty and Kronmal, 2008), and gift authorship Dyer (1999). If these things are not taken into account, there’s a chance that data will be faked or made up (Gerber, 2006). This could waste grant money and create a climate where fraud is more common (Braunack-Mayer & Street, 2016). Smith (2013) and Nuwer (2014) say that research fraud is even worse than financial crime and should be considered a crime because of how bad it is. Eaton and Edino (2018) examined research that adds to general knowledge about academic integrity and ideas like cheating, plagiarism, and bad academic behavior. In addition to the harsh punishments, there have also been efforts that focus on prevention and education instead of punishment (Bretag, 2014; Busch & Bilgin, 2014; Carroll & Duggan, 2005, as stated in the next paragraph). Eaton et al. (2017) agree with what many researchers have said and suggest, creating a learning culture based on academic integrity. This policy is put into action in a planned, step-by-step way with the help of formative evaluations and both verbal and written feedback (▶ Chap. 20, “Integrating Academic Integrity: An Educational Approach”). East (2016) suggests that when students move from secondary education to tertiary education, they need to be aware of the academic integrity and good academic practice skills that will help them throughout their studies. All of this can be done by working together (with all the people who have a stake in the institution). Thomas and Scott (2016) think that a proactive approach to stop bad behavior is better than a reactive approach as a way to punish bad behavior. This is because a proactive approach can come up with new ways to evaluate students’ work that don’t encourage copying. As a strategy, it can be said that preventing problems and being proactive are more likely to work than punishing people. Eaton and Edino (2018) conclude that approaches to dealing with academic misconduct or cheating can be categorized into a punitive versus restorative approach. Both approaches have their own characteristics and benefits and need to be integrated to have an optimal impact. Cooperation between various stakeholders is needed to build a better work and learning climate or culture. In addition, it is also necessary to have and use a complete approach and cover an overarching area of activity. It’s important to develop awareness by cultivating shame as a healthy “internal voice” or “the tendency to feel ashamed” (moral emotion proneness) when a person faces an ethical dilemma that could lead him to act dishonestly, not as a social punishment (Abraham & Giovani Pea, 2018). Shame is still an important moral emotion because it keeps people from breaking the rules of integrity by affecting their moral judgement.

Academic Integrity Campaign in Indonesia Siaputra (2012) suggested that plagiarism is a learned behavior (both actively and passively). Considering that plagiarism is a result of learning, it should also be possible to unlearn it. Siaputra has proposed a simple approach that is deemed to be

48

I. B. Siaputra and D. A. Santosa

accurate and efficient, called AK.SA.RA. This AK.SA.RA. approach suggests a more optimistic and positive point of view. With the right knowledge, avoiding plagiarism should not be a big hurdle or a taxing problem. Another problem with plagiarism is the similarity and conceptual overlapping of plagiarism with imitation and copyright infringement. One important thing to handle this issue is providing clear definition to discriminate plagiarism, imitation, and copyright infringement. Furthermore, when looking into claims of plagiarism, one of the most important things to remember is that plagiarism is different from textual similarity. The two frequently occur together and share a number of conceptual similarities, but they are not the same thing. The ABC of similarity report serves as the basis for this attempt to differentiate between the two options.

AK.SA.RA: AcKnowledge, ParaphrASe, IntegRAtion In Indonesia, the term AK.SA.RA. (“aksara”) means “letter.” In this context, the term AK.SA.RA. is used as an acronym of AcKnowledge, paraphrASe, integRAtion. The purpose of creating acronyms is to make it easier to remember important principles. A brief explanation of the three ideas in AK.SA.RA. are as follows. The first step to avoid the presumption of plagiarism is to acknowledge. Acknowledge is about the importance of recognizing the owner of the basic or original idea and/or the foundation of the argument or idea used. This step is the most essential foundation of anti-plagiarism. By acknowledging previous work clearly and firmly, one cannot be considered to be a copier or a plagiator. It is important to understand that acknowledgment is about using a source, not a sign of weakness. The second step is to paraphrase, as in rewriting in the author’s own words. A paraphrase is the reformatting of an idea or thought into a different context that is more appropriate for the intended audience. Even though the original idea or thought is reformed using different words, the basic idea is still the same or even more effective and efficient in conveying the original message. When an author is paraphrasing an idea, he/she is trying to understand an idea and rewrite it using their own words. The easy way to do this is by reading and understanding an idea well, so the author is able to rewrite the results in their own words. Integration is the third and last step. Integration is the use of the direct quote in the written piece. There are some things that can’t be changed, such as sentences from the law, the Bible, and other similar documents. In many situations, the source must stay the same. This is usually done with sources like definitions or other important statements that are easy to misunderstand or whose meaning can change when they are adapted. In these situations, it’s usually best to leave the words as they were written. By conducting these three easy and simple steps, an author cannot be considered to be a plagiarist: acknowledging the reference source (name and publishing year), rewriting in their own words (paraphrasing), and direct quoting by using quotation marks and including the page number (formulation of sentences). These three steps are very easy to remember and carry out, so there is no reason for anyone in the

5

Improving Academic Integrity in Indonesia: Proposed Recommendations. . .

49

academic field to be anxious about writing, especially due to the fear of being presumed to be copying or plagiarizing. The three-step approach is a promising solution for avoiding plagiarism. Mistakes in writing may still happen, but by acknowledging, paraphrasing, and formulating properly, the author will not be considered to be plagiarizing. In other words, by implementing AK.SA.RA., the basic steps in the process of developing academic integrity have been initiated.

ABC of Similarity Report In reading similarity reports produced by various types of text similarity detection software, the existence of textual similarities is usually characterized by colorful highlights. If there are textual similarities, the examiner needs to pay close attention to the similarities including similarities that need to be acknowledged or do not need to be acknowledged. The term “ABC of similarity report” summarizes good practices that have been developed to address the reading of textual similarity results wisely. Letter “A” refers to similarities that are necessary to acknowledge. The first category refers to textual similarities discovered with previous works in the database. Not all of those outcomes should be classified as plagiarism. Plagiarism occurs when there are significant textual similarities (unique words and phrases) that are not attributed to the source. If the author acknowledges the source but does not do so correctly, it could be considered plagiarism. However, if the author already adequately acknowledges the source using the appropriate citation style, the similarity can be concluded to be non-plagiarism. Contrary to plagiarism, it should be considered an appropriate integration of information. The second letter, “B,” refers to similarities that are unnecessary to acknowledge. It can consist of similarity with common information (words, phrases, and sentences) or archived information. Common information can take the form of scientific (i.e., academic phrasebanks) or non-scientific expressions (i.e., quotes, common knowledge). Archived information may refer to documents that have been published (original issue or post-publication) or works that have yet to be published (pre-prints or pre-publication documents). In general, this category refers to the similarity of text with the documents on the original website, repository, indexing agency, academic social networks, social media, or other storage services. The last letter, “C,” refers to no textual similarities. If the results of the similarity check show that there is no textual similarity, then a check with other languages needs to be done. For example, for a script in Indonesian, when there is no textual similarity, it can be checked in the English version. A two-language examination is done because there is the possibility of the author plagiarizing and then translating it so that it is not detected. If the results of examinations in other languages show no textual similarities, then there is no indication of plagiarism in the work. If the results of examinations in other languages show there are textual

50

I. B. Siaputra and D. A. Santosa

similarities, then it is necessary to perform similar examinations by paying attention to similarities that need to be acknowledge or do not need to be acknowledged.

Improvements to Academic Integrity and Misconduct Taxonomies Academic misconduct or academic dishonesty is every activity conducted by members of an academic group who try to obtain benefits which are not rightfully theirs to claim or to reduce the benefits of other members of the same or another academic group, by using methods or ways that are against the standard integrated rules in the academic community (Berkeley University of California, 2012; Florida State University, 2012; University of Tasmania, 2010). Since 2021, when the most recent ministerial regulation on academic integrity was issued and put into place in Indonesia, the way academic violations are handled and reported has changed. In general, there are two broad categories of academic misconduct: (a) scientific misconduct and (b) personal misconduct.

Types of Academic Misconduct Scientific Misconduct The first category contains violations that occurred during the process of producing scientific work (as stipulated in ministerial regulations). 1. Fabrication. Fabrication is a form of academic misconduct whereby non-existent data or literature references are added or created, with the goal of illegally supporting or giving benefits to the author. The created data or literature has the goal of supporting the author’s work, often being data or a literature reference that is very beneficial to the author’s work. One of the most prominent cases in Indonesia, reported by the media in November and December 2013, involved an Indonesian university president alleged of fabrication in their dissertation work (Tribun Jakarta, 2013). There are three types of fabrication: fabrication of data, visual objects, and references. 2. Falsification. Falsification is a form of academic misconduct whereby existing data or literature reference are changed or modified, with the goal of illegally giving benefits to the author. The basic difference between falsification and fabrication is whether the original data or literature exists or not in the first place. Nurdin’s (2014) recent research into falsification has resulted in a compilation of facts regarding alleged plagiarism and data manipulation on the papers of students. Similar to fabrication, there are three types of falsification: falsification of data, visual objects, and references. 3. Plagiarism. Plagiarism can be defined as the act of (1) making use of part or all of other author(s)’ publication without proper citing; (2) rewriting, without the use of paraphrasing, part or all of another author(s)’ publication without proper citing;

5

Improving Academic Integrity in Indonesia: Proposed Recommendations. . .

51

and/or (3) making use of part or all of one’s own published work without proper citing. Plagiarism can be a form of impersonation because plagiarists/plagiators often avoid citing the source of data or literature reference, acting as though the data or literature reference is their own. Plagiarism itself can be divided into two types: (1) self-plagiarism (also known as recycling fraud), which is conducted by using the author’s own existing work without any proper acknowledgement, and (2) plagiarism conducted by using other authors’ works without any proper acknowledgment. One case of plagiarism involved a high-level government official from the Ministry of Religion and a lecturer from a well-known university. They were accused of plagiarism in one of their most recent newspaper articles and subsequently resigned as a lecturer as a form of taking responsibility for their actions (RMOL, 2014). Unfortunately, despite the increasing attention regarding plagiarism, usually, only the second type of plagiarism (plagiarism conducted by using other authors’ works without any proper acknowledgment) is considered to be plagiarism in Indonesia, while the first type of plagiarism (plagiarism conducted by using the author’s own existing work without any proper acknowledgment) is often overlooked, despite it also being unethical. This is also caused by the limitations in the definition of plagiarism in national or official rules or statements. 4. Authorship manipulation. Authorship manipulation refers to the act of (1) adding one’s self as an author in a publication despite having no contribution; (2) redacting other contributing author(s)’ name; and/or (3) ghostwriting (using another party’s service to produce a publication and admitting it as one’s own despite it being false). 5. Conflict of interest. Conflict of interest refers to the publication of a scientific manuscript with the specific intended target of another party’s benefit or disadvantage. This is considered to be unethical as it often involves the tampering of data and results, instead of publishing the data and results in its truthful form. Conflict of interest can relate to another form of academic misconduct, which is the professorial misconduct. 6. Multiple submissions. Multiple submissions refers to submitting the same manuscript to multiple publication outlets simultaneously, which inadvertently results in the same manuscript being published in multiple outlets. The act of multiple submissions in itself (regardless of it resulting in multiple publications or not) is considered to be unethical, despite many reasoning that it is done due to the desperation in getting their manuscript published.

Personal Misconduct The second category consists of various violations in academic setting. Personal misconduct consists of (1) cheating, (2) sabotage, and (3) professorial misconduct. 1. Cheating. Cheating refers to another form of academic misconduct that is not directly related to scientific misconduct (despite being quite similar and related to

52

I. B. Siaputra and D. A. Santosa

one another). In general, this type of academic misconduct/academic dishonesty consists of bribery/extortion and impersonation. Bribery is a form of cheating by giving items of material value (commonly in the form of currency) in order to obtain illegal academic benefits. While there is no well-known case of bribery in education in Indonesia, the misconduct itself is commonly conducted. Extortion is a form of cheating by forcing a party to act for the benefit of others regardless of their own will. Impersonation refers to acting as if the data, literature reference, or academic work of the author belongs to the author. In relation to ghostwriters and paper/essay mills, also known as “contract cheating,” this particular misconduct could be one of the most blatantly available. It is common to find advertisements for ghostwriters and paper/essay mills in Indonesia, ranging from pamphlets and text messages to websites, blogs, or other social media. Some even dare to provide information to the media, justifying their existence by pointing out that articles from their paper/essay mills are written to order instead of simply changing the author’s name and information of an already existing article (Kompas, 2010). 2. Sabotage. Sabotage refers to the actions conducted by authors in obtaining academic benefits by reducing the legal benefits of other members of the academic group or community. For example, in order to score higher than other members of the same academic community, the author deletes the data files of the other members, making it so that only the author’s data is complete and ready for scoring. 3. Professorial misconduct. Professorial misconduct refers to unprofessional actions conducted by members of the academic community or group. This can be in the form of pressuring others into giving higher scores by using the author’s position or by making use of the author’s position to get other illegal benefits from other members of the academic community. There are no well-known cases, either for sabotage or professorial misconduct, reported by the media in Indonesia.

The Proposed Recommendations for Managing Alleged Misconducts The 2021 ministerial regulations are not intended to be detailed and rigid technical guidelines, so that everything that already exists must be followed and everything that is not prohibited may be performed. The Indonesian government seeks to decentralize authority and make room for contextualization of regulations. Procedures for preventing, coaching, and overcoming violations are left to the discretion of each institution of higher education. In addition, universities are entrusted with descriptions and specific details regarding the types and levels of violations, procedures, and sanctions. This trust must be addressed with discretion. Each agency is responsible for examining and approving its own customs and developing pertinent regulations. Instead of providing a detailed list, this ministerial regulation should serve as a basis

5

Improving Academic Integrity in Indonesia: Proposed Recommendations. . .

53

for observing and anticipating changes in how scientific work is produced. The goal is that this guideline can be used as the primary guideline even if a new situation or condition arises that has never been encountered or even imagined. One contribution and use of ministerial regulations is to make sure that the different types of violations match up with the different classifications and taxonomies that have been suggested. The proposed change is meant to make room for behavior that is unthinkable right now and could be seen as questionable, inappropriate, or even blatant misconduct. There are several major signs or components, including breach of the truth, trust violation, and potential risks. 1. The initial indication is a breach of the truth. This occurs when there is a discrepancy between what has been reported and what is actually occurring. This may include references, images, data, and various other types of information. Any attempt to alter information so that it differs from what actually occurred may be considered an indication of a violation. 2. The second indicator is a trust violation. This occurs when the academic community violates the fundamental values of academic integrity, namely, trust, responsibility, fairness, courage, respect, and honesty (Eaton et al., 2021; International Center on Academic Integrity, 2021), thereby abusing the trust that has been placed in it. Even though the term proposed by Kuroki (2018) is “trust,” this term can be broadened to encompass all the fundamental values of academic integrity. 3. The third indicator is the existence of potential risk for safety of manufactured goods and provided services. Initially, Kuroki (2018) only applied the term “potential risk” to products and stated that it was only applicable to health and industry. In fact, the term “potential risk” can also be applied to potential service delivery risks. In addition to health and industry, the term “potential risk” should be avoided in fields such as education, economics, and technology. These three indicators do not contradict one another and are highly likely to occur concurrently. Thus, a behavior can be considered a violation if one or more indicators are met. In addition, it is inappropriate to restrict a behavior to a particular category. It seems more appropriate and useful to convey that a behavior meets the criteria to be considered a violation of certain indicators, as opposed to limiting the behavior to specific categories. In addition to the various kinds of indicators that should be used, it is essential to come up with a classification or taxonomy that is founded on the extent to which the problem is present or the degree to which it is severe. In a summary, the classification and taxonomy of academic integrity and academic misconduct should range from appropriate conduct all the way down to questionable, inappropriate, and blatant misconduct (Hall & Martin, 2019). Observing behavior based on the six fundamental values of academic integrity is one method for determining the severity of a violation. Appropriate conduct or best practice is conduct that adheres to the six academic integrity values (Eaton, et al., 2021; International Center on Academic Integrity, 2021). In contrast, violations, or at

54

I. B. Siaputra and D. A. Santosa

least deviations, can be considered to have begun when at least one academic integrity value is deviated from. If the values that are being violated are increasing, the severity of the violations may increase. To have an accurate understanding of the fundamental values of academic integrity, we briefly describe the essential components of each value, which was originally proposed by the International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI). ICAI is a global organization whose mission is to promote integrity in academic communities (ICAI, 2021). The organization commits to collaborating and partnering with academic institutions and organizations from around the world to create a network of integrity allies. The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity was developed as a declaration of the organization’s core beliefs. In order to preserve Tracey Bretag’s legacy and ensure that her contributions to academic integrity are not forgotten, it was once proposed that the six fundamental values of academic integrity be incorporated into her name (Eaton et al., 2020). TRACEY is an acronym for trust, respect, fairness, courage, and responsibility. When we talk about the fundamental values of academic integrity, we should remember her “. . .because TRACEY is really the fundamental values of academic integrity” (Eaton et al., 2020). Thus, the six fundamental values of academic honesty (International Center for Academic Integrity, 2021) will be explained in the same order as the letters in Tracey’s name. 1. Trust. Trust is important because it allows academic communities to believe in the importance and value of scientific activities and education levels. When people trust each other, they work together to create an environment where everyone hopes to be treated fairly and with respect and where everyone else hopes to be treated the same way. The teaching staff builds their students’ confidence by outlining specific guidelines and parameters for the assignments to be completed by the students as well as the criteria to be used in grading the students’ work. The students, who have prepared their work in an authentic manner, also contribute to an increased sense of mutual trust. 2. Respect. Academics will be able to consider themselves a successful group if they are able to accept and value one another even while expressing differing and even conflicting perspectives. Learning environments that encourage thorough examination, inspirational debate, and lively disapproval about ideas while also respecting those who voice them are perhaps the most productive. Lecturers who value their students’ perspectives and ideas demonstrate this respect by listening to them, getting to know them as individuals, providing thorough honest feedback to their work, and encouraging students to pursue their own interests and passions. Those who are part of the academic community demonstrate their appreciation for the work of their peers by giving credit where credit is due. Creating a community where mutual respect can be shown and experienced is a shared and individual duty. 3. Fairness. When it comes to the development of ethical communities, fairness is an essential component. Predictability, transparency, clarity, and reasonable expectations are four essential elements that contribute significantly to fairness.

5

Improving Academic Integrity in Indonesia: Proposed Recommendations. . .

55

Evaluations that are true to form, accurate, and conducted without bias play an essential part in the learning process. In addition, for there to be a sense of trust between the teaching staff and the students, there needs to be fairness accompanied by respect for the assessment and measurement processes. All members of the academic community, including faculty, students, administration, and staff, have a right to expect fair treatment and a duty to treat others fairly. 4. Courage. Courage is much more of a capacity than it is a value, therefore distinct from the other fundamental values. Fearlessness is often mistaken for courage, while actually, courage is defined as the capacity to act in accordance with one’s values despite the presence of fear. Members of the academic society have a duty to learn not only how to make decisions based on correct information but also how to have the courage to put those decisions into action. Courage is the only way to build and keep a community of integrity that is strong enough to be responsible, respectful, trustworthy, fair, and honest no matter what. 5. Responsibility. Every member of academic community bears some responsibility for safeguarding the integrity of academic activities, whether via teaching, research, or community service. Sharing power and resources is a part of shared responsibility. By working together to reach these goals, responsible communities can take steps to fight apathy and get others to uphold standards of academic integrity. Being responsible requires not only putting up with negative peer pressure but also standing up to misconducts and acting as a positive example for others. Developing a sense of responsibility requires first becoming aware of the urges to engage in unethical behavior and then developing the ability to resist those urges. To be a responsible member of an academic community also means to hold other people accountable when they do not uphold the values that are held by the community. 6. Honesty. The foundation of teaching, learning, research, and public service is honesty. Academic policies and community practices must be capable of sending a clear message that data falsification, lying, deception, theft, or other dishonest behavior is unacceptable. Dishonest behavior not only jeopardizes the academic community’s welfare and violates the rights of the parties involved, but it can also tarnish the institution’s reputation and reduce the value of the degree(s) one has. After learning the numerous taxonomies of research misconduct and how they are classified, as well as the fundamental values of academic integrity, it will be easier to identify whether academic irregularities have occurred. We present examples of how to address specific behaviors (Table 2). Some of these are already governed by ministerial laws, but others are examples of questionable conduct that are not categorized as misconduct. The rank of severity is presented for illustrative reasons only. The severity level might be interpreted differently by various evaluation teams and under various circumstances and settings. This highlights the need of establishing generic criteria for judging the severity of infractions.

Symbols * ¼ mild, ** ¼ moderate, *** ¼ severe

Violation of fundamental values of academic integrity Ways in producing scientific work Breach of the truth Trust Responsibility Fairness Courage Respect Types of scientific violations regulated in ministerial regulations Fabrication *** *** ** ** * ** Falsification *** *** ** ** * ** Plagiarism * *** * * * * Authorship manipulation * ** ** *** * ** Conflict of interest * * * * * * Multiple submission * *** ** *** * ** Examples of behaviors that are not classified as misconduct but are questionable Self citation * * * *** * ** AI-assisted paraphrasing * * ** ** * * Computer as co-author * * * * * *

Table 2 Illustrations of some types of violations and their indicators Potential risk ** ** * * ** * * * *

Honesty *** *** *** ** * ** * ** *

56 I. B. Siaputra and D. A. Santosa

5

Improving Academic Integrity in Indonesia: Proposed Recommendations. . .

57

Summary It’s easier to build a strong child than to repair a broken adult. –Anonymous

The aphorisms are often attributed to Frederick Douglass, a black American statesman who was also a survivor of slavery (Douglass, 2014). The quote implies the belief that a damage is very, very difficult to repair. Therefore, damage or mistakes are avoided as much as possible so as not to occur. The aphorisms we hear more often are “It is better to prevent than to cure.” Both quotes imply a message about the importance of a preventive and mitigation or preventive mitigation approach. However, on many occasions, the violations that occur are often immediately followed by the provision of penalties that are commensurate with the level of violations raised. One of the reasons behind or justifying such actions is for the pursuit of efficiency. Limited resources, both time, effort, and cost, are often the main reasons for the punishment. There is a belief or at least hope that strict sanctions and severe penalties can eliminate violations and have a deterrent effect. Unfortunately, efforts to achieve and maintain efficiency sometimes occur at the expense of the reduction of the effectiveness of punitive behavior (Kara & MacAlister, 2010). Sentencing often changes the form of offense from familiar to new forms that are not recognized or even never thought of before. The relationship between policies and procedures, community standards, and day-to-day conduct should be congruent, consistent, and compatible with the institutional mission, vision, and values. Successful culture change requires patience and the ongoing involvement of students, faculty, staff, administration, institutions, and society at large. Transformation of an entire culture is difficult work that takes place gradually over time. A patient approach and the continuous engagement of students, faculty, staff, and society as a whole are necessary ingredients for a successful effort to alter a culture. As a closing remark, the methods of prevention are more in line with the philosophy of character education in Indonesia (semboyan Ki Hajar Dewantoro): Ing Ngarso Sung Tulodo, Ing Madyo Mangun Karso, Tut Wuri Handayani! “Ing Ngarso Sung Tulodo” signifies that in order to be a leader, one must be able to set an example. “Ing Madyo Mangun Karso” means that a person must be able to arouse or inspire enthusiasm despite his busy lifestyle. Someone must provide moral encouragement and morale from behind, according to “Tut Wuri Handayani.”

Cross-References ▶ Academic Integrity and Artificial Intelligence: An Overview ▶ Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Academia ▶ Integrating Academic Integrity: An Educational Approach

58

I. B. Siaputra and D. A. Santosa

References Abraham, J., & Giovani Pea, A. (2018). Can proneness to moral emotions detect corruption? The mediating role of ethical judgment based on unified ethics. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 41(1), 152–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2018.07.013 Berkeley University of California. (2012). Defining academic misconduct. http://gsi.berkeley.edu/ gsi-guide-contents/academic-misconduct-intro/definitions/ Braunack-Mayer, A. & Street, J. (2016). Approaches to academic integrity in medical and health research. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 749–761). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_46 Bretag, T. (2014). Challenges in addressing plagiarism in education. PLoS Medicine, 10(12). https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001574 Brodjonegoro, S. S. (1999). Surat edaran direktur jenderal pendidikan tinggi nomor 3298/D/T/99 mengenai upaya pencegahan tindakan plagiat [Circular of the general director of higher education number 3298/D/T/99 regarding the attempts of preventing plagiarism actions]. Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi. Busch, P., & Bilgin, A. (2014). Student and staff understanding and reaction: Academic integrity in an Australian university. Journal of Academic Ethics, 12(3), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10805-014-9214-2 Carroll, J., & Duggan, F. (2005). Institutional change to deter student plagiarism: What seems essential to a holistic approach? Paper presented at the 2nd Asia-Pacific Educational Integrity Conference, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia, 2–3 December 2005. Doshi, P. (2009). Neuraminidase inhibitors: The story behind the Cochrane review. British Medical Journal, 339, b5164. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b5164 Douglass, F. (2014). My bondage and my freedom. In My bondage and my freedom. Yale University Press. Dyer, C. (1999). London professor struck off for bullying and dishonesty. British Medical Journal, 319(7215), 938. East, J. (2016). Educational responses to academic integrity. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 481–496). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8 Eaton, S. E., & Edino, R. I. (2018). Strengthening the research agenda of educational integrity in Canada: A review of the research literature and call to action. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0028-7 Eaton, S. E., Guglielmin, M., & Otoo, B. K. (2017). Plagiarism: Moving from punitive to pro-active approaches. In P. Preciado Babb, L. Yeworiew, & S. Sabbaghan (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the IDEAS Conference 2017: Leading Educational Change Conference (pp. 28–36). Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary. https://prism.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/52096 Eaton, S. E., Titchener, H., Rogerson, A., Mahmud, S., Prentice, F., Curtis, G., Seaton, K., Awdry, R., Fishman, T., Glendinning, I., Lancaster, T., Morris, E. J., Orim, S.-M., Rowell, G., Draper, M., Newton, P., Foltýnek, T., Shala, S., Leka, D., et al. (2020). In memory of Tracey Bretag: A collection of tributes. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 16(1), 1–20. https://doi. org/10.1007/s40979-020-00066-2 Florida State University. (2012). Research misconduct. http://gradschool.fsu.edu/AcademicsResearch/Research-and-Scholarly-Integrity/Info-by-Topic-Area/Research-Misconduct Gerber, P. (2006). What can we learn from the Hwang and Sudbø affairs?. Medical Journal of Australia, 184(12), 632–635. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00420.x GPT Generative Pretrained Transformer, Almira Osmanovic Thunström, Steinn Steingrimsson. (2022). Can GPT-3 write an academic paper on itself, with minimal human input? https://hal. archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03701250/document Hall, J., & Martin, B. R. (2019). Towards a taxonomy of research misconduct: The case of business school research. Research Policy, 48(2), 414–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.006

5

Improving Academic Integrity in Indonesia: Proposed Recommendations. . .

59

Hutson, M. (2022). Could AI help you to write your next paper? Nature, 611(7934), 192–193. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03479-w International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI). (2021). The fundamental values of academic integrity (3rd ed.). https://academicintegrity.org/resources/fundamental-values Kalichman, M. (2016). Research integrity: Introduction. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 785–787). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8 Kara, F., & MacAlister, D. (2010). Responding to academic dishonesty in universities: A restorative justice approach. Contemporary Justice Review, 13(4), 443–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10282580.2010.517981 Kompas. (2010). Ternyata omzet jasa penjualan skripsi tak terpengaruh [Apparently the turnover of scientific article commercial service is not affected]. http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2010/ 02/24/15484582/Ternyata.Omzet.Jasa.Pembuatan.Skripsi.Tak.Terpengaruh Kuroki, T. (2018). New classification of research misconduct from the viewpoint of truth, trust, and risk. Accountability in Research, 25(7–8), 404–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018. 1548283 Meuschke, N., & Gipp, B. (2013). State-of-the-art in detecting academic plagiarism. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 9(1), 50–71. https://doi.org/10.21913/IJEI.v9i1.847 Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia. (2021). Ministerial Regulation No. 39 of 2021 on academic integrity in producing scientific works. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Home/Details/163898/permendikbud-no-17-tahun-2010 Minister of National Education. (2010). Ministerial Regulation No. 17 on 2010 on plagiarism prevention and control in higher education. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Home/Details/163898/ permendikbud-no-17-tahun-2010 Nurdin, A. (2014). Skripsi buram kampus remang-remang: Studi kasus pada sekolah tinggi ilmu administrasi (STIA) amuntai [Suspicious scientific articles of ghastly universities: Case study on administration high school]. http://sosbud.kompasiana.com/2014/03/03/skripsi-buram-kampusremang-remang-studi-kasus-pada-sekolah-tinggi-ilmu-administrasi-stia-amuntai-636856.html Nuwer, R. (2014). Scientific misconduct should be a crime. Diunduh dari https://slate.com/ technology/2014/09/scientific-misconduct-should-be-a-crime-its-like-fraud-or-theft-only-moredangerous.html. O’Connor, S., & ChatGPT. (2023). Open artificial intelligence platforms in nursing education: Tools for academic progress or abuse? Nurse Education in Practice, 66, 103537. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103537 Psaty, B. M., & Kronmal, R. A. (2008). Reporting mortality findings in trials of rofecoxib for Alzheimer disease or cognitive impairment: a case study based on documents from rofecoxib litigation. Jama, 299(15), 1813–1817. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.15.1813 Resnik, D. B., Rasmussen, L. M., & Kissling, G. E. (2015). An international study of research misconduct policies. Accountability in Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014. 958218 RMOL. (2014). Kasus penjiplakan anggito abimanyu mengemparkan [The case of imitation by anggito abimanyu is staggering]. http://www.rmol.co/read/2014/02/17/144225/KasusPenjiplakan-Anggito-Abimanyu-MenggemparkanRoss, J. S., Hill, K. P., Egilman, D. S., & Krumholz, H. M. (2008). Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: a case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation. Jama, 299(15), 1800–1812. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.15.1800 Siaputra, I. B. (2012, April). Aksara: Gerakan kejujuran akademik [Aksara: Academic integrity movement]. Surabaya Post, p. 6. Smith, R. (2013). Should scientific fraud be a criminal offence? British Medical Journal blogs, December 3, 2013. http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2013/12/09/richard-smith-should-scientific-fraudbe-a-criminaloffence/

60

I. B. Siaputra and D. A. Santosa

Tauginienė, L., Gaižauskaitė, I., Glendinning, I., Kravjar, J., Ojsteršek, M., Ribeiro, L., Odiņeca, T., Marino, F., Cosentino, M., Sivasubramaniam, S., & Foltýnek, T. (2018). Glossary for academic integrity. ENAI Report 3G [online]: Revised version, October 2018. https://academicintegrity. eu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Glossary_revised_final.pdf Thomas, J., & Scott, J. (2016). UK perspectives of academic integrity. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 39–53). Springer Science + Business Media Singapore Pvt Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8 Tribun Jakarta. (2013). Kasus disertasi bodong, mahasiswa datangi kemendikbud [Fake dissertation case, university students arrive at the ministry of national educational and culture]. http:// www.tribunnews.com/metropolitan/2013/12/06/kasus-disertasi-bodong-mahasiswa-datangikemendikbud University of Tasmania. (2010). Academic misconduct. http://www.utas.edu.au/registrar/studentmisconduct/academic-misconduct

6

Perspectives on Academic Integrity in the ASEAN Region Jasper Roe, Mike Perkins, Caroline Wong, and Gi Kunchana Chonu

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Higher Education in ASEAN: An Increasingly Private and International Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . AI Research in ASEAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Myanmar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cambodia and Laos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations for AI in ASEAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62 64 66 67 67 68 69 69 70 70 71 71 73 73

Abstract

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is a political and economic organization comprising ten member states: Cambodia, Brunei, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Since its inception, ASEAN has sought to deepen political, economic, and sociocultural cooperation, and education has played a major role in achieving these goals. ASEAN’s efforts to harmonize and integrate differing educational systems have included adopting coherent and standardized frameworks and regional quality standards, encouraging mobility programs, and creating J. Roe (*) · C. Wong · G. K. Chonu James Cook University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] M. Perkins British University Vietnam, Hung Yen, Vietnam e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_186

61

62

J. Roe et al.

opportunities for collaboration between governments, industry, and academia. ASEAN has acknowledged the importance of the development of higher education (HE) as a key element in achieving regional peace and stability and maintaining a resilient and skilled workforce. Further to this, ASEAN has specified its aims of contributing to the academic community worldwide and to uphold quality in HE across all members of the union. This chapter seeks to outline and explain the role that academic integrity (AI) plays across HE in ASEAN member states, explaining the shared goals of the union, the current state of AI research, and the challenges related to AI that are currently being faced. The chapter summarizes AI research in ASEAN member states and identifies areas for further investigation to develop our understanding of AI in the region. Finally, we recommend that a future task for ASEAN is to consider adopting a shared AI framework, which targets the union’s sociocultural goals and promotes an ASEAN-focused and decolonized approach to quality assurance in HE. Keywords

ASEAN · Academic integrity · Higher education · Southeast Asia · Academic dishonesty

Introduction Established in 1967 between Thailand, the Philippines, and the Federation of Malaya, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has become a leading intergovernmental organization of ten member states (Singapore, the Philippines, Thailand, Myanmar, Lao PDR, Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Brunei, and Malaysia), focused around three pillars of security, economy, and sociocultural community (Yodpet et al., 2022). ASEAN has experienced significant economic development since its inception and plays an increasingly important role on the global stage. It continues to record a high level of GDP growth approaching 5% in 2022, while other regions of the world struggle economically (Yodpet et al., 2022). ASEAN is highly diverse in size, population, culture, and economy. Member states range in size from the city-state of Singapore at 714 km2 to Indonesia at 1.86 million km2, roughly 2,605 times as large. In terms of population, Brunei is the smallest member state, with a population of 423,000, and Indonesia is the largest, with a population of 238 million. The Philippines (96 million) and Vietnam (89 million) also hold large populations. Varying levels of urbanization and economic development appear across the region, with Singapore’s entire population living in an urban center, compared to 79% of Cambodia’s population living in rural areas (ASEAN, 2022). ASEAN has a young population, with only 6% of the combined population over 65 years old and over 25% between 15 and 29 years old. Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and various other religions are practiced across the region, and many different languages are spoken, although the working language of

6

Perspectives on Academic Integrity in the ASEAN Region

63

ASEAN is English (ASEAN, 2022). Traditionally, ASEAN has been seen as an informal organization, allowing members to be autonomous in the method and time in which they assimilate policies aimed toward integration, as a way of dealing with the enormous diversity of the region (Caballero-Anthony, 2022). As a result, ASEAN has largely not adopted formal “regimes” but the “ASEAN way” has been followed, generally recognized as an informal, consensus-building approach (Caballero-Anthony, 2022). Despite this informal approach, ASEAN’s central organizational body of the ASEAN Secretariat still plays an active role in coordinating member states’ activities around shared fundamental principles, and education plays a growing part in helping member states to achieve goals related to these principles. To highlight this importance, education is specifically mentioned in two of the core principles of ASEAN. The first of these principles is that ASEAN states must provide mutual assistance to one another in training and research for professional, educational, technical, and administrative purposes, while the second principle refers to the ambition of encouraging Southeast Asian studies (ASEAN, 2022). Encouraging quality education among ASEAN member states contributes to developing long-term health outcomes, promoting inclusivity, stability, equality, and a resilient workforce capable of adapting to the changing economy. Culturally speaking, ASEAN posits that education can become a driver to help develop a shared sense of ASEAN identity (ASEAN, 2022). Consequently, education is a cornerstone of ASEAN’s plans and ambitions for the future, and members drive this through engaging in capacity building in educational institutions through the ASEAN Education Ministers’ Meetings, the ASEAN University Network (AUN), and other bodies used for developing collaborations and partnerships, and offering scholarships and opportunities for further study (ASEAN, 2022). At the heart of issues of quality, equality, and stability in education lies academic integrity (AI). Although AI is far from a universal set of concepts (Eaton, 2022), aspects of AI have been argued to have a universal basis. An example of this is the use of Recognition Theory to posit that the universal struggle for recognition drives students to commit academic misconduct to achieve academic success (Roe, 2022) and with this in mind, it is possible to create cross-cultural policies to deal with violations of commonly accepted principles of AI. This is important for ASEAN’s overall goals as empirical studies have shown that academically dishonest behaviors that violate principles of AI can have negative social effects that persist outside of study. For example, Guerrero-Dib et al. (2020) found that students who engage in academic dishonesty (AD) are likely to report similar behaviors in other areas of life. In the professional sphere, this can carry risks of social harm and at best lead to underprepared students joining the workforce without mastering the skills that they have studied to achieve (Carpenter et al., 2006). Therefore, this chapter seeks to engage with AI in the ASEAN region. The two objectives for this chapter are firstly to describe and critically review the current literature regarding AI in higher education (HE) in the ASEAN region, and secondly to propose a pan-ASEAN society for the promotion of AI that suits the unique cultures and societies of the ASEAN member states.

64

J. Roe et al.

Tackling the subject of AI across ASEAN is no easy task. Firstly, the sheer range and diversity of the region make the challenge appear overwhelming. However, there are good reasons to approach the topic at this broad level rather than at the state level. While traditional AI research has explored specific groups in relation to their nationality, a regional approach can deal with regional problems in the same way that a regional organization can deal with regional economic, political, and environmental issues. Consequently, exploring AI from a regional perspective can help examine the interdependent and increasingly integrated systems of higher education across the member states of ASEAN, while identifying areas of similarity and difference that must be addressed.

Higher Education in ASEAN: An Increasingly Private and International Context In order to understand AI in ASEAN, firstly the details of higher education institutions (HEIs) within the region need to be explained. Systems of HE in ASEAN have developed through different historical, social, economic, and political contexts, which are highly diverse (UNESCO, 2006). There are many hundreds of HEIs across the ASEAN region, ranging from small, independent colleges in rural areas to world-leading universities and research institutions located in major global cities (Share ASEAN, 2022). While most ASEAN states have both public and private institutions, some, for example, Vietnam, have semi-public universities, while there are corporation-owned public universities in Malaysia. Community colleges, exist across Thailand and Vietnam, and branch campuses of foreign universities can be found in almost all member states of ASEAN (UNESCO, 2006). In the 2023 Quacquarelli Symonds rankings, three ASEAN institutions features in the top 100 universities worldwide, with the National University of Singapore ranked eleventh and Nanyang Technological University (Singapore) ranked nineteenth globally (QS, 2022). Regionally, rankings are dominated by Singapore and Malaysia, followed by notable institutions in Thailand (Chulalongkorn University) and Indonesia (Gadjah Mada University). With the exception of Brunei, these rankings are strongly linked with measures of economic development such as GDP per capita or HDI (Human Development Index). Analysis of the quality of HEIs in ASEAN can also be categorized along the same lines as GDP per capita and HDI. Khalid et al. (2019) assert that in regards to educational quality assurance, a system of three different levels exists within the region. This comprises Singapore in the “high” group, with Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Thailand, and the Philippines in the “medium” group, while the “low” group includes Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam. Those less-developed states in the low group face pressured higher education systems, including a lack of funding, underqualified academic staff, and low-quality or ineffectively planned programs, resulting in students receiving a poor quality of education (UNESCO, 2006). As a result, HEIs in these states are struggling to keep up with the current globalization of higher education (Khalid et al., 2019). Regarding AI, it is likely that HEIs in these

6

Perspectives on Academic Integrity in the ASEAN Region

65

states with pressured resources face more difficulties in addressing, detecting, and managing violations of AI. This also means that there is limited ability or capacity to engage in training with faculty and students, purchase technological solutions for managing AI violations, or develop and embed processes to combat AI. Vogt and Eaton (2022) have identified how specific job roles dedicated to AI have grown in North America and Canada; the same is not likely to be true in states that are more resource pressured. Fewer high-quality educational opportunities within these “low” groups have also led to a burgeoning demand for these students seeking out overseas study opportunities. As an example of this, students traveling from Vietnam to the United States to study grew by 1676% over the period from 1990 to 2019 (Yodpet et al., 2022).This equally applies to intra-ASEAN mobility as students from the “low” or “medium” groups may choose to go abroad to study in states belonging to higher groups. Scholarship offerings and assistance programs can reflect this; a single scholarship program in Thailand reserves 200 spaces for students from Cambodia (Yodpet et al., 2022). However, students are not the only ones seeking these international opportunities for higher education. Internationalization plays a growing role in the plans of HEIs across ASEAN member states. It is argued that the “triad” of exchanging, cooperating, and integrating among international institutions has become the modus operandi of HEIs operating across national borders (Feuer & Hornidge, 2015), and the same competitive pressures that drove the adoption of the Bologna Process in the EU are said to be at work in ASEAN, leading to ongoing higher education reform (Feuer & Hornidge, 2015). Singapore and Malaysia have been described as the biggest advocates for further integration, and the effects of this would help maintain their status as regional educational powers (Feuer & Hornidge, 2015), which in turn can help maintain their regional power. Malaysia has focused more closely on UK providers of HE, while Singapore has positioned itself more widely with international collaborations (Feuer & Hornidge, 2015). Much internationalization has been precipitated by growing privatization, and international education has been trending toward private rather than public sector growth (Yodpet et al., 2022). Cambodia has seen the sharpest rise in private HEIs, with more than 60% of all students now graduating from private institutions (Feuer & Hornidge, 2015). Indonesia traditionally relied on private HEIs to meet excess student demand, while in Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines, universities such as RMIT (Vietnam), Monash (Malaysia), and De La Salle (The Philippines) have contributed to the raising of standards in higher education, although they have mainly catered to wealthier individuals who can afford their programs (UNESCO, 2006). The rise of standards also relates to the quality of education provided by many of these private international HEIs that adhere to higher education standards laid down in the country of origin of these institutions. For example, Monash and RMIT from Australia abide by the Higher Education Standards Framework (HES) 2021 that outlines key aspects of TEQSA’s (Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency) approach to regulation and national quality assurance for higher education, and all

66

J. Roe et al.

organizations that offer higher education qualifications in or from Australia must be registered by TEQSA (TEQSA, 2022a). In fact, one of the principal standards is concerned with academic integrity as laid down in Part A, Section 5.2 of the HES Framework on Academic and Research Integrity, which sets out broad requirements for a provider to have policies that promote and uphold academic and research integrity and policies and procedures that address allegations of misconduct (TEQSA, 2022b). Nations outside of ASEAN, including China, the United States, Japan, and the EU, have each contributed to the internationalization of higher education in the region, offering funding, scholarships, and financial aid, and spearheading outreach campaigns such as the “US missions to ASEAN” (Yodpet et al., 2022). There is a great deal of change occurring in the higher education sector in ASEAN. While some have stated that achieving educational regional cooperation would be too difficult given the divided and diverse nature of the member states (Feuer & Hornidge, 2015) there is a consensus among them that closer cooperation in HE is necessary to achieve collective goals and build sustainable development (UNESCO, 2006). Against this backdrop of a dynamic system of HE that is affected not only by ASEAN member states, but an increasingly international range of actors, the issue of maintaining and improving AI within HEIs in the region must also be considered.

AI Research in ASEAN As observed by Eaton (2022), AI research has been dominated mainly by white scholars of European heritage across the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and other European countries, thereby positioning academic integrity very much as a Western construct (Lindstrom, 2020). Lindstrom (2022) went as far as challenging researchers from these dominant academic cultures to reexamine the ways in which they perpetuate colonialism through their academic integrity practices and research. It is not surprising therefore that the limited AI research in the region still reveals traditional approaches to AI from a Western perspective, with little attention given to the diverse cultural values and traditions of the region and its member states. Although there has been an “awakening” to AI research described in Asia (Ahmed, 2020), there has been little empirical research undertaken in many of the ASEAN member states. During our literature review, we found articles regarding ASEAN students enrolled at branch campus universities, and ASEAN students enrolled in overseas universities, but there is much room for further studies to broaden the research base. Through our review, we found that many articles detail public scandals among senior academics, government officials, and scientists, much like those commonly seen in Europe and elsewhere around the world. In Thailand, for example, senior academics and scientists have been found to have committed academic fraud (Khathayut & Walker-Gleaves, 2021), while in Malaysia academics have been charged with bribery, document tampering, receiving bribes, plagiarism, and other forms of academic fraud (Tiong et al., 2018), and in Vietnam, high-profile cases of academic theft and republication of works translated from English to Vietnamese have

6

Perspectives on Academic Integrity in the ASEAN Region

67

stirred debate (Tran et al., 2018). These cases were reported in popular media as isolated incidents. However, despite a lack of empirical research, studies were found involving almost all member states of ASEAN, with the exception of Brunei. This may be owing to Brunei’s role as the smallest country in ASEAN by population, comprising only 423,000 of the 600 million population in the region (ASEAN, 2022.) The vast majority of these studies focused on issues of plagiarism as opposed to other, potentially more difficult-to-spot forms of academic dishonesty such as contract cheating (see Ahsan et al., 2021 for a recent review) or the use of Automated Paraphrasing Tools (see Roe & Perkins, 2022 for a recent review).

Indonesia Akbar and Picard (2020) highlight that the Indonesian government takes AI seriously and views plagiarism in particular as a critical issue with the potential to limit socioeconomic development. The authors demonstrate that while strong frameworks have been developed to combat plagiarism, institutional autonomy in the implementation of such initiatives has led to a lackluster and inconsistent approach. Some of these initiatives on a national scale have been targeted not at students but academic faculty, and those with a rapid output of high-quality research that goes beyond established norms are likely to be investigated for violations of academic codes of conduct (Siaputra et al., 2015). However, Siaputraet al. (2015) contend that the implementation of these national guidelines was carried out according to local university policies, which opened the door to ambiguity and weak enforcement. To combat issues of plagiarism and breaches of AI among faculty in Indonesia, the authors have pioneered a localized approach, known as the AK.SA.RA method, to help reinforce academic standards in the Indonesian context. The term “aksara” means “letter” in Indonesian but has a Sanskrit root meaning related to the concept of an “embryo of speech,” and the authors use this term as a basis for a training acronym to stand for “acknowledge” (AKui), “paraphrase” (ParafrASa), and “integrate” (integRAsi) (Siaputra et al, 2015, p. 82). Only one study regarding Indonesia has explored motivations for undergraduate students’ motivations for plagiarizing, and this was undertaken through investigating lecturers’ perspectives. Patak et al. (2021) interviewed eight EFL lecturers working in HEIs in Indonesia and found that students’ main motivations for plagiarizing were access to online resources, lack of thorough assessment on behalf of lecturers, and poor academic writing skills.

Malaysia Cheah (2015) highlights the growth of HEI in Malaysia as leading to a growth in concerns regarding violations of AI, including plagiarism, among academic staff, and that the adaptation of many local students to an international education system that takes a strict approach to AI. While a limited number of studies exist exploring

68

J. Roe et al.

these factors, Smith et al. (2007) found that among accounting students in Malaysia, the main causes of plagiarism included the lack of awareness, the lack of understanding, an inability to use conventions, and attitudes toward plagiarism. Quah et al. (2012) investigated whether a relationship could be identified between ethical idealism, relativism, and Machiavellianism and attitudes to plagiarism among business diploma students across students at a public university and a private college in Malaysia (N ¼ 160). The authors did find a significant relationship between these traits and attitudes to plagiarism, with the Machiavellian trait leading toward more favorable attitudes. The authors did not, however, find that religion or ethnicity mediated such attitudes.

Thailand Lancaster and Pundao (2022) in their research in the Thai context identify that academic misconduct seems to be more culturally acceptable in Thailand in comparison to many other countries, although recently the topics of plagiarism have hit the mainstream through cultural artifacts, such as the film “Bad Genius.” It has also been claimed that the nature of plagiarism remains an unclear concept and is thus not fully understood by both faculty and students alike, as evidenced through a study of lecturers (N ¼ 44) (Khathayut & Walker-Gleaves, 2021). The limitations of this study are the small sample size and the single university from which the data were taken as the culture of an institution can play a large role in the prevalence and knowledge of academic integrity policies. This said, Puengpipattrakul (2016) highlights that most HEIs in Thailand do not have a consistent policy in dealing with AM despite there being a mandate from the National Research Council of Thailand. However, Khathayut and WalkerGleaves’ (2021) findings are alarming: that lecturers were found to be highly tolerant of plagiarism and treated such cases with a lack of interest or indifference. Young (2013) asserts that most research regarding AM is Western-centric (which may be true) and focuses on less hierarchical societies. However, the author then goes on to suggest that cultural traits including enjoyment of life and presentmindedness constitute aspects of “Thai character” that affect the decision to cheat combined with other affecting factors such as “no-failure” policies at universities. Such studies are controversial and questionable. Firstly, as no evidence is provided to suggest that Thai students engage in academic misconduct more than any other group of students, and secondly, empirical evidence to link cultural traits with specific behaviors is weak. On the contrary, it has been posited that engaging in AM is a universal experience brought on by the pressures of higher study and the universal need for recognition (Roe, 2022). Furthermore, to stereotype students from a specific cultural background is unfair (Chan et al., 2021). Studies of this nature then demonstrate the need for more detailed research into AI in Thailand, including into contract cheating, which remains especially underresearched (Lancaster and Pundao, 2022).

6

Perspectives on Academic Integrity in the ASEAN Region

69

Vietnam In Vietnam, much like Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, high-profile cases of AM have been publicized by the media, with one of the most notable examples being a professor publishing another author’s work as a book after it had been translated into the local language (Tran et al., 2018). Despite these occurrences, there is limited literature on AI in Vietnam. Tran et al. (2018) found that Vietnamese students who performed more highly (as measured by cumulative GPA or CGPA) committed fewer AM violations. Perkins et al. (2018) found that among business students at a private international university in Vietnam, a statistically significant relationship existed between English language ability and committed plagiarism offenses, with those at a lower level of English proficiency more commonly committing plagiarism. Following this, drawing on 12 semesters of academic misconduct data (n ¼ 12,937), Perkins et al., 2020 demonstrated that incorporating an English for Academic Purposes program resulted in a 37.01% reduction in cases of detected plagiarism. Do Ba et al. (2017) assessed plagiarism across a university in Vietnam, finding that in their context based on a sample of 681 papers, plagiarism was found at a rate of 29.06%. Marshall et al. (2022) conducted a comparative study at a university in New Zealand among Vietnamese and New Zealand postgraduate students, finding that Vietnamese students perceived patch-writing plagiarism less severe, possibly as a result of traditional language studying methods in Vietnam. The same concerns with cultural stereotyping noted in Thailand recur in the Vietnamese context. Phan (2006) has written extensively about the common cultural stereotypes that occur among East Asian students, namely those of lacking critical thinking skills and being passive learners who are unwilling to question authority. Cultural stereotyping has also suggested that plagiarism is seen as acceptable, although it is uniformly punishable and impermissible in Vietnamese educational systems, and the Vietnamese term for plagiarism holds even more negative connotations than those in English (Phan, 2006). Such concerns have been noted as early as the early 1990s, in which Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC) was implicated as increasing the tendency to rely on texts verbatim, without analysis and interpretation (Bretag, 2015).

Singapore In the early years of research on AI in Singapore, a survey carried out by Lim & See (2001) on 518 students in Singapore and found that exam-related cheating was perceived to be more serious, and plagiarism a less serious academic misconduct violation. Not participating in group work was considered to be serious, although it was also reported as widespread and a common behavior. The authors found it a concern that students were generally indifferent regarding the seriousness of cheating and tolerated violations of academic integrity among fellow students. Most students reported that they would ignore a witnessed violation of a peer and that the perception of plagiarism being less serious may stem from the incorrect

70

J. Roe et al.

assumption that modifying or creating data, along with not acknowledging an author, does not directly harm another individual. There seems to be a lack of understanding among students regarding what does or does not constitute academic misconduct. In a later study conducted by Palmer et al. (2019), the views of students (n ¼ 574) at four Australian university campuses in Singapore were investigated through a mixed-methods approach. The authors found that misunderstanding of what constituted plagiarism was commonplace, and that reusing the work of a peer or of themselves (self-plagiarism) was acceptable to over 25% of those surveyed. Also, 25% of respondents also stated that they would intentionally plagiarize and did not view collusion as illegitimate. In a recent high-profile case, trainee lawyers cheated in a professional entrance examination by sharing answers through a messaging service (Lum, 2023). Although initially their names were redacted, a High Court judgment reversed the decision to redact their names, resulting in the eventual withdrawal of their applications to be called to the Bar (Lum, 2023). The punitive actions taken against the trainee lawyers would serve as a serious warning heed for students to recognize the implications of any form of cheating in their assessments. In a similar instance of AI reporting, the Law Society of Singapore has cautioned against “hungry wolves in sheep’s clothing” while it investigated a website touting an expensive program to help law students and graduates secure internships and jobs (Low, 2020). These revelations have raised concerns regarding the frequency of cheating among tertiary and professional students, and whether the move to online assessments experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic may have spurred new forms of cheating.

Myanmar There is little information currently regarding research into academic integrity issues in Myanmar. However, Phyo et al. (2022) conducted a study of postgraduate students (N ¼ 217) in Myanmar, finding that 37.6% had committed at least one act of plagiarism in self-reported data. The authors found that students tended to have a moderately negative view of plagiarism, and those who had previously published academic work viewed plagiarism as more serious, and doctoral students viewed plagiarism more negatively than master’s students. Phyo et al.’s (2022) work is an important starting point for broadening the conversation surrounding AI in Myanmar.

The Philippines Reyes et al. (2019) investigated 25 cases of plagiarism in scientific publications belonging to academic employees and students at the University of the Philippines, finding that there was a mixed, seemingly disunited approach on behalf of the University’s publishing houses in dealing with such cases. The authors recommend clear and comprehensive sanctions and policies for dealing with such cases, while Roman (2018) surveyed sixty-one students undertaking a program of teacher

6

Perspectives on Academic Integrity in the ASEAN Region

71

education to evaluate the efficacy of Turnitin software. The author found that the use of Turnitin software when applied to submitted research papers led to an overall reduction in plagiarism offenses, and that the results were statistically significant. Consequently, Roman (2018) asserts that the major causative factors in committing plagiarism in this context were self-efficacy, the culture of the academic institution, and the scheme for detecting plagiarism’s effectiveness. Bensal et al. (2013) equally investigated the use of Turnitin at De La Salle University as one of only five educational institutions in the Philippines to use Plagiarism Detection Software (PDS). Although the authors found Turnitin to be beneficial, they point out that the high cost of Turnitin is one consideration in the Philippine context.

Cambodia and Laos As two of the least developed nations in ASEAN (along with Myanmar) and categorized in the “low” level of educational quality (Khalid et al., 2019), it is unsurprising that the research field in AI is not well developed in these nations. As of 2015 (updated reliable data is as of now, not available), Laos was home to five public universities and eight public colleges, as well as over 40 private colleges with the power to award degrees. Cambodia, on the other hand, is home to 128 institutions, including universities and institutes, with 80 of these belonging to the private sector (Ministry of Education Youth and Sports, 2021). Interestingly, Hayden (2019) suggests that a lack of autonomy in these two nations constrains the higher education system despite the fact that in Indonesia giving universities autonomy in implementing AI policies has led to unfavorable outcomes (Siaputraet al., 2015). Academic quality is a concern in Laos and Cambodia. In Laos, fewer than 5% of academic staff hold a PhD or equivalent doctoral degree, there are limited opportunities for support in learning and teaching, and research outputs are a rarity due to the low level of skills and resources among the workforce (Hayden, 2019). In Cambodia, Maeda (2021) undertook a qualitative interview-based study with 19 university students, finding that student–teacher relationships played a significant role in determining cheating behaviors. More broadly, in the Cambodian context, cheating has attracted attention in relation to the Grade 12 examination for elite students, after government measures to limit cheating resulted in the pass rate declining from 86% to 26% in the years from 2012–2013 to 2014. This said, research is still limited, and Maeda (2021) points out that there may be numerous factors influencing cheating in Cambodian society and higher education, including poverty, corruption, influences of postcolonial policy, politics, and economic pressure. As a result, in both Cambodia and Laos more attention is urgently needed to direct research efforts in this area.

Recommendations for AI in ASEAN ASEAN’s commitment to improving quality, harmonizing education, and providing mutual assistance in the pursuit of shared sociocultural goals (ASEAN, 2022) bodes well for the field of AI in the region. However, the risks of a perceived lack of

72

J. Roe et al.

response to the threat of academic dishonesty are real if there is not a coherent recognition of the importance and of AI. As ASEAN sees education as a driver for promoting a stable, well-trained workforce, it must be remembered that students who engage in AI violations may end up becoming underprepared professionals who join the labor force less able to learn new skills (Carpenter et al., 2006). In regulated professions such as healthcare, this can carry real risks of harm to others (GuerreroDib et al., 2020); an even greater risk given the global move toward increased regional integration. So how can ASEAN tackle the issue of academic integrity in a manner that is in keeping with its fundamental principles and overall goals? ASEAN has already had success in establishing and adopting a shared qualification reference framework in 2020; the AQRF, which supports and allows qualifications to be compared across member states (ASEAN, 2022). As a result, adopting similar measures specifically focused on AI is a viable option. To this end, a fundamental task of ASEAN’s system of HE is to create a universal framework for understanding, detecting, and safeguarding AI. As Eaton (2022) highlights, the European Network of Academic Integrity (ENAI) has gone from strength to strength as an example of the success of this model. By creating a regional association and framework for understanding and addressing AI, ASEAN can not only enhance its ability to reach the goals of a well-skilled workforce but can also address longstanding issues of equity and inclusion in a rapidly globalizing higher education marketplace. A key component in the potential success of such a framework will be promoting inclusivity, especially as Lefievre et al. (2022) note that inclusivity within ASEAN higher education is still a challenge. Over 60% of ASEAN HEIs send less than 5% of students overseas, and mobility is therefore an obstacle to inclusiveness. Lack of access to information and knowledge, ineffective communication, and a lack of knowledge of English all present barriers to the achievement of inclusivity in HE in ASEAN. However, internationalizing the curriculum is one method given by Lefievre et al. (2022) to assist with developing a more equal HE landscape across ASEAN. Adopting unified quality assurance practices and frameworks relating to AI can be a part of this process. A unified ASEAN approach to AI must incorporate the diverse cultural values and traditions of the region and its member states, and efforts must be made to decolonize traditional approaches to AI, given that an overall educational goal for ASEAN is to promote quality education for all, especially those from marginalized groups (Lefievre et al., 2022). To demonstrate, in Vietnamese culture, stereotyping of AI and hasty judgments from foreign teachers can occur (Phan, 2006), as a result of the tendency to quote common knowledge, for example quoting Ho Chi Minh, without a citation. This would not be considered plagiarism as a citation is not necessary; the quotation belongs to the common core of cultural knowledge (Phan, 2006). Although decolonization of academic integrity is only just coming to the fore, an ASEAN-wide approach could help to tackle existing outdated practices, and incorporate more diverse methods of creating and referring to knowledge (Eaton, 2022). An ASEAN-wide approach to tackling AI could recognize the lack of universal standards in AI (Eaton, 2022) but contribute to a unified system that

6

Perspectives on Academic Integrity in the ASEAN Region

73

embraces diversity and supports the ASEAN goals of promoting inclusivity, equality, and engendering a shared sense of identity (ASEAN, 2022). Examples of this approach can be taken from MacLeod (2021) in the North American context, who has developed citation templates for knowledge of Indigenous Elders and Knowledge Keepers. Prioritizing such approaches matches with the goals of ASEAN, given the 2016–2020 Work Plan’s goal to heighten awareness of Southeast Asian history and Indigenous knowledge (Lefievre et al., 2022). This could be the starting point for member states in ASEAN to engage in a regional framework that safeguards Indigenous knowledge and history. The pride to protect and safeguard the authenticity of some of these centuries-old knowledge, history and traditions, whilst safeguarding AI, will then draw greater attention to acknowledging other scholarly work carried out at HEIs in ASEAN. But more than that, it must be a values-based framework that brings about a convergence of commonly agreed values that traverse the diverse cultural values and traditions of the region and its member states. This calls for political will of the various governments in ASEAN, as well as mindset changes of the various stakeholders in the HE sectors.

Summary This chapter has highlighted the lack of empirical research in the field of AI within ASEAN and has tried to demonstrate how further research is needed to fully understand the complexities of AI within the region. However, any such research must be carried out with a recognition of the current Western-centric approach to AI research and be carried out with an understanding of any potential shared values of the region. The suggested potential development of an ASEANAI values framework could therefore support decolonizing the traditional approaches to AI by taking a Southeast Asian-centric focus. Doing so could serve to enhance inclusivity, reduce the threat of academic dishonesty (both real and perceived), and promote quality education for all within ASEAN.

References About the ASEAN Region | ASEAN Investment. (n.d.). Retrieved November 2, 2022, from https://investasean.asean.org/index.php/page/view/about-the-asean-region Ahsan, K., Akbar, S., & Kam, B. (2021). Contract cheating in higher education: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 0 (0), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1931660 Ahmed, K. (2020). Academic integrity: Challenges and strategies for Asia and the Middle East. Accountability in Research, 27(5), 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2019.1646646 Akbar, A., & Picard, M. (2020). Academic integrity in the Muslim world: A conceptual map of challenges of culture. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 16(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-020-00060-8

74

J. Roe et al.

ASEAN | About the ASEAN Region | ASEAN Investment. (2022). Retrieved June 29, 2022, from https://investasean.asean.org/index.php/page/view/about-the-asean-region/view/707/newsid/ 931/resilient-asean.html ASEAN’s Consumers on the Move: Tertiary Education. (2022, April 26). FULCRUM. https://fulcrum.sg/aseans-consumers-on-the-move-tertiary-education/ Bensal, E. R., Miraflores, E. S., & Tan, N. C. C. (2013). Plagiarism: Shall we turn to Turnitin. Computer-Assisted Language Learning-Electronic Journal, 14(2), 2–22. Caballero-Anthony, M. (2022). The ASEAN way and the changing security environment: Navigating challenges to informality and centrality. International Politics. https://doi.org/10.1057/ s41311-022-00400-0 Carpenter, D. D., Harding, T. S., Finelli, C. J., Montgomery, S. M., & Passow, H. J. (2006). Engineering students’ perceptions of and attitudes towards cheating. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(3), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00891.x Chan, I., Hafiz, M., Kwong, T., & Wong, E. Y. W. (2021). Reinforcing the Importance of Academic Integrity and Ethics (AIE) Through Augmented Reality (AR) Learning Trails. In C. P. Lim & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning for inclusive and quality higher education in Asia (pp. 65–85). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4106-7_4 Cheah, J. (2015). Perspectives on academic plagiarism in Malaysia (pp. 1–4). https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-981-287-079-7_5-1 Do Ba, K., Do Ba, K., Lam, Q. D., Le, D. T. B. A., Nguyen, P. L., Nguyen, P. Q., & Pham, Q. L. (2017). Student plagiarism in higher education in Vietnam: An empirical study. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(5), 934–946. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016. 1263829 Eaton, S. E. (2022). New priorities for academic integrity: Equity, diversity, inclusion, decolonization and Indigenization. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 18(1), Article 1. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40979-022-00105-0 Feuer, H. N., & Hornidge, A.-K. (2015). Higher education cooperation in ASEAN: Building towards integration or manufacturing consent? Comparative Education, 51(3), 327–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2015.1031474 Guerrero-Dib, J. G., Portales, L., & Heredia-Escorza, Y. (2020). Impact of academic integrity on workplace ethical behaviour. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 16(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-020-0051-3 Hayden, M. (2019). Challenges to higher education in Laos and Cambodia. International Higher Education, 97, 20–21. Higher education in South-East Asia—UNESCO Digital Library. (2022). Retrieved June 29, 2022, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000146541 Khalid, J., Ali, A. J., Nordin, N. M., & Shah, S. F. H. (2019). Regional cooperation in higher education: Can It Lead ASEAN toward Harmonization? Southeast Asian Studies, 8(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.20495/seas.8.1_81 Khathayut, P., & Walker-Gleaves, C. (2021). Academic faculty conceptualisation and understanding of plagiarism – a Thai university exploratory study. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(4), 558–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2020.1795093 Lancaster, T., & Lertratkosum, P. (2022). Contract cheating marketing in thailand. Concurrent Sessions 12, 47(2), 68. Le Ha, P. (2006). Plagiarism and overseas students: Stereotypes again? ELT Journal, 60(1), 76–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci085 Lefievre, N., Sengtschmid, U., Tamura, J., Tham, A., & Zhang, G. (2022) Achieving Inclusive Higher Education in the ASEAN Region. Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF). Retrieved June 1, 2023, from https://asef.org/publications/achieving-inclusive-higher-education-in-the-aseanregion/ Lim, V. K. G., & See, S. K. B. (2001). Attitudes Toward, and Intentions to Report, Academic Cheating Among Students in Singapore. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 261–274. https://doi.org/10. 1207/S15327019EB1103_5

6

Perspectives on Academic Integrity in the ASEAN Region

75

Lindstrom, G. E. (2022). Accountability, Relationality and Indigenous Epistemology: Advancing an Indigenous Perspective on Academic Integrity. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic Integrity in Canada: An Enduring and Essential Challenge (pp. 125–139). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1_6 Low, L. (2020). President’s Message. The Singapore Law Gazette. https://lawgazette.com.sg/news/ presidents-message/presidents-message-aug-2020/ Lum, S.L. (2023). Changes for stricter Bar exam and longer training for Singapore law grads pushed to 2024. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/changes-forstricter-bar-exam-and-longer-training-for-singapore-law-grads-pushed-to-2024 MacLeod, L. (2021). More than personal communication: templates for citing indigenous elders and knowledge keepers. KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies, 5(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.18357/kula.135 Maeda, M. (2021). Exam cheating among Cambodian students: When, how, and why it happens. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 51(3), 337–355. https://doi. org/10.1080/03057925.2019.1613344 Marshall, S., Hogg, L., & Tran, M. N. (2022). Understanding postgraduate students? Perceptions of plagiarism: A case study of Vietnamese and Local Students in New Zealand. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00098-2 Palmer, A., Pegrum, M., & Oakley, G. (2019). A wake-up call? Issues with plagiarism in Transnational higher education. Ethics & Behavior, 29(1), 23–50. Patak, A. A., Wirawan, H., Abduh, A., Hidayat, R., Iskandar, I., & Dirawan, G. D. (2021). Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Indonesia: University lecturers’ views on plagiarism. Journal of Academic Ethics, 19(4), 571–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09385-y Perkins, M., Gezgin, U. B., & Roe, J. (2018). Understanding the Relationship between Language Ability and Plagiarism in Non-Native English Speaking Business Students. Journal of Academic Ethics, 16(4), 317–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-018-9311-8 Perkins, M., Gezgin, U. B., & Roe, J. (2020). Reducing plagiarism through academic misconduct education. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 16(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s40979-020-00052-8 Phyo, E. M., Lwin, T., Tun, H. P., Oo, Z. Z., Mya, K. S., & Silverman, H. (2022). Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding plagiarism of postgraduate students in Myanmar. Accountability in Research, 1–20. Puengpipattrakul, W. (2016). Investigating academic plagiarism in a Thai context. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 13(2), 203–228. QS University Rankings for Asian 2022 | Top Universities. (2022). Retrieved November 2, 2022, from https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/asian-university-rankings/2022 Quah, C. H., Stewart, N., & Lee, J. W. C. (2012). Attitudes of business students’ toward plagiarism. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10(3), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-012-9157-4 Reyes, M. P. P., & Ariate Jr, J. F. (2019). Internal affairs: The fate of authors from the University of the Philippines accused of plagiarism, 1990s to 2010s. Science Editing, 6(2), 128–136. Roe, J. (2022). Reconceptualizing academic dishonesty as a struggle for intersubjective recognition: A new theoretical model. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01182-9 Roe, J., & Perkins, M. (2022). What are automated paraphrasing tools and how do we address them? A review of a growing threat to academic integrity. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 18(1), 1–10. Roman, A. G. (2018). Minimizing plagiarism incidence in research writing in one state university in the Philippines. Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(1), Article 1. Smith, M., Ghazali, N., Minhad, F. N., & S. (2007). Attitudes towards plagiarism among undergraduate accounting students: Malaysian evidence. Asian Review of Accounting, 15(2), 122–146. https://doi.org/10.1108/13217340710823350

76

J. Roe et al.

Siaputra, I. B., & Santosa, D. A. (2015). Academic Integrity Campaign in Indonesia. In T. A. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 1–9). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981287-079-7_4-1 TEQSA (2022a) How we regulate | Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. Retrieved June 1, 2023, from https://www.teqsa.gov.au/how-we-regulate TEQSA (2022b). Sector update: Maintaining up to date academic integrity policies and procedures | Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. Retrieved June 1, 2023, from https://www. teqsa.gov.au/sector-update-maintaining-academic-integrity-policies-and-procedures Tiong, J. J. L., Kho, H. L., Mai, C.-W., Lau, H. L., & Hasan, S. S. (2018). Academic dishonesty Among academics in Malaysia: A comparison between healthcare and non-healthcare academics. BMC Medical Education, 18(1), 168. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1274-3 Tran, U. T., Huynh, T., & Nguyen, H. T. T. (2018). Academic integrity in higher education: The case of plagiarism of graduation reports by undergraduate seniors in Vietnam. Journal of Academic Ethics, 16(1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9279-9 UNESCO (2006) Higher education in South-East Asia—UNESCO Digital Library. Retrieved June 29, 2022, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000146541 Yodpet, W., Salvador Quetzal, A., Siek, N., Vebrina Sihite, F., Alegado, P. J. E., Balakrishnan, V., Green, B., & Hollings, S. (2022). International education within ASEAN and the rise of Asian century. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 0(0), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857. 2022.2080545 Young, D. (2013). Perspectives on cheating at a Thai University. Language Testing in Asia, 3(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/2229-0443-3-6

7

Academic Integrity in South Asia: Focus on India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka Shiva D. Sivasubramaniam

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The History of Educational System and Its Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Integrity: Prominence, Policies, and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perception and Practice of Academic Integrity Among Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moving Forward Toward the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

78 79 81 87 89 89

Abstract

The concept of academic integrity (AI) is gaining momentum in many countries in the world. As an initiative to explore the measures taken by different countries to maintain AI, this chapter aims to review the educational system of India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, to elaborate their journey of enhancing academic integrity within higher education. Due to the complexities in the educational systems, a unified approach to efficiently implement any academic integrity policies coupled with proactively planned deterrence strategies against misconducts in these countries has been a challenge. However, individual governments have started addressing the issue by providing guidelines/policies against academic misconducts. Currently their focus is mainly on (a) taking measures against plagiarism (largely via punitive measures) and (b) higher education with the specific emphasis on doctoral studies. Institutions are now using some form of text-matching software (named as “plagiarism detection software”). There is overreliance on the text-matching software for determining penalties. In contrast, there is limited evidence of these initiatives being linked with or scaffolded by measures to educate students about academic integrity, scientific writing, referencing styles, or how to avoid S. D. Sivasubramaniam (*) Biomedical and Forensic Science, University of Derby, Derby, UK e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_88

77

78

S. D. Sivasubramaniam

plagiarism. This shows that these countries are at the beginning of their journey toward establishing integrity culture in all aspects of education. Considering this, it is now time to initiate the stakeholder involvement including educationists, university undergraduates, and the secondary schools. The universities ought to invest on establishing and delivering courses, workshop, and/or study materials for academic writing, ethics, and ethical behavior. Keywords

Academic integrity · Asia · South Asia · India · Pakistan · Sri Lanka

Introduction This chapter aims to review the educational system of three countries in South Asia, namely, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, and elaborate their journey of enhancing academic integrity within higher education. Before reviewing the academic integrity policies actions and practices in these countries, it is worth emphasizing the fact that the entire world is evolving by reflections and adaptations. The term academic integrity in the (developed) Western countries got prominence only at the beginning of twentieth century, when the information technology revolutions have created new opportunities (text-matching software) as well as challenges (easily available resources) for and against academic integrity (McCabe, 1992, 1999). Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect the entire world to adopt (or catch up) toward stringent measures created by the West to uphold academic integrity. Instead, understanding the educational systems of other countries (e.g., how they are influenced by sociopolitical factors), the measures taken by these countries to enhance academic integrity, their effectiveness, ways to improve them, and considerations for how the integrity science scholars can help these countries enhance academic integrity should take prominence. At this juncture, the author would like to recall a statement that is usually posted on the back bumper of the driving instructor’s cars: “Be patient. Remember you were a learner once!” Therefore, the objective of this chapter is to review the journey these countries have taken to improve academic integrity, critically evaluate their effectiveness, and discuss how they can be improved in the future. The countries covered in this chapter, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, have historic connections, cultural similarities, and somewhat common moral norms. India and Pakistan were together as one continent (with many sub-kingdoms) in ancient times, and after colonization, they have been ruled as “British India” from the seventeenth century until 1947 (Dyson, 2018), while Sri Lanka has been influenced by major elements of India, and the interaction between both countries is more intense due to the cultural similarities. Interestingly, all three countries have been colonized by the same Western countries (namely, the Portuguese, the Dutch [nee Hollanders], and the British) that influenced and transformed their educational approach, resulting in a curriculum that now mostly reflects the British (and/or American) system.

7

Academic Integrity in South Asia: Focus on India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka

79

The History of Educational System and Its Transformation In ancient times, the education system in these countries was based on residential schools in temples or designated teaching places (NCERT Notes, ND; Ghonge et al., 2020; Pandya, 2014). Historic evidence shows the system also had “centers of higher learning” (equivalent to current higher education[HE] institutions/universities) (Peters, 2019). Teaching was largely by verbal descriptions, and students are expected to “remember and recite” what was taught in the class. Yet there was a well-established sociocultural/religious framework to protect morals and produce righteous behavior (Srivastava et al., 2013). Even though their Indigenous education was based mainly on “remember & recite” philosophy, the students were also expected to remember the details of the scriptures and their authors. Honesty was considered as the supreme virtue for the development of individuals, and the societies were built with mutual respect and trust. The introduction of “modern education” was mainly influenced by the British. The learning system has been formalized into primary, secondary, and higher education. Until now, the educational system follows the British structure with slight variations in accordance with the cultural and political influences of respective countries or areas within these countries. To further understand academic integrity, its policies, implementations, abidance (by staff and students) unacceptable academic practices, or misconducts, it is essential to understand the current educational systems, the focus on (or lack of) academic integrity, and policies in these countries. As stated earlier, the current educational system in these countries is heavily influenced by the colonization, yet each country has not failed to incorporate their own religious, cultural, political, and moral education. The so-called affiliation system, which was introduced by the British, is still in practice, especially in India and Pakistan. This system allows public and private universities (the latter is called “autonomous institutions” or deemed universities) but also provides opportunities to set up non-autonomous colleges to affiliate with one of the government universities (All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), 2022; Higher Education Council (HEC) of Pakistan, 2023). These colleges are governed by the state-owned universities to which they are affiliated, as the latter owns the degree awarding status. Interestingly, the demand for higher education continues to grow rapidly in this region, averaging 9% per year, yet the supply of HE institutions is not directly matched (Tobenkin, 2022). Considering the size of the population, the approach of having public and private universities and affiliated colleges may seem to be the best way. However, this has also created issues regarding the implementation and governance of policies including academic integrity and assessment strategies. For example, due to the sheer number of students, these colleges are made responsible for assessment grading. The colleges are then ratified by the universities to which they are affiliated. Therefore, maintaining parity in marking among the affiliated colleges is difficult. lndia is the largest country among these three with a centralized government (Government of India – GoI), under which there are 28 individual states (Trines, 2018). Each state has its own elected governments, with own education ministry.

80

S. D. Sivasubramaniam

Though the GoI is responsible for education policies, the state governments have the freedom in establishing and implementing programs, having their own state and private (also known as “deemed”) universities or HE institutions. Generally, students are expected to learn a common national curriculum till the end of high school. However, first language and religious studies may vary according to the mother tongue and the culture of individual states. Also, there is a possibility of specialization in different fields (such as IT, applied sciences including STEM, or vocational studies) at the higher secondary level. The governance of university education is complex, where the policies are made centrally, and their implementation is carried out by the local state governments. This is mainly due to (a) the complexity of the educational system among different states and (b) the growing numbers of students entering HE. In fact, more than 42 million students study in more than 50,000 different higher-education institutions in India (Béteille et al., 2020; Tobenkin, 2022). The latest All-India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE, 2019–2020) report has accounted 1043 degree-awarding GoI/state-owned universities, 11,779 deemed (private) institutions, and 42,343 affiliated colleges in existence. Promoting academic integrity in these universities which host students with multiple cultural/religious beliefs has been a dire task. Only in 2018, Indian government produced its first policy against academic misconduct, especially plagiarism (UGC, 2018). The policy articulates expectations for all universities to strictly follow. Yet it is still not clear whether there are any directives or policies to spread awareness regarding ethics and academic integrity among the university students and research scholars (see below). Pakistan has a similar HE system including central, provincial, and private universities. As a new nation, Pakistan started with one national university in 1947; however, the HE sector has gradually grown (reflecting the population growth), and now, the Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan recognized 174 universities (including private and military institutes) (Bengali, 1999; Higher Education Council [HEC], 2022). Like India, there are possibilities of specialization in different fields at the higher secondary level and beyond. HEC is responsible for funding higher education for state-owned universities. Also, the governance of these university education is mainly by the HEC and followed by the local states. Although the Pakistan government ensures the format of education from primary to higher education, it has recently recognized around 55 foreign collaboration universities (HEC, 2022; Hayward, 2009). These institutions have the autonomy to award degrees from their collaborative international universities via their degree programs. These are recognized as equivalent to corresponding degrees issued by universities in Pakistan. In addition, there are Deeni Madaris, which mainly offer religious education with curriculum in consultation with religious scholars (Habib-ur-Rehman et al., 2017; Ullah et al., 2020). Although the educational system and examining strategies are improving year by year, traditionally, the assessments are mainly based on evaluating the memory of students (Nordic Recognition Information Centers, 2006). This has not only paved way to incidences of academic misconducts but also minimized students’ critical thinking and analytical skills (Rehman & Khan, 2011).

7

Academic Integrity in South Asia: Focus on India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka

81

As for Sri Lanka, historically, all the universities are state/publicly owned under the Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE). There are 15 recognized public universities in Sri Lanka (UGC, n.d.). The policies are governed by a council under the MoHE called the University Grants Commission (UGC). Interestingly, in 2019, amendments on higher education policy of Sri Lanka were made to allow the MoHE to grant private institutions degree-awarding authority or program-based recognition (National Education Commission (NEC), 2019; Dinesh De Alwis, 2017). This allowed the development of non-state institutions with degree-granting status, as well as setting up in-country campuses and/or programs by international universities. In fact, several UK and Australian universities have been granted authority to offer their courses via private organizations in Sri Lanka (UGC, n.d.). This has resulted in some confusion about integrity-related policies and their implementations.

Academic Integrity: Prominence, Policies, and Practice As stated in the introduction, the complexities in the educational systems in these countries have been a challenge to devise a unified approach to efficiently implement any academic integrity policies coupled with proactively planned deterrence strategies against misconducts, at the institutional level. Yet, scholars, university lecturers, and schoolteachers have been raising the issue of academic misconducts since 2015 (Mohanty, 2016). At the result, individual governments, ministries of higher education, and/or UGCs have started addressing the issue by providing guidelines or policies against academic misconducts (UGC, 2018; University Student Charter, n.d.; HEC, 2022). The prominence for academic integrity, especially measures to prevent plagiarism, only gained momentum only around 2009 in these countries. Institutions in all three countries are now using some form of text-matching software (with a term plagiarism detection software). Pakistan HEC has provided Turnitin© software to all state-owned universities, which are expected to use this software in PhD thesis submissions (HEC Annual Reports, 2011–2012). India only launched the use of these software much later in 2017, after the introduction of UGC draft policy (named as Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Educational Institutions) against plagiarism practices (Business Standard, 2017). Today, most academic institutions in India abide by the recommendations and acceptable norms and policies laid down by the UGC. Unfortunately, it was difficult to locate definite information about when Sri Lanka adopted or developed any policies and/or provided any electronic tools for text matching. However, there is a general integrity policy for higher-education organization together with a student charter (released by the UGC of Sri Lanka – ND), and many universities (and their library services) are using plagiarism check services (Sudusinghe et al., 2020). Currently the focus in these countries is mainly on (a) taking measures against plagiarism (rather than addressing academic integrity in a wider context) and (b) higher education with the specific emphasis on doctoral

82

S. D. Sivasubramaniam

studies. Individual governments (and many private institutions) have invested in different text-matching software to help identify potential plagiarism. In contrast, there is limited evidence of these initiatives being linked with or scaffolded by measures to educate students about academic integrity, scientific writing, referencing styles, or how to avoid plagiarism (Sarvananthan, 2022; Raj et al., 2021; Athanayake, 2021; Kumar et al., 2020; Zmir et al., 2021). This shows that these countries are at the beginning of their journey toward establishing integrity culture in all aspects of education. Most importantly, it is not clear whether there are any initiatives to educate the school or university-entry-level students about avoiding plagiarism. Some international schools in India have taken their own initiatives to introduce student honor codes and academic honesty councils (noticed via personal communications with Academic Honesty Council Staff Advisors in India). Having said that, only a few Western countries have taken initiatives on integrity education in secondary (or even primary) schools (Johansen et al., 2022; Stoesz, 2022; Bjelobaba, 2020; McCabe, 1999). In discussing academic integrity, Dr. Anurag Chaurasia, a prominent Indian biotechnologist (in 2016), argued it is essential to establish original thinking among young students with effective use of available literature by moving away from remember and recite culture. Unfortunately, as explained in the introduction section, the education and assessment system in these countries largely expects reproduction of facts rather than synthesizing answers using a mixture of one’s own idea with available relevant literature. At this point, the author wishes to recall his own educational experience from his native country (one among the countries discussed herein). During his medical studies, when learning about the definition of pain, he was repeatedly told to memorize the notes provided by his tutor. Everyone in his cohort memorized “Pain is a psychical adjunct of an imperative protective reflex” and reproduced in the assessments to get higher mark. However, despite the fact he (and his colleagues) can still remember the definition, no one bothered to understand the meaning of this statement, nor they took the initiative to read the original source! This happened in 1986, and the learning and assessment strategies in these countries have now improved a lot. There is some evidence of assessment reforms to minimize academic misconducts mainly in India and Pakistan (Sahoo, 2022; Panigrahi & Gupta, 2021; Ahmad et al., 2021). As for policies, the UGCs (or their equivalent) have produced (or incorporated in policies for higher education) guidelines to enforce academic integrity and defined plagiarism with some instructions on how to avoid them (see above – UGC, 2018; University Student Charter, n.d.; HEC, 2022). These policies and their focus are compared briefly in Table 1 (Gazette of India, 2018, HEC, 2022; Kadam, 2018; Soroya et al., 2018; University Student Charter, n.d.). All three countries have provided guidance on what constitutes plagiarism. Interestingly, a closer look of the policies (or guidelines) produced by respective governmental bodies, Indian and Pakistani directives, or approaches is slightly different. It is worth noting, at the constitutional level, addressing plagiarism in India can only be conducted using copyright infringement misconducts, not for all sorts of plagiarism (Copy-Leaks Blog, 2020). Sections 57 and 63 of Indian Copyright Act protect the author’s rights

7

Academic Integrity in South Asia: Focus on India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka

83

Table 1 Comparative description of academic integrity policies and their enforcement Law/policy enforced by

Main focus

Details about other forms of misconducts Use of software to identify potential plagiarism Implemented by Auditing for implementation

India (UGC) Government of India by Academic integrity bill (Gazette of India, 2018) Preventing plagiarism among university students (mainly doctoral students) Minimal, not much details on contract cheating Compulsory use of text-matching software mainly for PhD thesis Individual universities Not clear

Pakistan (HEC) Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (“The Little Book of Plagiarism”) Preventing plagiarism among university students – mainly doctoral students Some information on different forms of misconducts Compulsory use for PG student submissions use of text-matching software in HE Individual universities

Sri Lanka (UGC) University Grant Commission student charter

Not clear

Not clear

General guidelines for student behavior for universities Not clear

Universities are encouraged to use these software (employed by most universities) Individual universities

of authorship by making unauthorized use of copyrighted work illegal (Legal Service India, ND). Realizing this, they have amended the Gazette of India to incorporate regulations for academic integrity in higher education (Gazette of India, 2018). This integrity bill starts with a broad approach by defining responsible conduct of research and promotion of academic integrity, but the rest of the bill mainly focus on curtailing plagiarism (see Table 1). It differentiates the penalties for university-based submissions (such as thesis and dissertations) from those of research publications (intended submissions for journal article). Again, the regulation was written only for higher education. As can be seen in Table 2, there is a clear overreliance on the text-matching software for determining penalties, which was criticized by many academics (Kadam, 2018). This major drawback of overreliance of the similarity index (instead of proper scrutiny of academic judgement) may result in (a) potential false accusations/convictions as the software is only matching the text and (b) misjudgments in relation to citational misconducts, photo plagiarism, falsification, etc. (Meo & Talha, 2019; Sharma, 2018; Kiss, 2013). Since the guideline also extensively explains about setting out academic integrity councils within every institution and recommends procedures for investigations, the guidelines expect academic judgement with proper analysis based on similarity index. However, this is not explicitly stated in the bill itself, which is a major defect in this policy. In Pakistan, the HEC has produced a policy specific to plagiarism (again the focus is mainly on curbing plagiaristic practices “through exemplary punitive actions” (HEC Plagiarism Policy, n.d.; Rashid & Rashid, 2018). It has used the definition of

84

S. D. Sivasubramaniam

Table 2 Summary of Indian UGC recommended penalties for students and academicsa Paneities for plagiarism according to Indian UGC Regulations Recommended Penalty for university-based internal Levels Descriptions submissions (research student) 0 10% No penalty similarities 1 Similarities Resubmit within a stipulated between period (max 6 months) 10 to 40% 2 Similarities No resubmission allowed for between and year 40 to 60% 3

Similarities above 60%

Termination of registration

Repeat Offense a

Recommended Penalty for intended external journal publications (academic) No penalty Instruct to withdraw manuscript

Instruct to withdraw manuscript Loss of one annual increment Removal of supervisory duties up to 2 years Instruct to withdraw manuscript Loss of two annual increment Removal of supervisory duties up to 3 years Penalty is one level above previous offence/penalty together with disciplinary action

Summary is based on Gazette of India (2018)

plagiarism given by the Oxford English Dictionary but also elaborated some other forms of plagiarism/misconducts such as unacknowledged use of IT codes, artwork, self-plagiarism, etc. Interestingly, some of these explanations were adopted from Wikipedia as verbatim quotes with acknowledgment. It further describes guidelines for the institutions about addressing suspected plagiarisms and procedures to conduct academic investigations (including the use of “plagiarism standing committee”). It defines the rules and the responsibilities of co-authorships and recommends separate penalties for academics/scholars and students. The offenses/penalties of the former are linked to publications of scholarly articles, while the latter (the HE students) are associated to coursework/exam submissions. The summary of recommended penalties for academics is summarized in Table 3. Unlike Indian directives, the detection is not entirely linked to the similarity index. However, the definitions of different levels of plagiarism are somewhat ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation. For example, the descriptive nature of moderate (copying some paragraphs) and minor (copying a few paragraphs) offence provides difficulties in deciding whether the offense is minor or moderate. Also, the policy only recommends these penalties, and it is up to the individual organizations. This would result in disparities in decisions. As for target audience, the focus is mainly for MSc and MPhil/PhD students, and the policy expects the institutional plagiarism standing committee to take discretionary decisions/penalties according to the “severity” of the offense. It is not clear whether the severity index is like academics (major, moderate, or minor). The recommended penalties range from issuing a written warning (for minor offense) to expulsion from the institutions. The

7

Academic Integrity in South Asia: Focus on India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka

85

following word cloud flow diagram summarizes the penalties for students (in line with the author’s own understanding and questions) (see Fig. 1). As can be seen in Fig. 1, it is not clear the decisions to (a) when and how relegating to lower classification and/or (b) expulsion from the institution are taken. Also, how is withdrawal of degree imposed, and would the HEC assist on this? Intriguingly, the policy states that the responsibility of plagiarism will be of the student and not of the supervisor or members of the supervisory Committee. However, studies have shown PhD students being victims of supervisory (or institutional) pressures to commit academic misconducts including plagiarism (Cohen & Baruch, 2021; Panigrahi & Gupta, 2021; Selemani et al., 2018; Morris, 2011). Considering all these, the HEC strategy can only be useful as a guidance to the institutions rather than a policy. As for Sri Lanka, the UGC directives are only in the form of (a) the Universities Act, No. 16 of 1978 (ND), and (b) student charter (ND) describing about plagiarism. The former explains briefly about student conduct, and the latter gives some guidelines for students or the faculties. On the other hand, individual state-owned Table 3 Summary of Pakistan HEC recommended penalties for academicsa Description of offence Major Copying most sections or key results without acknowledgment Moderate Copying some paragraphs including some key data without acknowledgement Minor Copying a few paragraphs without acknowledgment

Recommended penalty Dismissal from service Blacklisted Disciplinary action including demotion Blacklisted

Warning notice Removal of grants/sponsorships Barring from research supervision for a period Promotions/annual increments frozen for a specified period These recommendations are subject to the discretion of institutional “Plagiarism Standing Committee” a

Summarized from HEC Plagiarism Policy ND

Fig. 1 Word cloud flow diagram to HES penalty recommended for student offenders

86

S. D. Sivasubramaniam

universities have been trying to achieve some guidelines for MPhil/PhD students and provide text-matching services (named as “plagiarism detection software”) via the respective library services. However, the author could not find any uniformity in providing advice, guidelines, penalties, or use of text-matching software among these universities. There is also no evidence about actions to educate students about academic integrity nor deter plagiarism via training. As a part of this study, the author investigated websites of the main state-owned universities to summarize (a) approaches, (b) policies/guidelines, and (c) the use of different text-matching software; these are summarized in Table 4. From Table 4, it is clear that the universities relay mainly on their library services to “check” for plagiarism for students at postgraduate level only. As in India and Pakistan higher-education system, the focus on academic integrity is directed toward plagiarism and related offenses. Among the investigated stateuniversities, author could see a clear policy in the University of Ruhuna website (University of Ruhuna, 2022 – Plagiarism prevention policy and interpretative guidelines – PDF). This policy also provides some recommendations for punitive measures. It separates the measures for undergraduate submissions from postgraduate thesis. According to this, plagiarism is categorized based on similarity index as (a) level 0 (similarities up to 25%), (b) level 2 (similarities between 25 and 40%), and (c) level 3 (similarities above 60%). However, in case of levels 1 and 2, the submitter is expected to resubmit a revised version, which itself does not justify the categorization.

Table 4 Summary of anti-plagiarism initiatives by state-owned universities of Sri Lanka University University of Colombo University of Peradeniya University of Sri Jayewardenepura University of Jaffna University of Ruhuna University of Kelaniya a

Ethical or plagiarism policies or guidelines Guidelines for avoiding plagiarism (code of conduct) – mainly for MPhil/PhD students Mainly used the bylaws of the Universities Act, No. 16 of 1978. Some guidelines Policy and student guidelines (obtained from the Faculty of Management study and commerce) Incorporated in general policies and Student code of conduct Clear policy named as plagiarism prevention policy and interpretative guidelines (but based on similarity index) Policy on Academic Integrity, Conflict of Interest, and Ethics

Electronic text-matching software usage Turnitin© via library help before submission Not clear, some faculties use AntiPlag©; others use Turnitin Different faculties are using different software but mainly Turnitin URKUND© site is free plus advice on how to use Turnitin for a fee Turnitin© via library services

URKUND© via library services

Table is constructed based on information obtained from the URLs of respective universities (see additional references related to this table)

7

Academic Integrity in South Asia: Focus on India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka

87

In summary, it is promising that the governments (their respective authorities) and universities of these countries have taken the initial measures to curb plagiarism. However, more needs to be done to increase awareness, guide both HE and the schools about academic integrity (rather than plagiarism), and produce proactive deterring measures than tackling plagiarism with punitive approach.

Perception and Practice of Academic Integrity Among Students Considering the measures to uphold academic integrity are being focused mainly on anti-plagiarism policies/actions and the fact that there is not much information on educating students about academic integrity, the author wanted to understand the student perceptions and practice of academic integrity in these countries. What are their perceptions about academic integrity? Are they only focused on avoiding plagiarism (than establishing an integrity culture)? How much do they know about other forms of academic misconducts such as contract cheating? Have they attended any workshop/training sessions on academic integrity? Studies in the past have highlighted the issue of contract cheating in these countries (Lancaster, n.d., 2019, 2020; Mogul, 2006; Sivasubramaniam et al., 2016). There are over 100 websites offering assignments either linked to or run by students and/or graduates from these countries. The issue is so widespread that it has been picked up and used in Indian films as a subject. For example, as far back as 2015, a film called Tamizhuku En OndraiAzhuthavum (directed by Ramprakash Rayappa) used contract cheating (and project outsourcing) as a part of plot in the screenplay. Yet the authorities are only focusing on detecting and punishing plagiarism. As a part of an ongoing study, the author explored the personal views of students from India and Pakistan who are continuing their higher education (either masters or PhD) in the UK (Sivasubramaniam – Unpublished data). 1. Students’ understanding, attitudes, and practice of academic integrity. 2. Academic integrity among university academics, managements, and students in their country. These conversations formed a part of academic integrity workshops for international students in the UK. Almost all the students volunteered to be interviewed (so far, 25 from India and 12 from Pakistan) have reported that they have heard about “plagiarism detection software.” Some (especially the PhD students) have had experience in using them via their library services who checked and sent the reports to them with an indication whether the percentage matches are acceptable or need revising. However, they have not had any recollections of academic integrity workshops. Some students said that they were a part of a study on academic integrity and therefore learned about ethics and scientific writing. This shows that student awareness regarding academic integrity depends on the initiatives that have been taken by the individual institutions. Students with master’s degrees tend to have attended more training on academic writing. Likewise, the institutions that offer

88

S. D. Sivasubramaniam

STEM courses (such as medicine, physical sciences, or technology) have gained integrity training. One student claimed, “Scientific workshops featuring ethics and integrity were taught in my school level education. In fact it’s always a good attribute to involve compulsory sessions (lectures/workshops) at the university level to refresh their knowledge, this in effect would prevent future misconducts from happening.” Another student said, “In my state, the Universities are putting utmost importance regard in maintaining high standards of academic integrity, as this forms an integral part of obtaining certification and national recognition. The University management has introduced compulsory courses featuring ethics and academic integrity as a part of their education.” This student has also identified some training opportunity by the national councils. In contrast, some other students claimed a lack of awareness about academic integrity, and they only become aware if they move to postgraduate levels. These students felt plagiarism policies of universities are not disseminated to an extent that all students are aware of them. Referring to their country, another PhD student casually commented that “cheating and copy-pasting assignments has reached to an extent that students involved habitually in academic dishonesty acts, and they do not consider it as a serious offense anymore.” Although these discussions are from a small group of students, the comments observed may be the direct effects of the measures taken by the individual governments focusing only on curbing plagiarism. Yet it is reassuring; the governments have realized the issues and started addressing them, which is a good start. As stated in the introduction, plagiarism-related issues have taken prominence even in the West only after the introduction/usage of text-matching software. As one of the students argued, “As a developing country, (name anonymised) started addressing the pressing issue in relation to integrity, which is plagiarism.” However, there is a widespread lack of awareness of academic integrity in general. Students are not taught about the seriousness of this issue, even at postgraduate level. There are ongoing threats of other forms of misconducts such as falsification of data, fabrication, and, above all, contract cheating/“contract outsourcing” of student projects. Academic integrity and/or plagiarism awareness is largely considered as a technical requirement than professional behavior. Despite the overreliance of text-matching software and calling them “plagiarism detection software,” these counties are moving with steps in the right directions. The introduction of these software may have minimized plagiarized articles or thesis. The wider issue of apparent lack of owning academic integrity and unethical behavior still exist. Recent articles by Lem (2022), Elango (2021), and Rivera and da Silva (2021) have reported incidences of fraudulently published or fake manuscripts from both India and Pakistan. Likewise, Parvatam reported in Nature that between 2000 and 2017, around 980 articles published by top Indian institutions had to be retracted due to fraudulent reporting, falsifications, or plagiarism. Therefore, these countries should initiate proactive measures focusing on academic integrity as such in the form of education/training rather than just focusing on detecting, deterring plagiarism via punitive approach (see below).

7

Academic Integrity in South Asia: Focus on India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka

89

Moving Forward Toward the Future The aim of this chapter is to investigate whether these countries are moving in the right direction by truly reporting the events. Although the measures taken by these countries were critically analyzed, it was never intended to depreciate these genuine efforts toward enhancing academic integrity. The efforts toward enhancing academic integrity are largely associated with antiplagiarism (or deterrence) measures in these countries. It is now time to initiate the stakeholder involvement including educationists, university undergraduates, and the secondary schools. First and the foremost, academics need to be trained on how to use the text-matching software effectively. They need to be trained to use their academic wisdom to decide on plagiarism based on similarity index only as a guide. The universities ought to invest on establishing and delivering courses, workshop, and/or study materials for academic writing, ethics, and ethical behavior. It is worth using text-matching software to “teach-out” plagiarism and produce a favorable attitude among students toward maintaining academic integrity. This will ensure students to learn from every assessment. This will lead to student confidence, assessment integrity, and effective learning. All these counties emphasize on moral conducts via religious studies, especially in primary level. This should be scaffolded at the secondary level to make the students own academic integrity (to make it a habitual reinforcement of ethical behavior rather than them perceiving integrity as an ad hoc institutional intervention or expectation). Formative learning environment by providing reflective feedback to those who have accidently plagiarized would make them learn from their own mistake. In addition, training of university entry-level students to apply original thinking supported by properly acknowledged critical analysis of published information is important. In fact, this has only started recently in the Western countries. The HE sectors and/or education ministries should get together and attempt a holistic approach to address academic integrity by understanding the issues outside plagiarism, such as data manipulation, falsification, contract cheating, etc. Policies should be written to tackle these issues and implemented throughout the countries. To summarize, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka have started giving prominence for maintaining academic integrity. Now, it is time for them to focus on integrity education. Perhaps international scholars can collaborate with individual governments to engage in a productive way to transform this into making integrity embedded in future societies.

References Ahmad, M., Pervaiz, M., & Hayat, Z. (2021). Formative assessment practices in public sector universities of Pakistan. Pakistan Social Sciences Review, 5(2), 1101–1114. https://doi.org/10. 35484/pssr.2021(5-II)84 All India Council for Technical Education. (2022). https://www.aicte-india.org/education/ institutions/Universities All India survey on higher education. (2019–2020). https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_ files/mhrd/files/statistics-new/aishe_eng.pdf

90

S. D. Sivasubramaniam

Attanayake, G. (2021). GET CAUGHT IT OUT: The awareness of plagiarism among international postgraduate students while studying Buddhist studies in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Library Review, 35(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.4038/sllr.v35i2.41 Bengali, K. (1999). History of educational policy making and planning in Pakistan. 34. – Working paper series # 40 1999 by the Sustainable Development Policy Institute. Béteille, T., Tognatta, N., Riboud, M., Nomura, S., & Ghorpade, Y. (2020). Higher education in South Asia: Rapidly growing, diverse, and unequal. In Ready to learn: Before school, in school, and beyond school in South Asia (South Asia Development Forum, pp. 281–300). https://doi. org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1327-6_ch12 Bjelobaba, S. (2020). Academic integrity teacher training: preventive pedagogical practices on the course level. In Integrity in education for future happiness (pp. 9–18). https://doi.org/10.11118/ 978-80-7509-772-9-0009 Business Standard. (2017). MHRD allows universities to use ‘Turnitin’ software to curb PhD plagiarism. https://www.business-standard.com/article/education/mhrd-allows-universities-touse-turnitin-software-to-curb-phd-plagiarism-118062700113_1.html Chaurasia, A. (2016). Stop teaching Indians to copy and paste. Nature, 534, 591. https://doi.org/10. 1038/534591a Cohen, A., & Baruch, Y. (2021). Abuse and exploitation of doctoral students: A conceptual model for traversing a long and winding road to academia. Journal of Business Ethics, 6. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10551-021-04905-1 Copyleaks Blog. (2020). A brief look at plagiarism in India – August 19, 2020. https://copyleaks. com/blog/a-brief-look-at-plagiarism-in-india#:~:text¼Section%2057%20of%20the%20' Indian,6%20months%20to%203%20years Dinesh De Alwis. (2017). Green light for foreign universities after court ruling. https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story¼201702031308527 Dyson, T. (2018). A population history of India: From the first modern people to the present day. Oxford University Press. Elango, B. (2021). Retracted articles in the biomedical literature from Indian authors. Scientometrics, 126, 3965–3981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03895-1 Gazette if India. (2018). https://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/7771545_academic-integrityRegulation2018.pdf Ghonge, M. M., Bag, R., & Singh, A. (2020). Indian education: Ancient, medieval and modern. In S. Waller, L. Waller, V. Mpofu, & M. Kurebwa (Eds.), Education at the intersection of globalization and technology. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93420 Habib-ur-Rehman, H., Idrees, H., & Ullah, A. (2017). Organization and usage of information resources at Deeni Madaris libraries in Pakistan. Library Review, 66(3), 163–178. https://doi. org/10.1108/LR-02-2016-0016 Hayward, F. (2009). Higher education transformation in Pakistan: Political and economic instability. International Higher Education, 54. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2009.54.8416 HEC. (2022). https://www.hec.gov.pk/english/universities/Pages/Foreign-Collaboration-Institu tions.aspx HEC Plagiarism Policy. (n.d.). https://www.hec.gov.pk/english/services/faculty/Documents/Plagia rism/Plagiarism%20Policy.pdf Higher Education Commission of Pakistan. (2011–2012). HEC annual reports. Higher Education Council of Pakistan. (2023). https://www.hec.gov.pk/english/Pages/default. aspx Johansen, M. W., Goddiksen, M. P., Centa, M., Clavien, C., Gefenas, E., Globokar, R., Hogan, L., Merit, M. T., Nielsen, S. S., Olsson, I. A. S., Poškutė, M., Quinn, U., Santos, J. B., Santos, R., Schöpfer, C., Strahovnik, V., Wall, P. J., Sandøe, P., & Lund, T. B. (2022). Lack of ethics or lack of knowledge? European upper secondary students’ doubts and misconceptions about integrity issues. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 18(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40979-022-00113-0

7

Academic Integrity in South Asia: Focus on India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka

91

Kadam, D. (2018). Academic integrity and plagiarism: The new regulations in India. Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery, 51(2), 109–110. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijps.IJPS_208_18 Kiss, A. K. (2013). Loophole of plagiarism detection software. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 1796–1803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.202 Kumar, S. S. K., & Kumar, M. (2020). Plagiarism issues’ and the pedagogical framework in India: Few proximate observations. International Journal of Research in Library Science (IJRLS), 6(2), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.26761/IJRLS.6.2.2020.1360 Lancaster, T. (2019). The emergence of academic ghost writers from India in the international contract cheating industry. International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, 1(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJICBM.2019.10016671 Lancaster, T. (2020). Commercial contract cheating provision through micro-outsourcing web sites. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 16(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-02000053-7 Lancaster, T. (n.d.). Exploring the role of Indian workers in the contract cheating market for essays and assignments video post. http://thomaslancaster.co.uk/blog/exploring-the-role-of-indianworkers-in-the-contract-cheating-market-for-essays-and-assignments-video-post/ Legal Service India. (ND). https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l195-Copyright-Lawin-India.html. March 2018. Lem, P. (2022). South Asian students show ‘limited’ understanding of plagiarism. The Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/south-asian-students-showlimited-understanding-plagiarism. Updated on August 8, 2022. McCabe, D. L. (1992). The influence of situational ethics on cheating among college students. Sociological Inquiry, 62(3), 365–374. McCabe, D. L. (1999). Academic dishonesty among high school students. Adolescence, 34(136), 681–687. Meo, S., & Talha, M. (2019). Turnitin: Is it a text matching or plagiarism detection tool? [Review Article]. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia, 13(5), 48–51. https://doi.org/10.4103/sja. SJA_772_18 Mogul. (2006). Essays for sale: Indian contract cheaters help thousands of UK university students to con the system. International Business Times. https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/large-numbersindians-are-helping-british-students-cheat-low-prices-say-experts-1536373 Mohanty, S. (2016). Academic integrity practice: The view from India. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_6 Morris, S. E. (2011). Doctoral students’ experiences of supervisory bullying. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 19(2), 547–555. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/15121333.pdf National Council of Education Research and Teaching – NCERT Notes (ND). https://byjus.com/ free-ias-prep/ncert-notes-education-system-in-india-during-british-rule/. National Education Commission of Sri Lanka. (2019). National policy proposal on higher education. http://nec.gov.lk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Higher-education-Policy_2019_ English.pdf Nordic Recognition Information Centres. (2006). Report on the system of education in Pakistan (October 2006). https://www.academia.edu/11491765/The_System_of_Education_In_ pakistan Pandya, R. N. (2014). Indian education system- a historical journey. International Journal for Research in Education, 3(3) Online Journal. https://www.raijmr.com/ijre/wp-content/uploads/ 2017/11/IJRE_2014_vol03_issue_03_12.pdf Panigrahi, S. S., & Gupta, S. (2021). National education policy – 2020 – Rethinking assessment in higher education. Scholarly Research Journal for Humanity Science & English Language, 9(46), 1156–1163. https://doi.org/10.21922/srjhsel.v9i46.1531 Peters, M. A. (2019). Ancient centers of higher learning: A bias in the comparative history of the university? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(11), 1063–1072. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00131857.2018.1553490

92

S. D. Sivasubramaniam

Raj, J. P., Venkatachalam, S., Amaravati, R. S., Siby, N., Oommen, A. M., Jose, J. E., George, M., Ramraj, B., Penumutsa, V. S., Bodda, D. R., Rajad, R., Reshmi, R., Inbaraj, L. R., Rajiv, S., Bhandare, B., Aiyappan, R., Mathew, P., Saleem, A. K., Shetty, R., et al. (2021). Extent of awareness and attitudes on plagiarism among post-graduate resident doctors and junior medical faculty in India: A cross-sectional, multicentric study. BMJ Open, 11(6), e046904. https://doi. org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046904 Rashid, A., & Rashid, A. (2018). Academic policing via top-down implementation of Turnitin in Pakistan: Students’ perspective and way forward. Pakistaniaat: A Journal of Pakistan Studies, 6. Rehman, H., & Khan, N. (2011). The flaws in Pakistan’s education system. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences, 4(1), 70–83. Rivera, H., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2021). Retractions, fake peer reviews, and paper mills. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 36(24), e165. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e165 Sahoo, D. R. (2022). An innovative intervention by using of games towards teaching, learning & evaluation: Special reference to higher education in India. H SpecialusisUgdymas Home Archives, 1(43) https://www.sumc.lt/index.php/se/article/view/935 Sarvananthan, M. (2022). The decay of university education in Sri Lanka. https://www. colombotelegraph.com/index.php/the-decay-of-university-education-in-sri-lanka/ Selemani, A., Chawinga, W. D., & Dube, G. (2018). Why do postgraduate students commit plagiarism? An empirical study. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0029-6 Sharma, S. (2018). Breach of academic integrity endangering education in India. https://english. newsnationtv.com/opinion/onkar-singh/breach-of-academic-integrity-endangering-educationin-india-197819.html. Updated on 28 Jun 2018. Sivasubramaniam, S., Kostelidou, K., & Ramachandran, S. (2016). A close encounter with ghostwriters: An initial exploration study on background, strategies and attitudes of independent essay providers. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40979-016-0007-9 Soroya, M. S., Hashmi, M. A., & Soroya, S. A. (2018). Status of Academic integrity in Pakistan: An overview. In Plagiarism across Europe and beyond 2017 – Conference proceedings (pp. 254–262). Srivastava, C., Dhingra, V., Bhardwaj, A., & Srivastava, A. (2013). Morality and moral development: Traditional Hindu concepts. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(Suppl 2), S283–S287. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.105552 Stoesz, B. M. (2022). Understanding provincial and territorial academic integrity policies for elementary and secondary education in Canada. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge (pp. 141–161). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1_7 Sudusinghe, W. S., Kumara, W. G. C., Vidanage, D., & Kothalawala, T. D. (2020). Knowledge, attitudes, and practices on plagiarism among law undergraduates in Sri Lanka. http://ir.kdu.ac. lk/handle/345/2845 The Gazette of India. (2018) Extraordinary [PART III—SEC. 4]; 31 July. http://www.egazette.nic. in/WriteReadData/2018/187871.pdf. Last accessed on Aug 23, 2018. Tobenkin, D. (2022). India’s higher education landscape. https://www.nafsa.org/ie-magazine/2022/ 4/12/indias-higher-education-landscape Trines, S. (2018). Education in India – Education system profiles World education news + reviews. https://wenr.wes.org/2018/09/education-in-india. Published in Sept 13, 2018. UGC. (2018). University grants commission (promotion of academic integrity and plagiarism in higher educational institutions) regulations. https://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/7771545_aca demic-integrity-Regulation2018.pdf UGC (ND) – University Grants Commission. (n.d.). https://www.ugc.ac.lk/ Ullah, M., Khan, A., & Khan, M. S. (2020). Comparison of public, private schools and Deeni Madaris students regarding respect as moral adjustment in society. https://doi.org/10.31703/ gssr.2020(V-I).35

7

Academic Integrity in South Asia: Focus on India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka

93

Zmir, S., Sarwar, U., Maqbool, S., Javed, S., Ishtiaq, M., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Plagiarism practice: Its awareness & dealing and consequences among university students in Punjab province of Pakistan. International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies. http://TuEngr.com

Online Resources Used to Create Table 4 Codes Policies and by-laws of University of Jaffna (2021). Jiffriya, M. A. C., Akmal Jahan, G., Deegala, S. (2013). AntiPlag: Plagiarism detection on electronic submissions of text-based assignments. In IEEE 8th international conference on industrial and information systems. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIInfS.2013.6732013 Plagiarism Policy – Faculty of Management University of Sri Jayewardenepura. https://mgt.sjp.ac. lk/about-us/student/plagiarism-policy/. Policy on Academic Integrity, Conflict of Interest and Ethics. (2020). University of Kelaniya University of Peradeniya (1978) By-Laws: The Universities act no. 16 of 1978, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka- The Universities act no 16 of 1978 (ND). UGC. (n.d.). https://www.ugc.ac.lk/attachments/2207_Web%20of%20ranking%202014%20to% 202022%20January%2006.%2002.2023-State%20only.pdf University of Ruhuna. (2022). Plagiarism prevention policy and interpretative guidelines (2022). University Student Charter. (n.d.). Student charter. https://www.ugc.gov.in/e-book/Academic% 20and%20Research%20Book_WEB.pdf

8

Academic Integrity in Nepal Bibek Dahal

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Issues for Academic Integrity in Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exam Cheating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plagiarism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contract Cheating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Actions for Academic Integrity in Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integrity: Police to Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integrity Research and Empowerment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

96 97 98 99 101 104 105 107 109 110 110

Abstract

The moral education that broadly includes ethics, spirituality, and humanism has a long history in Nepal. Teaching moral education to young children started in the ancient Gumba, Vihar, and Gurukul education system. The current formal modern education system, established in 1854, includes moral education at the elementary and secondary levels. Though the concept of integrity extends beyond morality, there is a complementary interrelation between the fundamental values of integrity and morality. Neither might be new concepts for those who have attended basic formal education in Nepal. The concept of academic integrity is fairly new even though people in higher education are enthusiastic to learn and practice it. Breaches of academic integrity are called academic misconduct. Application of different strategies in exam cheating, high-profile involvement in plagiarism, university authorities’ participation in contract cheating, along with fake degree and fraudulent credentials for PhDs, are among the most highlighted types of B. Dahal (*) University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_192

95

96

B. Dahal

academic misconduct in Nepal. However, the policy formulation and policy dialogue to develop integrity and ethics competencies has a long history in Nepal. The research priority has also changed. Researchers started to focus on the practices of integrity in different sectors – public service, teaching and learning, educational leadership, film, and research studies. This chapter presents an evidence-based overview of academic integrity in Nepal. The chapter includes evidence and examples from the 1950s to the 2020s inclusively. Keywords

Academic dishonesty · Academic integrity · Academic misconduct · Artificial intelligence · Contract cheating · Exam cheating · Fake degree · Fraudulent credentials · Higher education · Honorary authorship · Moral education · Nepal · Plagiarism · Policy · Research ethics · Research integrity · South Asia · UGCNepal

Introduction Historically, “education for the public” in Nepal has been controlled by the autocratic Rana regime (1846–1950) and Panchayet system (1960–1990). In between the Rana regime and Panchayet system, there was a multiparty democracy with a monarchy, when the establishment of educational institutions for the public increased, but in 1960 the Panchayet system abolished almost all democratic institutions. In the 1990s people’s movement, Nepal entered into a liberal democracy and the number of schools for public was established nationwide. However, the formal modern education system in Nepal started after the establishment of the Drabar (“palace”) High School in 1854 (Bista et al., 2020; Wood, 1965). Before the formal modern education system in Nepal, young children learned moral and occupational education in the Gumba, Vihar, and Gurukul education systems. Subjects of moral education included ethics, spirituality, yoga, humanism, and Dharma and Karma (TU, 2007). In the current formal modern school system, moral education for young children includes honesty, truth, responsibility, respect, and self-efficiency (see CDC, 2022; Dahal, 2012), but a discussion of whether a separate curriculum for moral education is required in Nepali higher education has yet to be addressed. Higher education institutions are considered sources of skilled human resources that Nepal needs. The practices of higher education in Nepal are still maturing. In 1918, Trichandra College as a higher education institute and then in 1959 Tribhuvan University initiated higher education access to the public (Bista et al., 2020; Wood, 1965). The liberal democracy endorsed by the constitution of Nepal in 1990 and the federalism endorsed by the new constitution of Nepal in 2015 are milestones in the development of democratic institutions, including provincial-level universities in Nepal (Fig. 1). Nepal made provisions for a multi-university system to have better accessibility of higher education in the federal structure. As of 2022, there were 13 universities

8

Academic Integrity in Nepal

97

Fig. 1 Milestone for access of education in Nepal

and 7 autonomous institutions that are equivalent to the university providing the equitable and strengths-based access of specialization in different subjects (UGC, 2022). The quality of Nepali higher education is a priority due to the lack of research-oriented academic culture, weak governance, high politicization, low investment, and poor academic environment (Lamsal, 2021). However, Pokharel (2022) describes the higher education system in Nepal as being in a “state of paralysis.” To overcome such a state of paralysis, the multilayered improvement strategies including the stakeholders’ involvement to promote and practice academic integrity are essential.

Issues for Academic Integrity in Nepal Teaching moral education has a long history in Nepal, but the concept of academic integrity has yet to be extended beyond young learners. In general terms, academic integrity means ensuring people know how to avoid all kinds of academic misconduct, fraud, and dishonest behaviors in academia by integrating values such as courage, fairness, honesty, trust, responsibility, and respect (ICAI, 2021) in their behaviors. Academic integrity includes familiarizing people with terms such as academic misconduct, academic dishonesty, unethical behaviors, and ecosystem of commercial academic fraud (see Eaton & Carmichael, 2022). Academic misconduct includes, but is not limited to, plagiarism, contract cheating, honorary authorship, admissions fraud, fake and fraudulent degrees, exam cheating, favoritism, and data fabrication and falsification. Conflating the terms “academic misconduct” and “academic integrity” is inaccurate and should be avoided as Eaton (2021) notes, the “former has a deficit-based focus, while the latter has a strengths-based focus” (p. 164). These are two opposite terms; misconduct presents a punitive connotation, whereas integrity is more positively oriented. Academic misconduct is not always intentional; it can happen unintentionally as well. The intentional involvement of people in academic misconduct is a challenge in academia. In the context of Nepali higher education, exam cheating, plagiarism, contract cheating, and fake degrees are noticeable types of academic misconduct (Acharya, 2016, 2017; Sapkota, 2017). Additionally, the heavy politicization of all sectors in Nepali education presents a challenge for reformation and transformation (Bista et al., 2020; Khadka & Bhattarai, 2021; Mathema, 2007). Professors’ involvement to mismatch the students’ answer sheets in annual examination (Rai, 2023) and a series of book publication with fake information and fake evidence from the Nepal

98

B. Dahal

Academy (Devkota, 2023) are a few newest examples of academic misconduct in Nepal. Besides these, being a product of Nepali higher education, I can anecdotally add that honorary authorship, favoritism, data fabrication and falsification, collusion, and citation manipulation are other forms of scholarly misconduct that exist in the country; however, these remain understudied areas and empirical evidence has yet to be presented.

Exam Cheating Cheating in exams is a form of academic misconduct in which students copy peers’ works or/and any other resources to answer the exam questions. There are a variety of reasons that students cheat on exams. For instance, students’ learning assessment or evaluation system could play a vital role. It is difficult to say when and how the exam cheating started in Nepal. U.S. AID to Education in Nepal: A 20-Year Beginning, a project impact evaluation report by Sellar et al. (1981), mentioned that “there is heavy pressure to pass students despite poor performance, little control over and a tolerant attitude toward cheating on exams, and the susceptibility of teachers in this regard to local pressures and patronage” (p. 5). Similarly, in a study of Joshee (1994), a Nepali school teacher notes that “the examination here is not so strict. Students cheat a lot during exams” (p. 171). Fleck’s (2000) article “Understanding cheating in Nepal” describes the ethnocentric reasons behind students’ involvement in exam cheating in Nepal. He emphasizes that the collectivistic cultures of Nepal demonstrate more concern for group welfare and well-being, which could be a main reason for students’ involvement in exam cheating or sharing answer with each other during exams. Moreover, he concludes that “shaping the culture to fit the school system is not feasible or even desired. Teaching and examination methods would be more easily adapted to fit the culture” (Fleck, 2000, p. 9). Exam cheating challenges could have been minimized in Nepal if the examination system had undergone reforms appropriate to the culture and context. In contrast to Wagley’s (2008) concern that the Internet could promote plagiarism practices, Bista (2011) claims that without easy access to the Internet the students and instructors of Asian counties are prone to cheating and plagiarism, where he included a discourse of Nepal as well. However, exam cheating in the context of Nepal has become a public concern and a challenge for integrity. Bimoli (2014) raised questions toward examination invigilators’ roles, and how some students talking, discussing, and copying answers in examination demotivates those who want to be honest and fair. Exam cheating in Nepali higher education received little attention before 2015. Once the topic of plagiarism became a headline in some national newspapers (Ghimire, 2015; MyRepública, 2016), exam cheating in higher education also became a subject of public concern. Setopati (2016), an online news portal, published stories about university allegation toward the higher education institution involvement to support students’ exam cheating in Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) and Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) entrance

8

Academic Integrity in Nepal

99

examination. The institution and students used WhatsApp mobile application for this exam cheating (Setopati, 2016). This could be the first recorded news in Nepal that the students in higher education used technology in exam cheating. Similar exam cheating incidents happened a year later in the MBBS entrance examination, in which 22 people, including parents, were arrested by the Nepali police (Gautam, 2017; Sapkota, 2017). This group of people who support students in exam cheating used Viber mobile application, and a special device with a SIM card in students’ shirts and ears to communicate for the purposes of exam cheating. The arrested group of people were charged under the Electronic Transaction Act, 2006 (Sapkota, 2017). Exam cheating became one of the key issues of Nepali higher education to ensure academic productivity and accountability. Not only students, parents, and government officials, but also higher education institutions and colleges’ involvement in exam cheating creates complexity to practice academic integrity. News published in The Kathmandu Post (2018), including video footage evidence, showed the involvement of government officers in exam cheating during master’s-level examinations. Investigative journalists covered stories of exam cheating on national television with video footage evidence in 2019, where a group of people who support exam cheating and examinees including a government officer used Facebook Messenger to communicate for the purposes of exam cheating (News24, 2019). Moreover, there is evidence of university students physically beating a professor in examination hall who did not allow them to cheat (MyRepública, 2021). The professor was seriously injured when the student used a steel jug to hit the professor’s head. The professor was admitted to a nearby Kathmandu Model Hospital, where he received seven stitches on his head (MyRepública, 2021). The rote-learning method, the commercialization of educational institutions (Pandey, 2021), question set repetition in annual exams (Sangroula, 2022), and written examination as the only form of final evaluation of students’ learning (Bajracharya, 2023) could all be contributing factors to exam cheating in Nepali higher education. Master of Philosophy (MPhil) is the second highest academic degree in Nepal that is not exempt from exam cheating. Rai (2022) mentioned MPhil students’ involvement in exam cheating that involved the use of mobile phones and guidebooks (also known as crib notes). The MPhil exam invigilator said: ‘Whatever we do, the habitual students cheat in exams’ (Rai, 2022). So, what makes them habitual in exam cheating? This question has yet to be investigated empirically in the context of Nepali higher education, especially in school education, to find the causes of exam cheating.

Plagiarism Plagiarism is considered another form of misconduct in academia. Even though there is “no singular and absolute definition” (Eaton, 2021, p. 1) of plagiarism, it belongs to both research misconduct and academic misconduct. There has not been long historical discourse about plagiarism in Nepal, although the Copyright Act of 2002

100

B. Dahal

addresses some relevant issues of plagiarism (GoN, 2006). There was limited academic discourse on plagiarism in Nepal before 2015, though some examples are evident. For instance, Sharma’s (2007) research focused on graduate students’ understanding and awareness of plagiarism and its prevention measures. Similarly, a column entitled “Internet availability bane or boon?” written by Wagley (2008) mentioned that the “(i)nternet has opened countless doors of opportunity for our intellectual enhancement, but sadly, also created plenty of room for plagiarism.” He was concerned with how youngsters should be trained to use the Internet and avoid possible plagiarism. Similarly, Adhikari (2010) published an editorial on “avoiding plagiarism and self-plagiarism,” where she discussed the types of self-plagiarism and how to avoid it, especially in medical research writing. Nepal (2010) analyzed how Nepali movie industries produce films by plagiarizing from foreign movie industries. Later, Banerjee et al. (2013) published a letter to the editor entitled “Plagiarism: who is responsible author or the journal editors?” where they called for the retraction of a plagiarized article. Pangeni (2013) wrote “Educationist Khaniya in plagiarism row” in a national daily newspaper, where he mentioned a plagiarism allegation of a Nepali professor. Moreover, University Grants Commission (UGC) Nepal charged a few professors with plagiarism and blacklisted them, resulting in them being banned from applying for UGC funds (Dhakal, 2014). These stories show examples of public coverage of plagiarism in Nepal before 2015. The topic of plagiarism in Nepal was extended when a professor accused of plagiarism became a vice chancellor (VC) nominee and later appointed as VC of the largest university in Nepal (Ghimire, 2015; MyRepública, 2016). Meanwhile, an investigative journalist Acharya (2016) published an article entitled “Thesis on sale!” including video footage of how contract cheating occurs in Nepali higher education. Similarly, Dhakal’s (2016) editorial “Responsible practice of research: safeguarding research integrity and publication ethics” discussed individual and institutional practices and responsibilities to detect academic misconduct, including plagiarism. Dhakal’s piece made people aware of possible mitigation strategies for plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct. On the other side, an investigative report, which included a professor from those charged with plagiarism and blacklisted by UGC, later appointed as a member of a university service commission (Acharya, 2017, 2020). The investigative report by Acharya (2017) presented a few stories on how professors were involved in plagiarism and how journal articles were modified to prepare fake dissertation and credentials in Nepali higher education. The professors’ involvement in publishing plagiarized articles to get promotion is shameful (see MyRepública, 2018). It set further concerns about plagiarism as a major issue of academic integrity in Nepal. It is not evident that all these plagiarism cases happened intentionally, but they raised public awareness of plagiarism. Regmi (2018) wrote a column entitled “Copycats beware,” in which he explained the forms and foundations of plagiarism in Nepal and the legal procedures and punishment. Bajracharya (2020) raised the issue of plagiarism in art science (i.e., fine art), where she extended discourse on the trends of plagiarism in arts science in the context of Nepal. In a daily newspaper, Pokhrel (2021) included a plagiarism accusation toward a scientist of the Nepal

8

Academic Integrity in Nepal

101

Academy of Science and Technology (NAST), where Kyutech’s professor requested action be taken in a plagiarism case. The general public became more aware of plagiarism due to these responses to high-profile plagiarism cases (Ghimire, 2021) and journalists’ coverage of these. Similarly, scholars focus’ on academic and research integrity, publication ethics, and research ethics policy praxis (Dhakal, 2016; Pokhrel, 2018; Rijal & Dahal, 2022) informed people about how plagiarism become a major challenge in Nepali higher education. There is a need for a deeper discussion of Nepal’s policy provisions and capacity development regarding academic and research misconduct, which is addressed later in this chapter.

Contract Cheating Contract cheating is another form of academic misconduct, which means those cheating or academic fraud that could happen with some financial agreement. But for the time being, definition of contract cheating is continuously evolving, and authors used different terms and conditions to define it (Curtis et al., 2022). To be precise, contract cheating occurs when students outsource work for which they are responsible for completing themselves. This includes, but is not limited to, exams, assignments, and theses. For instance, someone writes assignments, theses, and credential articles for students by charging money or in the name of enablers without charging money. If someone supports any kind of academic misconduct, including exam cheating, plagiarism, exam impersonation, and fake documentation, by taking money or in the name of enablers without charging money, then these constitute contract cheating (see Eaton et al., 2022). However, it is still unanswered whether the definition of contract cheating applies to students’ assignments that are solely completed by parents or family members (Curtis et al., 2022). It is common in Nepal for parents or siblings to complete assignments or projects for their children. It could be because of collectivistic cultures as Fleck (2000) mentioned in case of exam cheating. However, as Eaton (2021) emphasizes, the parents or siblings need to be aware and able to differentiate between whether they are helping children to learn or helping them to cheat. There might be different methods and strategies people could apply for contract cheating, and it depends upon the context and advancement of technology. In the context of Nepal, the coined term contract cheating is yet to be introduced but the activities associated with contract cheating are noticeable. People’s involvement in contract cheating might have a long history in Nepali higher education, but when an investigative report entitled “Thesis on sale” with some video footage evidence (Acharya, 2016) was published by the Centre for Investigative Journalism (CIJ), it became a central concern for the public in Nepal. The report includes different hats: (i) thriving business, (ii) exact copies, (iii) affiliated colleges are not better, and (iv) xeroxed knowledge. The report revealed how the university administrative officials, librarians, research examination committee members, professors, supervisors, internal and external agents, and salespeople from local bookstores were actively involved in contract cheating in Nepali higher education. It was not just the issue of outsourcing for theses but also

102

B. Dahal

reassembling the contents and data of previous theses for new manuscripts. They took previous theses from different departments, reassembled the data, content, title, and submitted the copied work to the respective department for degree credential (Acharya, 2016). Further, the report revealed the group of people who were involved in such contract cheating guaranteed students’ success in thesis viva. They charged 10,000.00–100,000.00 Nepali rupees (approximately equivalent to $80.00–$ 755.00 USD) per student for these all processes (Acharya 2016). The respective university formed an investigation committee, the day after the report “Thesis on sale” was published. The committee recommended to cancel the degree of all students who used contract cheating for their thesis. The committee also recommended to take necessary departmental actions against supervisors and research committee members who were involved in contract cheating (Acharya, 2018). There is no publicly available information to show whether the committee’s recommendations were implemented. However, the term contract cheating was not used in these cases. Different terms are used for contract cheating in Nepal such as thesis sale, assignment help, ghostwriting, content write, content sale, personal tutor, and rentseeking. Wagle (2016) used the term “rent-seeking” mentality of people to present a major cause for any kind of academic misconduct inducing outsourcing for one’s own intellectual responsibilities in Nepal. “Rent-seeking” is a term used in economics, which means someone seeks to gain compensation or privileged benefit without any substantial labor or contribution of any kind of accomplishment. Not only in Nepali education but Chen’s (2023) research focused on rent-seeking in global higher education. He mentioned “rent-seeking in global higher education is the proliferation of so-called ‘commission-based’ admission and other sponsored pathways” (Chen, 2023, p. 2). However, the rent-seeking behavior could be one of the major causes of corruption in the Nepali education sector. The rent-seeking practices are everywhere in Nepal from school education to higher education. For instance, you can find rent seekers in curriculum development activities, examination centers selection process, answer sheets evaluation activities, process of receiving university affiliation (Wagle, 2016), and in research grants allocation as well. Ghostwriting services are evident in Nepal. For instance, the Lekhan Kunj (ghostwriting) as a literary institution, established in 2014, offers ghostwriting services in Nepal (Balami, 2019; Khadgi, 2020). The founder invested more than 1,000,000.00 Nepali rupees (approximately equivalent to $7500.00 USD) to establish Lekhan Kunj (Balami, 2019). In Khadgi’s column, the founder of Lekhan Kunj notes the processes of how they work to provide ghostwriting services to write biographical books. The fee depends upon the number of pages; on average, they charge 100,000.00–500,000.00 Nepali rupees (approximately equivalent to $800.00–$3800.00 USD) for a book (Khadgi, 2020). As a literary service, it provides creative writing workshops, training and content editing services, as well. Though the founder argued “everyone has a story, but not everyone has the talent to be able to write it” (Khadgi, 2020), it is yet to study empirically what kind of message the new generation of Nepal will get from such arguments and ghostwriting services. There might be different epistemic positions of ghostwriters such as

8

Academic Integrity in Nepal

103

legitimate position, and immoral or unethical position. It is considered as a serious academic threat if the ghostwriters support students to “bypass learning and go straight for the grade or the credential” (Eaton, 2021, p. 132). However, the lines are blurred between legitimate and unethical ghostwriting services. It is problematic to include all ghostwriters in one bucket. A news column by Sapkota (2017) explores the involvement of a group of people (including the exam preparation tuition tutors) in exam cheating in MBBS entrance examination, previously mentioned. The police investigation also found that there were a few fake students, also known as impersonators, who sat the MBBS entrance examination in place of the real students (Sapkota, 2017). Some parents of the students allegedly paid 200,000.00–500,000.00 Nepali rupees (approximately equivalent to $1500.00–$3800.00 USD) per student to these examination impersonators and exam cheating support group. Not only the use of examination impersonators but corruption can be found in exam/test center selection procedure as well (Bhattarai, 2023). This is a different strategy or method of contract cheating in Nepal. Nepali higher education has become more degree oriented rather than being focused on practical knowledge and skills (Sharma, 2019), which promotes academic misconduct, including dishonesty, exam cheating, contract cheating, plagiarism, and collusion (Bhandari, 2019; Dahal, 2021). A column entitled “Degree thesis being sold for Rs 12 a kg!” written by Acharya (2021) showed the university’s carelessness in case of providing protection to students’ intellectual property. Selling old theses even with the permission from the university examination control office needs to be considered high risk for possible academic misconduct. It discourages students and promotes academic misconduct such as contract cheating and plagiarism practices in Nepali higher education. Fake degrees and fraudulent credentials are also becoming a big challenge in Nepal. A national television Kantipur (2022) produced a short investigative news story that includes the business of PhD degree certificates, fake degrees, and fraudulent credentials in Nepal and nearby India. Kantipur’s story also revealed that a few Indian universities’ agent offices in Nepal provided fake degrees and fraudulent credentials for 500,000.00 Nepali rupees (approximately equivalent to $3800.00 USD) per PhD certificate (Kantipur, 2022). Similarly, Capital Nepal (2023), an online news portal, mentioned how the international universities, including the European International University, are promoting fake degrees and fraudulent credentials for PhD among Nepali industrial entrepreneurs. As per the news, the agents of those international universities charged 792,000.00 Nepali rupees (approximately equivalent to $6000.00 USD) per PhD certificate. To put these prices in income perspective, as of 2022, the average annual income for a person in Nepal was approximately $1,372.00 USD (Prasain, 2022), and a very simple Nepali lunch includes only Dal, Bhat and Tarkari cost approximately $1.50 USD. (Pandey, 2022)

These cost comparisons make sense who would be able to pay for fake degrees and fraudulent credentials in Nepal. Along with the contract cheating, the empirical

104

B. Dahal

investigations on fake degrees and fraudulent credentials practices become essential in Nepali higher education.

Actions for Academic Integrity in Nepal This section presents actions for policy provisions and capacity development taken to promote and practice academic integrity in Nepal. Academic integrity discourse is maturing in the Nepali education system, but that does not mean that the stakeholders of academic and research institutions are not serious toward the good, responsible, and ethical practices in educational contexts. It is a collective concern for stakeholders of all kinds of education including formal and informal, school and higher, and social, technical and health education in Nepal. To ensure overall quality and accessibility of education by formulating policies, plans, and managing and implementing them, the Ministry of Education Science and Technology (MoEST) was established in 1951 (Poudel, 1989). As an apex advisory body to formulate national vision, development policies, plans, and sectoral policies for holistic development of Nepal, the National Planning Commission (NPC) was established in 1956 (NPC, 2023). To have original and well-researched works in languages, literature, philosophy, culture, and social sciences, the Nepal Academy (NA) was established in 1957 (NA, 2007). To promote science and technological innovation including the protection and modernization of Indigenous technologies, and promotion of research in science and technology, the Nepal Academy of Science and Technology (NAST) was established in 1982 (NAST, 2023). As a national body to provide scientific study and quality of health research in Nepal with the highest level of ethical standards, the Nepal Health Research Council (NHRC) was established in 1991 (NHRC, 2020). As an autonomous and statuary institution to support to enhance the quality of higher education and research works, the University Grants Commission (UGC) was established in 1993 (UGC, 2022). To improve quality of school education by providing required professional development trainings and resources to the stakeholders including teachers and students, the Centre for Education and Human Resource Development (CEHRD) was established in 1999 (CEHRD, 2023). As a think-tank of the government of Nepal to review public policies, programs, and strategies through rigorous research and analysis and to serve evidence-based policy formulation, the Policy Research Institute (PRI) was established in 2018 (PRI, 2021). All these established bodies, which are conducting academic and research activities, are directly responsible to promote and practice academic and research integrity in the context of Nepal. Besides these, 13 universities, 7 autonomous institutions that are equivalent to a university (UGC, 2022), and nongovernmental private research organizations are also equally responsible to practice and promote academic integrity, including research ethics and research integrity in Nepal. The above mentioned governmental, autonomous, and nongovernmental bodies, including universities and institutions, were established to protect the existing knowledge heritage and promote research or evidence-based education,

8

Academic Integrity in Nepal

105

transformation, innovation, and policy praxis in Nepal. It is crucial to explore how the policy dialogues and research studies to promote and practice integrity, developed in Nepal. Additionally, it is essential because both formal and informal systems of every governmental and nongovernmental organization, including higher education institutions, contribute to formalize a culture of academic integrity (Stoesz & Eaton, 2022). As previously mentioned, the discussion about academic integrity includes existing policies, policy dialogues, empirical studies, publications, capacity development, and empowerment activities that help people learn and practice research ethics, research integrity, and academic integrity in Nepal.

Integrity: Police to Practice As the development of democratic institutions in between the Rana regime (1846–1950) and Panchayet system (1960–1990), the government of Nepal envisioned a Department of Statistics. It aimed to collect, analyze, and publish the factual statistical information of Nepali civilians, socioeconomic development, and government activities. For that, the government of Nepal developed the Statistics Act, 1958 (GoN, 2019a). The Act makes provisions for the Department of Statistics (i) to collect any kind of statistical data in Nepal and (ii) to publish the analysis of those collected data. If anyone acts against the provisions, it is considered punishable according to the Statistics Act, 1958 (GoN, 2019a). The intent is to minimize the possible research misconduct and promote research integrity practices in Nepal. At the university level, Tribhuvan University (TU) established a research division in 1973 as a secretariat of the research coordination council to coordinate all kinds of research activities within the TU (Thapa, 1991). It was also responsible to develop research policies for TU. To protect and minimize the misuse of historical handwritten records, cultural records, and studies, the government of Nepal developed the Archives Preservation Act, 1989 (GoN, 2019b). It makes regulatory provisions for the National Archives (established in 1967) to copy, use, and interpret those historical records and studies, which are archived in the National Archives Nepal. The intent is to minimize misconduct by maintaining a system and giving directions for the use and interpretation of historical records and data in new studies. Thus, to minimize the possible misconduct in research (statistical and historical) studies, the research integrity relevant policy praxis started before the 1960s in Nepal. TU endorsed institutional academic administration rules 1993 (TU, 2020) to promote and practice integrity and accountability in overall academic and administrative activities. The rules included a code of conduct for research activities, and an examination code of conduct for stakeholders, including students and teachers. Similarly, for health sector research and innovation in Nepal, the NHRC developed ethical guidelines in 2001 (called “national ethical guidelines for health research in Nepal, 2022,” currently in its fourth edition) (NHRC, 2022). Before beginning any kind of health sector research in Nepal, ethics approval from the Ethical Review Board (ERB) at NHRC is required. Researchers from other disciplines such as education and social science also receive ethics approval from the same ERB

106

B. Dahal

because there is no other specific board to provide research ethics approval in Nepal. However, the latest edition of the ethical guidelines clearly mentioned the “research misconduct may occur due to fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism of the data” (NHRC, 2022, p.14). It also provides a mechanism to investigate health sector research misconduct complaint/allegation register in NHRC Nepal. Similarly, in 2003 the NHRC developed a national health research policy of Nepal (NHRC, n.d.) to promote health research culture and emphasize ethically responsible research practices in the health sector. Meantime, the government of Nepal endorsed a Copyright Act, 2002 (GoN, 2006). It provisions how to use, reuse, and cite the copyright-protected resources in Nepal. It makes people aware of what procedures need to be followed to take copyright clearance and how can we respect the right of original creators/writers (GoN, 2006). Further, it helps us understand how to avoid possible plagiarism. From an educative perspective, it can be considered one of the major policy documents to promote academic and research integrity initially in Nepal. The increment in the use of communication technology and electronic devices for academic misconduct can be seen in Nepal (see Sapkota, 2017; Setopati, 2016). To prevent it, the government of Nepal already used Electronic Transaction Act, 2006 (Sapkota, 2017). The Electronic Transaction Act, 2006 (GoN, 2018), has some provisions, which makes people aware of (mis)use of online platforms and online publications, (mis)use of electronic devices, (mis)use of digital signature, and (mis)use of computer server (networks), including the Internet. It aims to minimize the online fraud and technology-led all kinds of possible misconduct, including both academic and research in Nepal. The individual right toward their intellectual property is considered fundamental human rights in the new constitution of Nepal 2015 (GoN, 2015). However, after almost 20 years of World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) membership (became a member in 1997), the government of Nepal endorsed a National Intellectual Property Policy, 2017 (GoN, 2017). It aims to empower civilians to develop, protect, and promote their intellectual property such as their knowledge, skills, creativity, and traditional and Indigenous knowledge heritage. It also intends to motivate all universities, higher education, and research institutions of Nepal to develop university-wise or/and institution-wise intellectual property policy (GoN, 2017), which is indeed to promote and practice academic integrity. For the first time, after NHRC ethical guidelines for health research, UGC (2018a) developed a policy document “UGC policy regarding research misconduct, 2018,” which aims to address possible research misconduct and promote ethical research practices. For its implementation, UGC (2018b) endorsed a policy procedure “UGC procedure for addressing allegation of research misconduct, 2018.” Fabrication, falsification, (self-)plagiarism, harmful activities, and unintentional mistakes are considered research misconduct (UGC, 2018a, b). It has clearly mentioned each university should prepare a code of academic integrity and the code should be followed by all institutions of the university including all affiliated colleges (UGC, 2018b). Contract cheating could be considered a new discourse in Nepal, so UGC has not been mentioned in both policy documents.

8

Academic Integrity in Nepal

107

As UGC (2018b) recommends, Kathmandu University (KU) endorsed a code of academic integrity “policy guidelines on academic integrity, 2018.” KU (2018) aims to promote academic integrity within KU by detecting possible academic misconduct and setting liability to the university member involved in academic dishonesty and plagiarism. It defines copying and pasting, reproducing one’s own work, teamwork and work done for some organization, unauthorized use of other’s name, claiming for honorary authorship, collusion, ghostwriting, unauthorized citation and referencing, and predatory publication as a different nature of academic dishonesty (KU, 2018). It also mentioned some strategies to avoid plagiarism. However, effective policy provisions are essential to promote academic integrity and ethically sound research in Nepali higher education. The research and innovation-based higher education is considered a major priority area by National Education Policy, 2019 (GoN, 2019c), which required effective policy documents to practice responsible research, innovation, and academic integrity. The NPC drafted a National Research Policy in 2020, and the PRI organized policy dialogues to improve and finalize the National Research Policy (PRI, 2020). The PRI recommended several provisions, some of which are (i) provision to integrate universities’ research and innovation practices, (ii) provision to establish a National Research Integrity Office, and (iii) provision for different measure indicators for Indigenous knowledge transformation and research (PRI, 2020). The National Research Policy drafted by the NPC is yet to be endorsed in Nepal.

Integrity Research and Empowerment The terms research and empowerment are complementary to each other. Academic integrity research empowers people to understand and practice it contextually. The contextual practices of academic integrity empower people for ethically responsible research and innovation. It is important to understand the academic integrity research and integrity empowerment activities inclusively done in Nepal. Historically, people’s empowerment to practice integrity in everyday life started when Gumba, Vihar, and Gurukul as traditional places of teaching and learning started to teach moral and occupational education to the Nepali children (TU, 2007; Wood, 1965). The formal (modern) education system also continued teaching moral education to Nepali children (CDC, 2022; Dahal, 2012) to develop morally sound civilians. It could be considered a foundation to empower people to practice integrity in everyday life, including education, research, and innovation. Even though the government of Nepal endorsed research integrity-relevant policies before the 1960s, for example, Statistics Act, 1958 (GoN, 2019a), the research and empowerment activities in case of academic integrity started lately in Nepal. To understand the academic integrity research and empowerment, it is required to start from the discourse of academic misconduct in Nepal. Scholars mentioned exam cheating cases in Nepal in their studies before the 2000s (e.g., Joshee, 1994; Sellar et al., 1981). Fleck’s (2000) experience-led reflective interpretation of ethnocentric influences in exam cheating added a concrete layer to the discourse of academic

108

B. Dahal

misconduct in Nepal. As exam cheating, the politicization of education or political interference in education institutions is also noticed as great challenge and a kind of serious misconduct in the Nepali education system (Mathema, 2007; The Kathmandu Post, 2020). Even though a few columnists wrote academic misconduct including plagiarism (e.g., Bimoli, 2014; Ghimire, 2015; Pangeni, 2013; Wagley, 2008), it was not much prioritized in empirical research studies done in Nepal. Later, the empirical studies on ethical decision-making in teaching and school leadership were started by some scholars (e.g., Bhattarai, 2015; Bhattarai & Maharjan, 2017) in Nepal. Those studies did not directly focus on academic misconduct such as exam cheating, plagiarism, and contract cheating but contributed to understanding and practice ethics and integrity in educational contexts. Meanwhile, some editors from different journals raised issues and tried to make people aware of what responsible research practice is about. They included a discussion of plagiarism, research integrity, and publication ethics (e.g., Chhetri et al., 2017; Dhakal, 2016). Such empirical studies and editorials created another layer of awareness and discourse on academic ethics and research integrity in Nepal. For the capacity development purpose, the NHRC (2015) developed a health research ethics training manual. It aims to impart researchers’ and reviewers’ knowledge and skills on health research ethics. Similarly, KUSoED (2016) started a short-term project “Building Integrity through KUSOED Integrity Alliance (BITA).” The project has done two days of academic integrity training for schoolteachers, 20 integrity talks, and prepared integrity teaching manual and assessment checklist (KUSoED, 2016). Rather than having such a project, some graduate students from Nepal in 2020 built collaborative connection with international networks that were working to promote integrity practices, especially in research. The students organized a few activities including training for students and webinars to educate people including graduate students on research ethics and integrity practice (Dahal & Rijal, 2022) in Nepal. Since 2018, the discourse on academic integrity including some empirical research studies and publications increased in Nepal. For instance, Pokhrel (2018) did a survey study to explore integrity practices in Nepali schools. The study presents fundamental values of academic integrity as the foremost required competency for young educational leaders of Nepali schools. Similarly, Adhikari (2018) emphasizes the importance of information literacy to understand plagiarism in Nepali higher education. Acharya (2020) demands effective policy provisions to detect plagiarism and promote ethically responsible research practice in journalism education in Nepal. Poudel et al. (2020) concluded their study with a recommendation to promote research and academic integrity among all stakeholders of higher education institutions in Nepal. They also suggest developing a research integrity curriculum for undergraduate and graduate students in Nepal. Such studies and recommendations help empower people to understand the significance of practicing ethics and integrity, especially in educational contexts. In the context of Nepal, the research scholars’ orientation in case of selecting research issues and publications became more precise, and they started to focus on

8

Academic Integrity in Nepal

109

research ethics, research integrity, and academic integrity. For instance, Dahal’s (2022) empirical study focused on how social scientists experience their research being ethical in the context of Nepal. It reveals some contextual issues of research ethics, including ethical dilemma that social scientists faced while managing and interpreting qualitative data in (cross-) cultural research. Rijal and Dahal (2022) analyze the research ethics policy documents inline to develop the researchers’ ethically responsible research competencies in Nepal. Similarly, Pant et al. (2022) concluded their study with two major recommendations to promote research and academic integrity in Nepal such as (i) develop an effective policy that promotes zero tolerance against academic misconduct and (ii) establish an autonomous Office of Academic Integrity (OAI) to oversee all ethical issues and complaints in Nepal. Integrity is equally important in the public sector in Nepal. Addressing such issues, Khanal et al.’s (2022) study develops thematic discourse on civil servants’ integrity practice in the public sector. It reveals the civil servants’ integrity practice is a complex issue in Nepal and impacted by several factors, including compliance with rules, hassle-free service, network, and salary. Bastola and Hu (2023) explore how supervisory feedback makes a difference in students’ research engagement in Nepali higher education. The participants of the study note “the lack of institutional research ethics board to safeguard research ethics . . . contributed to a degraded research culture” (p.7) in Nepal. However, it is also pertinent to think about how the Nepali education system welcomes the different artificial intelligence tools. How the new generation will be trained to use artificial intelligence tools ethically or responsibly in Nepali Academia. These stories demonstrate how the topics of academic integrity and ethics are transforming in Nepal. How people are becoming more aware of the importance of integrity practices in different sectors. Academic integrity is a multidisciplinary area of study in Nepal. It is foremost to promote research and academic integrity literacy and practices in Nepal through policy dialogue, research and research publications, accessibility of resources, and the establishment of a national good governing body for academic integrity and ethics. Along with this, each university can develop their own mechanism to detect possible academic misconduct and promote academic integrity and ethics policy praxis within universities including affiliated academic and research institutions.

Summary Teaching moral education to Nepali children starts with integrity discourse in Nepal. In the formal (modern) education system, moral education is considered one of the important teaching subjects to develop children’s competencies toward ethics, values, respect, responsibility, and honesty that are needed for everyday life. The coined term academic integrity is yet to be mature, but it does not mean that the values of academic integrity have not been practiced. Discourse of academic integrity became pertinent once the academic misconduct highlighted by different media

110

B. Dahal

and scholars in Nepal. It is informed that there might have different kinds of academic misconduct in the context of Nepal. Exam cheating, plagiarism, and contract cheating along with fake degrees and fraudulent credentials are considered the mostly highlighted forms of academic misconduct. These are considered major threats to academic productivity and integrity in Nepali higher education. Not only problems but actions for improvement are also taken as important to promote research and academic integrity. The development of policy provisions relevant to research integrity has a long history in Nepal. The policy dialogue to empower people to practice research and academic integrity is extended to different sectors, including public service. From this perspective, integrity practice is seen as multidisciplinary and communal. The focus of integrity research has shifted from more generic to specific breaches of academic integrity and ethics. Such research orientation makes people aware and empower them to promote and practice academic integrity in Nepal. At last, it is yet to be thought about technology and artificial intelligence-invented possible threats in the Nepali education system.

Cross-References ▶ Academic Integrity in South Asia: Focus on India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka ▶ An Equitable Approach to Academic Integrity Through Alternative Assessment ▶ Leveraging Institutional Integrity for the Betterment of Education ▶ Linking Quality, Standards, and Integrity ▶ Teaching Academic Integrity as Good Historical Practice ▶ Understanding Contract Cheating Businesses ▶ Understanding How Faculty Members Act When Faced with Plagiarism: A CrossCultural Study

References Acharya, P. (2016, September 14). Thesis on sale. Centre for Investigative Journalism. https:// cijnepal.org.np/thesis-on-sale/# Acharya, P. (2017, August 29). A case of academic degeneration in Nepali universities. Centre for Investigative Journalism. https://cijnepal.org.np/case-academic-degeneration-nepali-universities/# Acharya, P. (2018, May 31). Thesis on sale investigation committee report: Cancel the degree of all who involved [Nepali]. Centre for Investigative Journalism. https://cijnepal.org.np/thesisinvestigation-tu/ Acharya, B. B. (2020). Nepal’s journalism education at the territory level and the role of diaspora scholars. In K. Bista, S. Sharma, & R. L. Raby (Eds.), Higher education in Nepal: Policies and perspectives (pp. 187–200). Routledge. Acharya, H. (2021, November 23). Degree thesis being sold for Rs 12 a kg! Himal Sanchar. https:// himalsanchar.com/degree-thesis-being-sold-for-rs-12-a-kg/ Adhikari, N. (2010). Avoiding plagiarism and self-plagiarism. Journal of Nepal Paediatric Society, 30(2), 77–78. https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/JNPS/article/view/3448/2991

8

Academic Integrity in Nepal

111

Adhikari, P. R. (2018). Understanding of plagiarism through information literacy: A study among the students of higher education of Nepal. Journal of Business and Social Sciences Research, 3(2), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.3126/jbssr.v3i2.28132 Bajracharya, S. (2020). Why Plagiarism remains unreviewed and undiscussed in Nepal’s art scene. The Kathmandu Post. https://tkpo.st/2ZS5p1g Bajracharya, S. M. (2023). The three-hour exam system has become outdated [Nepali]. Himal Khabar. https://www.himalkhabar.com/news/133776 Balami, M. (2019, May 11). Ghost writing Nepal: A way to tell your story. New Business Age. https://www.newbusinessage.com/MagazineArticles/view/2504 Banerjee, I., Roy, B., Sathian, B., Banerjee, I., & Saha, A. (2013). Plagiarism: Who is responsible author or the journal editors? Nepal Journal of Epidemiology, 3(3), 277–278. https://doi.org/10. 3126/nje.v3i3.9190 Bastola, M. N., & Hu, G. (2023). From the other side of the desk: Supervisors’ perceptions of supervisory feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 59, 100965. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jslw.2023.100965 Bhandari, P. (2019, September 14). Journal: Not a handle of Khurpa [Nepali]. Annapurna. https:// annapurnapost.com/news/jrnl-khurpaako-biindd-hoin-137006 Bhattarai, P. C. (2015). Ethical leadership in Nepali technical and vocational education and training schools: A convergent mixed method studies [Doctoral dissertation]. Kathmandu University. Bhattarai, S. W. (2023, February 12). Never improve our education [Nepali]. Kantipur. https:// ekantipur.com/opinion/2023/02/13/167625475512244793.html?author¼1 Bhattarai, P. C., & Maharjan, J. (2017). Ethical decision making among women education leaders: A case of Nepal. In T. N. Watson & A. H. Normore (Eds.), Racially and ethnically diverse women leading education: A world review (Advances in educational administration) (Vol. 25, pp. 219–233). https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-366020160000025013 Bimoli, C. M. (2014, April 27). Cheat sheet. The Kathmandu Post. https://kathmandupost.com/ opinion/2014/04/27/cheat-sheet Bista, K. (2011). Academic dishonesty among international students in higher education. In J. Miller & J. Groccia (Eds.), To improve the academy: Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development (pp. 159–172). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.23344822.2011.tb00655.x Bista, K., Sharma, S., & Raby, R. L. (2020). Telling stories, generating perspectives: Local-global dynamics in Nepalese higher education. In K. Bista, S. Sharma, & R. L. Raby (Eds.), Higher education in Nepal: Policies and perspectives (pp. 3–22). Routledge. Capital Nepal. (2023, February 14). Businessperson buying PhD in Dollars [Nepali]. Capital Nepal. https://www.capitalnepal.com/detail/34731 Centre for Education and Human Resource Development (CEHRD). (2023). Centre for education and human resource development: Introduction. Author. https://cehrd.gov.np/introduction? lang¼1 Chen, K. H. (2023). Pipelines of schooling: Pathways to the United States and rent-seeking practices by education agents. International Journal of Educational Development, 97, 102714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2022.102714 Chhetri, P., Parajuli, S. B., & Kafle, S. U. (2017). Plagiarism: A new challenge for scientific publication [Editorial]. Birat Journal of Health Sciences, 2(1), 148–149. https://doi.org/10. 3126/bjhs.v2i2.18509 Curriculum Development Centre [CDC]. (2022). National curriculum framework for school education (2nd ed.). Author. http://202.45.146.138/elibrary/?r¼10001 Curtis, G. J., Clare, J., Rundle, K., Eaton, S. E., Stoesz, B. M., & Seeland, J. (2022). Contract cheating: An introduction to the problem. In S. E. Eaton, G. J. Curtis, B. M. Stoesz, J. Clare, K. Rundle, & J. Seeland (Eds.), Contract cheating in higher education: Global perspectives on theory, practice and policy (pp. 1–14). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03112680-2_1

112

B. Dahal

Dahal, D. (2012). Moral education in school curriculum. Shiksha: Biannual Education Journal, 24(1), 95–104. http://202.45.146.138/elibrary/?r¼237 Dahal, B. (2021, April 14). How long can you call yourself a scholar by contract cheating? [Nepali]. Himal Khabar. https://www.himalkhabar.com/news/122846 Dahal, B. (2022). Research ethics: Social scientists’ lived experience [MPhil dissertation]. Kathmandu University. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26675.91686 Dahal, B., & Rijal, S. (2022). Research integrity: Learning from collective action in Nepal. FACETS, 7(1), 236–246. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2021-0044 Devkota, Y. (2023, January 28). Nepal academy sells fake knowledge. Kantipur. https://ekantipur. com/koseli/2023/01/28/16748742037873430.html Dhakal, Y. (2014, July 06). A professor who aligned to plagiarism appointed as TU’s leadership role [Nepali]. Online Khabar. https://www.onlinekhabar.com/2014/06/163585 Dhakal, R. K. (2016). Responsible practice of research: Safeguarding research integrity and publication ethics [Editorial]. Journal of Education and Research, 6(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/ 10.3126/jer.v6i2.22144 Eaton, S. E. (2021). Academic integrity and literacy. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers (Eds.), University teaching in focus: A learning-centred approach (pp. 163–178). Routledge. Eaton, S. E., & Carmichael, J. (2022). The ecosystem of commercial academic fraud. University of Calgary. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/115324 Eaton, S. E., Curtis, G. J., Stoesz, B. M., Rundle, K., & Seeland, J. (2022). Contract cheating in higher education: Global perspectives on theory, practice and policy. Palgrave Macmillan. Fleck, C. (2000). Understanding cheating in Nepal. Electronic Magazine of Multicultural Education, 2(1) https://www.dropbox.com/sh/32gnhv01ctg8nkk/AAA6DiQu90mMaKtqjfnrRC2va/ 2000-v2n1.StereotypePrejudiceDiscrimination?dl¼0&preview¼Fleck.pdf&subfolder_nav_ tracking¼1 Gautam, M. (2017, October 28). Entrance exam cheating case: Prolonged probe to affect TU’s MBBS calendar. The Kathmandu Post. https://kathmandupost.com/national/2017/10/28/ prolonged-probe-to-affect-tus-mbbs-calendar Ghimire, B. (2015, August 24). Govt names plagiarism – Accused TU VC. The Kathmandu Post. https://kathmandupost.com/miscellaneous/2015/08/24/govt-names-plagiarism-accused-tu-vc Ghimire, B. (2021, March 28). In a first, Tribhuvan university takes action against its teaching faculty for plagiarism. The Kathmandu Post. https://tkpo.st/2O1EEFF Government of Nepal (GoN). (2006). The copyright act, 2059. Author. https://lawcommission.gov. np/en/?cat¼373 Government of Nepal (GoN). (2015). The constitution of Nepal, 2015. Author. https://ag.gov.np/ files/Constitution-of-Nepal_2072_Eng_www.moljpa.gov_.npDate-72_11_16.pdf Government of Nepal (GoN). (2017). National intellectual property policy, 2017. Author. https:// moics.gov.np/uploads/shares/policy/IP%20policy%202073.pdf Government of Nepal (GoN). (2018). Electronic transaction act, 2006. Author https://www.nrb. org.np/contents/uploads/2021/07/१९.िवद्यूतीय-इलेYटíोिनक-कारोबार-ऐन-२०६३.pdf Government of Nepal (GoN). (2019a). Statistics act, 1958. Author. https://lawcommission.gov.np/ np/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/तjयांक-ऐन-२०१५.pdf Government of Nepal (GoN). (2019b). Archives preservation act, 1989. Author. https:// lawcommission.gov.np/np/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/अिभलेख-संर¤Éण-ऐन-२०४६.pdf Government of Nepal (GoN). (2019c). National education policy, 2019. Author. http://moest.gov. np/post/1_62b7036a58f86 International Center for Academic Integrity [ICAI]. (2021). The fundamental values of academic integrity (3rd ed.). https://academicintegrity.org/images/pdfs/20019_ICAI-FundamentalValues_R12.pdf Joshee, J. R. (1994). Public versus private education: A comparative case study of a public and a private school in Nepal [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Massachusetts Amherst. https:// doi.org/10.7275/fndq-st31

8

Academic Integrity in Nepal

113

Kantipur. (2022, September 6). Business of academic degrees takes place in Kathmandu. Kantipur TV HD. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼ox5lz8_5Zn4 Kathmandu University [KU]. (2018). Policy guidelines on academic integrity, 2018. Author. https://ku.edu.np/file-access/1425 Kathmandu University School of Education [KUSoED]. (2016). Building integrity through KUSOED integrity alliance (BITA). https://rdi.ku.edu.np/funded-projects/soed-building-integ rity-through-kusoed-integrity-alliance-bita/ Khadgi, A. (2020, December 6). Want to author a book but can’t? These writers got you covered. The Kathmandu Post. https://kathmandupost.com/books/2020/12/06/want-to-author-a-bookbut-can-t-these-writers-got-you-covered Khadka, B. B., & Bhattarai, P. C. (2021). Integrity triad as doubled edged sword for head-teachers’ integrity: A case from Nepal. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(27), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00092-8 Khanal, R., Gupta, A. K., & Bhattarai, P. C. (2022). Civil servants’ integrity in public sector: The case of Nepal. Heliyon, 8(12), e12632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12632 Lamsal, H. P. (2021, August 18). Nepali higher education system: Issues and measures. The Himalayan Times. https://thehimalayantimes.com/opinion/nepali-higher-education-systemissues-and-measures Mathema, K. B. (2007). Crisis in education and future challenges for Nepal. European Bulletin of Himalayan Research, 31, 46–66. https://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/ebhr/ pdf/EBHR_31_04.pdf MyRepública. (2016, November 16). TU vice chancellor Khaniya is a plagiarist. My República. https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/archive/9248/TU-Vice-Chancellor-Khaniya-is-aplagiarist MyRepública. (2018, August 2). TU associate professor plagiarizes to get promotion. My República. https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/news/tu-associate-professor-plagiarizesto-get-promotion/ MyRepública. (2021, December 21). Not allowed to cheat in exam, student beats up teacher. My República. https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/news/not-allowed-to-cheat-in-exam-stu dent-beats-up-teacher/ National Planning Commission (NPC). (2023). National planning commission: Introduction and history. Author. https://npc.gov.np/en/page/introduction_history Nepal, A. (2010, March 4). Height of plagiarism in Nepali movies. XNepali. https://xnepali.net/ height-of-plagiarism-in-nepali-movies/ Nepal Academy (NA). (2007). Nepal Academy: History. Author. https://nepalacademy.org.np/ language/en/883-2/ Nepal Academy of Science and Technology (NAST). (2023). Introduction of NAST. Author. https:// nast.gov.np/introduction Nepal Health Research Council (NHRC). (2015). Health research ethics training manual. Author. https://nhrc.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Health-Research-Ethics-Training-Manual.pdf Nepal Health Research Council (NHRC). (2020). Nepal health research council: About. Author. https://nhrc.gov.np/about/ Nepal Health Research Council [NHRC]. (2022). National ethical guidelines for health research in Nepal (4th ed.). Author. https://nhrc.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/National-ethicalguidelines-October.pdf Nepal Health Research Council [NHRC]. (n.d.). National health research policy of Nepal. Author. https://nhrc.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/National-Health-Reseach-Policy-of-Nepal.pdf News24. (2019, March 28). Our operation in SEE exam [Nepali]. News24 Nepal. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v¼vQCV5Ii6USs&t¼14s Pandey, S. (2021, September 22). Why students cheat. The Kathmandu Post. https:// kathmandupost.com/columns/2021/09/22/this-is-why-they-do-it Pandey, P. (2022, July 25). Households feel the heat as kitchen gets expensive with rising food prices. The Kathmandu Post. https://tkpo.st/3csnsoq

114

B. Dahal

Pangeni, R. (2013, February 16). Educationist Khaniya in plagiarism row. The Himalayan Times. https://thehimalayantimes.com/kathmandu/candidates-recommended-for-vcs-in-four-universi ties-amid-controversy Pant, D. P., Acharya, B. & Kattel, M. R. (2022). State of research ethics compliance in Nepal’s higher education institutions. Policy Research Institute. https://kms.pri.gov.np/dams/pages/ view.php?ref¼15762&k¼f47c2e6a33 Paudel, P., Giri, B., & Dhakal, S. (2020). Is research in peril in Nepal? Publication trend and research quality from projects funded by the University Grants Commission-Nepal. Accountability in Research, 27(7), 444–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1768374 Pokharel, J. R. (2022, September 06). Nepali Higher education in doldrums: Need of emulating good practices. The Himalayan Times. https://thehimalayantimes.com/opinion/nepali-highereducation-in-doldrums-need-of-emulating-good-practices Pokhrel, T. R. (2018). Need for developing integrity among young leaders in schools. Journal of Education and Development, 8(15), 1–16. Pokhrel, G. (2021, February 25). Plagiarism accusation towards a NAST scientist, asked for action [Nepali]. Kantipur. https://ekantipur.com/technology/2021/02/25/161424219577682952.html Policy Research Institute [PRI]. (2020). Suggestions on the draft of national research policy. Author. https://kms.pri.gov.np/dams/?r¼7167&k¼629f3bb243 Policy Research Institute [PRI]. (2021). Introduction: Policy research institute. Author. https://pri. gov.np/introduction/ Poudel, M. R. (1989). Tribhuvan University and its educational activities in Nepal [Doctoral dissertation]. University of North Texas, Texas, United States. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ ark:/67531/metadc331162/m2/1/high_res_d/1002714288-Poudel.pdf Prasain, S. (2022, April 28). Nepal economy projected to grow by 5.84 percent this fiscal year. The Kathmandu Post. https://tkpo.st/3LqAAXU Rai, G. (2022, March 1): Cheat in MPhil exam. Kantipur. https://ekantipur.com/news/2022/03/01/ 164613686269756858.html Rai, N. (2023, January 27). The national information commission reversed the action taken by university for taking the photo while exchanging the students’ answer sheet. Online Khabar. https://www.onlinekhabar.com/2023/01/1254183 Regmi, U. R. (2018). Copycats beware. The Kathmandu Post. https://kathmandupost.com/opinion/ 2018/04/22/copycats-beware Rijal, S., & Dahal, B. (2022). Building capacity for research ethics: Policy insights for Nepal. Journal of Education and Research, 12(1), 13–32. https://doi.org/10.51474/jer.v12i1.592 Sangroula, P. (2022, July 12). Repeated question sets question TU’s commitment to a quality education system. Online Khabar. https://english.onlinekhabar.com/tu-repeated-question-sets.html Sapkota, J. (2017, October 15). Cheating in MBBS exam: The number of people arrested has reached 22. Kantipur Daily. https://ekantipur.com/news/2017/10/15/20171015202839.html Sellar, P. O., Sprague, D. & Miedema, V. (1981). U.S. AID to education in Nepal: A 20-year beginning. Bureau for the Near East. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/xnaaj168a.pdf Setopati. (2016, December 19). KU registered police complaint against Nobel College for support in exam cheating [Nepali]. Setopati: Nepal’s Digital Newspaper. https://www.setopati.com/samaj/ 59132/?fbclid¼IwAR3XXFm60x2s-AsDYdw1Z15StR3454SVZzsCYVK4Prc5z3Bv8arisV31XkQ Sharma, B. K. (2007). Plagiarism among university students: Intentional or accidental? Journal of NELTA, 12(1&2), 134–141. Sharma, K. (2019, September 1). What should our university be like? [Nepali]. Naya Patrika. https://www.nayapatrikadaily.com/news-details/24095/2019-09-01 Stoesz, B. M., & Eaton, S. E. (2022). Academic integrity policies of publicly funded universities in Western Canada. Educational Policy, 36(6), 1529–1548. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0895904820983032 Thapa, K. B. (1991). Research policy of Tribhuvan university in a changed national context (pp. 63–68). Tribhuvan University Journal.

8

Academic Integrity in Nepal

115

The Kathmandu Post. (2018, March 20). Examinees, including govt officers, found cheating in Masters exams (Video). The Kathmandu Post. https://kathmandupost.com/national/2018/03/20/ examinees-including-govt-officers-found-cheating-in-masters-exams-video The Kathmandu Post. (2020, January 28). Trouble at Kathmandu University [Editorial]. The Kathmandu Post. https://kathmandupost.com/editorial/2020/01/28/trouble-at-kathmanduuniversity Tribhuvan University (TU). (2007). Education in Gumbas, Vihars and Gurukuls in Nepal: Linking with mainstream education. Research Centre for Educational Innovation and Development, TU. http://www.cerid.org/formative/files/1217926215-20%20Education%20in%20Gumbas% 20Vihars%20snd%20Gurukuls-2007.pdf Tribhuvan University (TU). (2020). TU organization and academic administration rules, 1993. http://tribhuvan-university.edu.np/upload_file/files/post/1637897054_1339078381_संगठन% 20तथा%20शैि¤Éक%20पëशासन%20सqबlधी%20िनयम.pdf University Grants Commission [UGC]. (2018a). The UGC policy regarding research misconduct, 2018. Author. https://ugcnepal.edu.np/downloads/1/1?page¼1 University Grants Commission [UGC]. (2018b). The UGC procedure for addressing allegation of research misconduct, 2018. Author. https://ugcnepal.edu.np/downloads/1/1?page¼2 University Grants Commission [UGC]. (2022). Annual report, 2021/2022. Author. https://www. ugcnepal.edu.np/uploads/publicationsAndReports/2bFZwd.pdf Wagle, A. (2016, November 28). Brokerage: Main enterprise, national character [Nepali]. Kantipur. https://ekantipur.com/ampnews/2016-11-28/20161128081632.html Wagley, M. P. (2008, September 1). Internet availability bane or boon? The Himalayan Times. https://thehimalayantimes.com/opinion/internet-availability-bane-or-boon Wood, H. B. (1965). The development of education in Nepal. Studies in comparative education, Bulletin, 1965, 5. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED164375.pdf

Academic Integrity Perspectives: Insights from Africa

9

Stella-Maris Orim and Anirejuoritse Awala-Ale

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perspectives on Academic Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cheating as a Mistake: The Confused Transgression Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Existence of a Culture of Cheating and a Contagion Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HEI Lecturers’ Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HE Institution Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . View from Lenses of Relevant Theoretical Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Rational Choice Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Theory of Planned Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Major Challenges Associated with Academic Integrity in African Institutions of Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Possible Ways of Instituting a Culture of Integrity in African Higher Institutions of Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review of the General Understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review of the Institutional Policies and Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adopt a Student-Focused Teaching Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Focus on Reorientation of the Staff and Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Revise the Admission, Teaching, and Learning Quality Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adopt Measures to Enhance the Assessment System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Invest in Robust Text Matching Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

118 119 120 123 125 126 126 126 127 127 129 130 130 130 130 131 131 131 131 132

S.-M. Orim (*) Department of Information Systems, Faculty of Engineering and Computing, Coventry University, Coventry, UK e-mail: [email protected] A. Awala-Ale Affiliated to the Faculty of Business and Law, Coventry University, Coventry, UK © Crown 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_9

117

118

S.-M. Orim and A. Awala-Ale

Abstract

Integrity is crucial to the pursuit of academic knowledge in learning institutions, and the need for the increasing spotlight on academic integrity in the African context cannot be overemphasized. This is because, although several pockets of good practice have been identified over the last decade, there are still instances of higher institutions that are replete with reported and unreported cases of academic integrity breaches, making the goal of achieving academic integrity a major challenge. This could be, in part, as a result of various perspectives of what constitutes academic integrity in the African context, in light of diverse cultural perspectives. A number of factors have been identified as being responsible for this variation, including the education system, pedagogy, sociocultural environment, economic environment, infrastructure, technology, institutional policies, and management systems. This chapter focuses on the perspectives drawn from available authors focusing on academic integrity in diverse higher institutions in Africa. The prevailing academic integrity themes are then grouped, providing a synopsis of the different perspectives of academic integrity in Africa. An evaluation of the identified key themes and relevant theoretical frameworks is carried out while examining the impact of the different perspectives on the academic climate and academic integrity-related issues. It also provides an overview of the development and findings of research and practice in the field of academic integrity in African higher institutions, highlighting the unique issues. It concludes by presenting an overview of the major challenges associated with academic integrity and possible ways of instituting a culture of integrity in the African academic system. Keywords

Africa · Academic climate · Academic integrity · Academic integrity-related issues · African academic system · African higher institutions · Challenges · Culture of integrity · Perspectives · Policies and practices · Theoretical frameworks

Introduction The surge in research output concerning the prevalence of academic misconduct in higher education institutions (HEIs) in the last few decades (Balbuena & Lamela, 2015; Appiah, 2016; Finchilescu & Cooper, 2018; Farahian et al., 2020) presents evidence for a case of further enquiry in this area. The pervasiveness of academic misconduct is not restricted to a single background, but is a widely acknowledged global issue evident from research findings across 27 European Union (EU) member states’ HEIs (Glendinning, 2014), the United States (Billings et al., 2005), Australia,

9

Academic Integrity Perspectives: Insights from Africa

119

New Zealand, the United Kingdom (Birks et al., 2020), and Australia (Bretag et al., 2014, 2019) with Bretag (2007) rightly asserting that there is a connection between English language proficiency and academic standards. While the ubiquity of this problem is acknowledged, this chapter nevertheless focuses on academic misconduct in the African context. Although there have been several positive changes in the African educational landscape over the last decade, there are still perspectives and opinions that skew students’ understanding of the need for integrity in academic pursuit, making the goal of achieving academic quality and standards a major challenge. For instance, Teferra (2001) opined long ago that the currency placed on university qualifications in Africa presents it as a passport that guarantees high-paying private jobs and prestigious government employment. This view has caused some African students to engage in academic dishonesty as a means of doing well by all means. However, the students’ response to this viewpoint could be partially due to various perspectives of what constitutes academic integrity in the African context.

Perspectives on Academic Integrity Ison (2018) presented an insight on academic misconduct, focusing on the differences in plagiarism among world cultures using findings from an empirical data. He concluded that there could be potential bias in the literature on the assumption of widespread occurrence of plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct in particular countries and regions. He argued that there has been absence of empirical evidence to ascertain the occurrence and levels of plagiarism to this point. In the case of African higher institutions, there is indeed a dearth of empirical findings on academic misconduct in a number of countries; however, some perspectives which could foster the occurrence of different forms of academic misconduct will be explored in this chapter. Those identified from literature include HEI students’, lecturers’, and institutions’ perspectives. The HEI students’ perspective encompasses moral perspective, academic dishonesty as a response to pressure, cheating as a mistake – the confused transgression argument, the existence of a culture of cheating and a contagion effect, a consideration of risk vs reward. The reviewed sources on HEI Students’ Perspective were grouped into five as follows. A moral perspective was identified within the body of knowledge where findings indicate that students are aware of the morally reprehensible nature of academic dishonesty and cheating. This was evident in Finchilescu and Cooper’s (2018) study of the perspective of South African HEI students. Likewise, in Ghana, this moral perspective was identified. Anaman and Agyei (2021) provided insight into the perception and attitudes of Ghanian graduate students at the University of Ghana. Furthermore, their quantitative study highlighted the reasons for student plagiarism. Regarding the students’ attitude and perception of the practice, the results from 319 questionnaires from graduate students revealed student awareness of academic dishonesty. 80.9% of the participants acknowledged that copying verbatim from a

120

S.-M. Orim and A. Awala-Ale

research paper without quotation marks constitutes plagiarism. According to 55.7%, poor referencing constituted plagiarism. However, only 16.8% believed that paraphrasing a text without acknowledging the owner is plagiarism. More alarming, only 5.2% of the respondents agreed that copying from the Internet without citing the source was plagiarism. These findings are like that of Orim et al. (2017) amongst Nigerian students from 39 HEIs. Anaman and Agyei (2021) and Orim et al. (2017) findings affirm a pattern; students often hold diametric and contradictory understandings of what plagiarism entails. Nevertheless, Anaman and Agyei (2021) revealed that the students’ knowledge on academic dishonesty led the students to believe that they had control over plagiarism. This finding was interesting because it indicated an admission of responsibility, but the positive attitude held by students regarding their role in curbing plagiarism did not deter them from plagiarizing. The main reason why the conviction of students regarding the immorality of plagiarism did not translate to good academic practice was found to be the poor academic skills of the students. 38.9% of the respondents indicated that poor knowledge of how to cite sources accounted for their reason for plagiarism. According to 48.9% of respondents, the difficulty associated with paraphrasing and summarizing research accounted for their plagiarism (Anaman & Agyei, 2021). So their moral stance was not enough to function as a deterrent against academic dishonesty, and this perception is the basis of the body of research focused on academic integrity at the HEI level in Africa. Academic Dishonesty as a response to pressure was another notable theme or argument presented by the students. They opined that academic dishonesty is simply a response to the pressures placed by families and the institution. Not only did this theme feature amongst Nigerian students (Orim et al., 2017; Okolie et al., 2019) but also South African students (Finchilescu & Cooper, 2018). Okolie et al. (2019) in his study on the perceived impact of examination malpractices (EMs) and its contextual factors on study progress in Nigeria found that in addition to other main identified issues was that the parents/caregivers were found to directly or indirectly fund EMs in the education system. Interestingly, Finchilescu and Cooper (2018) observed that students who admitted to academic dishonesty as a response to pressure held a moral perspective. Such a finding could indicate competing and conflicting thoughts and attitudes to academic dishonesty. Nevertheless, they remained unconvinced at the existence of such a conflict. Their analysis of the participant data drew their attention to discrepancies in the responses of students who cited academic dishonesty was a product of pressure. Hence, Finchilescu and Cooper (2018) opined that these students indicated that academic dishonesty was deemed as shameful while trying to also achieve social desirability.

Cheating as a Mistake: The Confused Transgression Argument Within the broader body of knowledge, academic dishonesty in the form of plagiarism has been found to be a product of students’ poor understanding of plagiarism, its different forms, and how it can be avoided. This theme is observed in sources on

9

Academic Integrity Perspectives: Insights from Africa

121

some South African students (De Jager & Brown, 2010); Kenyan students (Maxel, 2013); and also Nigerian students (Orim et al., 2013). This was also apparent in Mwamwenda’s (2012) study on the prevalence of academic cheating behavior among some students in three East African universities. The results of his analyzed questionnaire data revealed that the greatest transgressions of the students were related to poor understanding of best practices in relation to academic integrity (Mwamwenda, 2012). This is exemplified by the number of students from the three universities which responded affirmatively (Varsity A: 61.5%, B: 43.6%, C:20.9%) to the statement that they failed to acknowledge the author after paraphrasing from the source (Mwamwenda, 2012). Likewise, in Sentleng and King (2012), poor writing skills (51%), lack of referencing skills (49.6%), and poor understanding of plagiarism (40.3%) accounted for most of the reasons why the South African students in the study (n ¼ 139) plagiarized. Focusing on Nigerian students, findings from the studies of Orim et al. (2017) and Idiegbeyan-ose et al. (2016) also indicated that a significant factor underpinning academic dishonesty among Nigerian HEI students is an inadequate understanding of the concept. Idiegbeyan-ose et al. (2016) adopted a survey research design to investigate postgraduate student awareness and perception of plagiarism in selected universities in Ogun State, Nigeria. Their study sought to ascertain the extent to which increased awareness of what plagiarism entailed translated to an improved perception of the behavior. The findings revealed a significant positive relationship at r ¼ 0.294 and p < 0.05. It implies that as the awareness increases, perception will also improve. However, Idiegbeyan-ose et al. (2016) found that the level of awareness was best described as average from among the 338 respondents from federal, state, and private universities for the study. It is noteworthy that while the general level of awareness was average, postgraduate students in private universities seemed to be more knowledgeable. Idiegbeyan-ose et al. (2016) opined that a key factor was the stricter oversight by management of private universities, than public universities. While the issue considered above was also evident in different African contexts, it was interesting to find that the prevalence of academic dishonesty and plagiarism due to inadequate knowledge of good practice was endemic among Egyptian HEI students. Indeed, the primary focus of the three studies found on academic dishonesty in the Egyptian context concerned increasing the student’s awareness of practices associated with academic integrity (El-Shinawi et al., 2016; Eldin & Ela, 2016; Mohamed et al., 2018). El-Shinawi et al. (2016) were concerned with the extent to which Egyptian medical students at Ain Shams University were aware of responsible conduct of research (RCR) and research ethics. Hence, they adopted a quasiexperimental pre-post assessment study design and collected data using an anonymous self-administered questionnaire. The study involved a three-day responsible conduct of research awareness campaign. Students were administered the questionnaire and assessed before and after the campaign. El-Shinawi et al. (2016) found that before the campaign the medical students had an inadequate knowledge of responsible conduct of research practices, including those related to plagiarism. However, following the campaign, El-Shinawi et al. (2016) identified an increased awareness of responsible conduct of research. There was a marked increase in the

122

S.-M. Orim and A. Awala-Ale

number of students who indicated awareness of responsible conduct of research from 14% pre-campaign to 88.4% post-campaign. This led the authors to naturally conclude that preventing academic misconduct is achievable through the introduction of educational awareness campaigns in the current medical school curricula in Egypt. While El-Shinawi et al.’s (2016) conclusion is arguably valid, their study is limited by the fact that they investigated the students’ increased level of awareness. This is problematic because awareness does not always translate to good practice in actual situations of responsible conduct of research (RCR) and research ethics. Mohamed et al. (2018) sought to identify and understand how undergraduate students perceived plagiarism in three major public universities in Cairo, Egypt: Helwan, Ain-Shams, and Cairo Universities. The study which collected data using self-administrated questionnaires comprised a sample of 414 students (320 females and 94 males). Analysis of the questionnaires indicated that 67% of the total sample did not understand what plagiarism entailed because of the absence of previous training and education on plagiarism. This inadequate understanding of plagiarism changed following an education on plagiarism. Nevertheless, Mohamed et al. (2018) indicated that the risk of plagiarism among these students remained high due to concomitant factors such as poor study skills, the absence of policies curbing plagiarism, and the ease of copy and pasting from Internet sources. In other studies on HEIs in African countries, a student’s educational challenge was found to often emanate from limited language proficiency (De Jager & Brown, 2010) as earlier argued by Bretag (2007) who stated that there is a connection between English language proficiency and academic standards. Koenig et al.’s (2015, p.297) interventional study on the use of the LectorSA reading program to improve the reading performance levels of 120 first-year BSc South African students had found that prior to the interventions majority of the HEI students “read at distressingly low levels.” According to Scott and Yeld (2009), when African students perform at such basic levels of language literacy, they will find it difficult to cope with the rigors of higher education learning. English as these students’ second or third languages makes it challenging to engage in best practices concerning academic integrity (Finchilescu & Cooper, 2018). The implication of the student perspectives here is the comprehension that the most appropriate approach to mitigating academic dishonesty is educating African students of what academic misconduct (and plagiarism in particular) entails and how it can be prevented. Affirming this point is Ellery’s earlier study in 2008 led her to work on devising a means to managing the occurrence of plagiarism among students in a first-year module at the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) in South Africa. Besides Ellery (2008), Bretag (2007), and De Jager and Brown (2010), another research with findings affirming this student perspective that plagiarism is an outcome of poor language and academic literacy in recent times in South Africa was carried out by Stander’s (2020). He recognized that students were aware of plagiarism but lacked the skills such as paraphrasing and referencing necessary for avoiding academic dishonesty. The sample population were 73 first-year BSc, ESL students, who had been found to lack the necessary English reading and writing skills characteristic of first-year students (Stander, 2020). Stander’s (2020) interventional study occurred in

9

Academic Integrity Perspectives: Insights from Africa

123

three phases. The first phase saw the introduction of a scaffolding process involving essay writing, referencing, paraphrasing, and plagiarism training. The essay activity following this phase revealed that over 80% of the participants plagiarized. The second phase involved in-depth scaffolding interventions and the lessons on two paraphrasing methods: (i) direct paraphrasing of texts and (ii) indirect paraphrasing, involving the translation of English texts into their home language, which would be paraphrased, and translated back to English (Stander, 2020). Results of the second phase showed that the second method which involved translation to the home language significantly reduced instances of plagiarism, with 80.82% of the students highlighting that it helped them understand the text better, and 72.6% indicating that it helped them paraphrase better (Stander, 2020). Irrespective of the success of the second method, it is impracticable, exemplified by the 49.32% of students who indicated a preference for direct paraphrasing because it consumes less time and effort. Furthermore, the use of second method seemed to lead to a rise in non-attribution plagiarism because of the erroneous belief that since the texts were written in their words, they did not need to acknowledge the source (Stander, 2020).

The Existence of a Culture of Cheating and a Contagion Effect This was another important theme in the reviewed literature. Kingori’s (2021) study on Kenya’s burgeoning essay writing industry observed that this notion that plagiarism in Africa is a cultural problem emanates from the prevalence of a narrative where Africa is always in the shadow or belated in relation to academic integrity. To an extent, that hypothesis is correct. Hence, while the body of literature on the African perspective on academic integrity is not inundated with findings which indicate a culture of cheating as the primary cause of academic dishonesty, some studies reveal such a possibility. Appiah’s (2016) study which aimed to assess the incidence of plagiarism in higher educational institutions in Ghana found extremely high levels of plagiarism among undergraduate students in the Kumasi metropolis. From a sample of 300 students, analysis of the questionnaire revealed that 89.9% admitted to plagiarizing Internet sources and published material. More startling was Appiah’s (2016) revelation that 82.7% of the respondents did not consider plagiarism to be wrong. Further results from Appiah’s (2016) questionnaire identify the reason for the erroneous and insidious perceptions held by the undergraduate students. For instance, the students’ knowledge of plagiarism as inadequate is evidenced by 64.7% of respondents believing that patchwork is not plagiarism. Besides inadequate knowledge, 65.5% of students admitted to plagiarizing because they believed the task was beyond their ability. However, a notable and interesting factor accounting for the student’s perception of plagiarism was the belief that the lecturers did not care. In fact, that notion provided the rationale for 78.4% of the students who plagiarized. The importance of culture as a factor that could alter the perception of students regarding academic integrity was outlined by Were et al. (2020) in their study of the

124

S.-M. Orim and A. Awala-Ale

perception held by Kenyan investigators at Moi University regarding research misconduct during HIV research. They observed that although the fabrication and falsification of data is universally acknowledged to be fraudulent, perceptions of plagiarism are “culturally and geographically nuanced and specific” (Were et al., 2020, p. 374). As a result, Were et al. (2020) opined that due to certain cultural traits including the oral-oriented nature of African culture, and a collectivist belief in sharing, plagiarism in an African context may be more acceptable for researchers and students from an African background. Further proving the hypothesis that academic dishonesty in African contexts stem from a culture of cheating are findings from Gebremariam and Gadisa’s (2021) study which found plagiarism to be an obvious issue among undergraduate pharmacy students at Ambo University in Ethiopia. The study originally aimed to identify factors that accounted for the poor research output from undergraduate students. Gebremariam and Gadisa (2021) interviewed 15 research advisors, and the responses indicated that the undergraduate students were prone to copying an entire research project, changing the name, and submitting as their research product. Irrespective of findings which indicate that academic dishonesty prevails in African contexts due to an implicit acceptance of such practices, there are studies which contradict that notion. Sentleng and King’s (2012) study of plagiarism among undergraduate students at a South African HEI showed that most of the students (51% of n ¼ 139) significantly rejected the statement that their practice of plagiarism occurred because everybody is doing it. After few years, Finchilescu and Cooper (2018) observed that to an extent students rejected the existence of such a culture and its influence on their behavior. In their study in South Africa, most of the students who participated highlighted knowledge of other students who engaged in academic dishonesty. However, these students did not agree that this knowledge and their awareness of the success of those who cheated influenced their intention to cheat. In response to their finding, Finchilescu and Cooper (2018) suggested that such a culture of cheating, characterized by a contagion effect exists, but students are not consciously aware. A consideration of risk vs reward was another significant theme. Academic dishonesty is also perceived as a deliberate, calculated action by students, evident from the findings of Haswell et al. (1999), who conducted a comparative study of accounting students in Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom in relation to factors which deterred cheating behavior. The findings indicated that for the participating South African students, cheating depends on the assessment of risk and rewards. This was exemplified by the survey statement which questioned if the students would allow Hilary copy their essay, if she paid £500, with zero risk of detection. In this scenario, 82 of 179 (46%) answered in the affirmative. Interestingly, the percentage of students who answered affirmatively increased to 54% (96 of 179) when the £500 fee remained, but the risk was 1% and the punishment was a warning from the lecturer (Haswell et al., 1999). Even when the risk of detection was 10, but the reward remained £500, and the punishment was a warning, 43% indicated they would allow Hilary to copy their work. However, there was a significant drop in students who responded affirmatively, to 17% (31 of 179) when the reward was

9

Academic Integrity Perspectives: Insights from Africa

125

£500, the risk of detection was 1%, but the punishment was a zero mark. An even more significant drop to 3% was evident when the reward was £500, the risk of detection was 1%, but the punishment was exclusion from the subject and a failed result (Haswell et al., 1999). As evident from the findings of the 1999 study by Haswell et al., students make the risk-reward calculation by assessing the HEI’s policy and punishment attached to academic dishonesty. Maxel’s (2013) study of student perception on plagiarism at Mount Kenya University-Lodwar Campus corroborated these findings, revealing that students perceive the absence of a clear policy on plagiarism, and the universities’ reluctance to punish plagiarism as primary causes of the behavior. This gap in plagiarism policies and punishment procedures is deemed to foster a culture of academic dishonesty (Maxel, 2013).

HEI Lecturers’ Perspectives A significant portion of the literature concerning academic dishonesty within the body of knowledge considers this issue from the students’ viewpoint and rightly so. However, laying the responsibility of managing academic dishonesty completely at the feet of the students will inevitably fail to eradicate this problem from higher education institutions. Hence, it is pertinent to consider the perspectives of lecturers. Okonta and Rossouw (2014) studied the attitudes and perceptions of Nigerian researchers who are HEI lecturers regarding research misconduct by using an adapted Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised (SMQ-R). The findings from the descriptive analysis indicated a healthy concern about the harm of academic misconduct occurrence. Approximately half of the 133 researchers (50.4%) who participated in the study admitted to knowing a colleague who had engaged in research misconduct. Importantly, 88% of respondents demonstrated worry and concern regarding the prevalence of research misconduct in their institution, focusing on the negative effect of damaging the credibility of the Nigerian higher institutions. Okonta and Rossouw’s (2014) finding is important because it negates the findings in Appiah’s (2016) study where undergraduate students in the Kumasi metropolis, Ghana, asserted that a justification for plagiarism was that lecturers did not care. As seen in Okonta and Rossouw’s findings (2014), lecturers in Nigeria do care about the prevalence of plagiarism in academic institutions because of its damaging effect on the institution’s reputation. Furthermore, the findings of Mammen and Meyiwa (2013) fall squarely into a strand of practitioner-focused research on academic integrity which assert that the best approach to mitigating plagiarism is educational, rather than punitive, through proactive deterrence practices as argued by earlier researchers (McGowan, 2005; Roach, 2001). Such practices are characterized by a pedagogic approach where the teacher imbues students with the necessary skills and knowledge pertinent to mitigating plagiarism (Roach, 2001). Contrastingly, there was a strand of practitioner-focused research which insist on the effectiveness of post facto disciplinary practices including exposure and punishment (McCabe & Trevino, 1993,

126

S.-M. Orim and A. Awala-Ale

2002), which should be phased out in recent times as the push should be for educating the students rather than having a punitive approach.

HE Institution Perspectives Thus far, the perspective of students and teachers has been considered. Besides those viewpoints, the perspective and attitudes of institutions also matter. This is because the attitude of institutions set the tone regarding how academic dishonesty will be addressed (Tennant & Duggan, 2008). De Jager and Brown (2010) provide insight into an institution’s perspective towards plagiarism at the University of Cape Town. Their review of the Universities code of conduct indicated a clear commitment to addressing plagiarism, which was outrightly described as theft and a breach of the university’s rule (De Jager & Brown, 2010). However, the positive perspective towards academic integrity demonstrated by the University of Cape Town in De Jager and Brown (2010) findings contrasts with Woldu’s (2019) study in Ethiopia which attempted to provide insight into the institutions’ academic integrity perspective. To achieve this aim of understanding the institutional research ethics stands and practices of the Ethiopian University, Woldu (2019) adopted a case study research design. Data collection comprised documentary analysis and interviews with authority’s research offices. Woldu (2019) concluded that the university’s stand concerning social science research ethics and research integrity was weak. He based his conclusion on his observance that the university did not have a single document aimed at managing ethical research practice among the academic staffs and the students, and this finding was similar to the observations of Orim (2017) in her study on 39 higher institutions in Nigeria.

View from Lenses of Relevant Theoretical Frameworks Following the identification and critical discussion of the varied perspectives of academic integrity within African HEIs, this section explores relevant theoretical frameworks. This is important because Finchilescu and Cooper (2018) observed that most studies on academic integrity in HEIs are atheoretical, which is especially surprising since most factors and perspectives underpinning academic dishonesty are theoretically explainable. This chapter acknowledges the importance of these theories and will consider those deemed as significant for explaining academic dishonesty.

The Rational Choice Theory The fundamental assumption of the rational theory is that before an individual makes a decision, they will weigh the costs and benefits. Studies which have applied rational choice to the study of academic dishonesty show that the student’s behavioral intention to cheat emanates from their consideration of the advantages of

9

Academic Integrity Perspectives: Insights from Africa

127

cheating, against the disadvantages, such as getting caught (Maxel, 2013; Haswell et al., 1999). These studies prove the central assumption of the rational choice theory, as their findings demonstrate that students were deterred from cheating when they perceived that the disadvantages or the cost were higher than the perceived benefits (Maxel, 2013; Haswell et al., 1999).

The Theory of Planned Behavior Besides rational choice theories, the cheating behavior of students can also be explained using the theory of planned behavior (TPB), which postulates that a person’s performance of a behavior depends on three components. These include the person’s attitude to the behavior, the person’s social perceptions associated with that behavior, and perception of their capacity to actually perform that behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2011). Studies that have applied TPB to explaining academic dishonesty show that the combination of the three components – attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control – predicts the student’s intention to engage in academic dishonesty. However, what is less clear is how impactful these components are in individually influencing a student’s intention to cheat.

Major Challenges Associated with Academic Integrity in African Institutions of Learning There is little research on academic integrity in primary and secondary schools although there should be a strong emphasis on academic integrity at these early stages so that students can understand the need to learn and not bypass the achievement of learning outcomes. The students’ attitude towards examination invigilation is not as it should be; in some primary and secondary schools, the teachers assist some students, giving those students an unfair advantage over others. In Nigeria, Animasahun (2014) carried out a study on academic integrity in Nigerian secondary schools focused on examination malpractices, and suggested that attitudinal reorientation is a possible solution. He, along with a number of other authors (Fadele, 2007; Famoriyo, 2007; Animasahun, 2011; Oyebamiji, 2011), identified institutional stakeholders as being responsible for examination misconduct. These stakeholders include the students, parents, teachers, school, government, law enforcement agencies, society, and religious agencies. They (Animasahun, 2011, 2014; Oyebamiji, 2011; Fadele, 2007; Famoriyo, 2007) claim that these Nigerian students are academically incompetent, lazy, with poor study habits, with poor time management skills, truant, suffering from peer group influence, not ready to learn, influenced by alcohol and drugs, overambitious in desiring good grades, and desiring to succeed at all cost. Although these identified situations were in relation to students’ examinations, the situations also affect the students’ overall academic integrity competence. The authors’ (Animasahun, 2011, 2014; Oyebamiji, 2011; Fadele, 2007;

128

S.-M. Orim and A. Awala-Ale

Famoriyo, 2007) claims can be seen in several cases at virtually all levels of learning (primary, secondary, and postsecondary) with some few exceptions. However, the authors (Animasahun, 2011, 2014; Oyebamiji, 2011; Fadele, 2007; Famoriyo, 2007; Okolie et al., 2019) asserted that the reasons for the examination malpractices are not only due to the students but also due to the parents. They explain that the parents lack parenting skills – they lack time and genuine love for children. They also said that they overindulge their children; abuse their children; and misuse their power, wealth, and opportunities. They stated that the parents have misplaced priorities, mounting undue pressure on children to pursue courses which they are not suited for and even funding the misconduct (Okolie et al., 2019). In situations where these claims are true, the pressure on such students could lead to academic misconduct. Factors identified in relation to the teachers as stakeholders in academic misconduct included lack of interest in the teaching profession, incompetence, intellectual laziness, bribery and corruption, teachers seeking favor from students and parents, sexual promiscuity, and continuous assessment malpractices by teachers and school counsellors. In relation to the school more broadly, the factors identified were irregularities in admission, admission of unqualified candidates, illegal registration of candidates for the senior secondary school certificate examinations, lack of/underutilization of guidance counsellors, incomplete syllabus, poor invigilation, and students forced to share insufficient examination materials. The factors identified by Animasahun (2011, 2014), Oyebamiji (2011), Fadele (2007) and Famoriyo (2007) in relation to how the government’s support has an effect on institutions’ management included poor funding and monitoring of schools, overcrowding of classrooms, indiscreet setup of private schools, poor admission policies, automatic promotion, and subjective and politically motivated recruitment of teachers. There were also identified issues with teacher incentives, textbooks inadequacy, inadequate libraries, ill-equipped laboratories, and poor-quality teaching materials. They equally cited as a problem the lack of professionally trained guidance counsellors in schools and overemphasis on paper qualification. In addition, they mentioned law enforcement agents as being contributors to the problem due to bribery and corruption, running errands for other perpetrators, and serving as shields for the perpetrators. The society in general was mentioned as one of the contributing factors due to the authors’ (Animasahun, 2011, 2014; Oyebamiji, 2011; Fadele, 2007; Famoriyo, 2007) views of deterioration of the value systems and carefree attitude towards patriotism which was observed in a number of Nigerian institutions. They (Animasahun, 2011, 2014; Oyebamiji, 2011; Fadele, 2007; Famoriyo, 2007) linked the occurrence to religious factors, stating that morality and religious teachings are no longer effective and that there are political influences on religious leaders. Another challenge is that the in-depth knowledge about academic integrity is low across most of the learning sectors (primary, secondary, and higher institutions) primarily because institutional authorities do not prioritize it. Although this is the case in most African countries, in addition to a need for more current publication in this area, it would be useful to find empirical research on the major challenges associated with other African HEIs’ primary, secondary, and tertiary institutions.

9

Academic Integrity Perspectives: Insights from Africa

129

Possible Ways of Instituting a Culture of Integrity in African Higher Institutions of Learning Drawing on findings from the different perspectives, lenses of theoretical frameworks and identified major challenges associated with academic integrity in African institutions of learning, the most likely way of instituting a holistic culture of academic integrity would be varied. This would include the creation of awareness of what academic integrity is and what it constitutes, create enabling structures, and establish skills support initiatives across all levels of learning. The creation of enabling structures involves establishing key institutional guidelines which clarify what academic integrity entails and what it comprises, ensuring there are accessible institutional policies, and establishing defined and consistent response procedures and parameters. This clarity is important as the teachers, lecturers, and students may not have a complete view of what academic integrity entails. Furthermore, the curriculum and teaching, learning, and assessment styles need to be modified to be more focused on students’ learning outcomes, with various creative assessments to ensure deep learning has occurred. This would include the use of detailed formative feedback practice. Although this may be difficult to achieve where there are large class sizes, there could still be positive changes as a result of the reorientation of the staff. There is a need to focus on the admission policies at all levels of learning, and the policy with its use should focus on the admission of competent students, teachers, and lecturers. Skills support initiatives would help cultivate an ethical view and culture of academic integrity in these learning institutions. This is important as a number of primary, secondary, and university institution stakeholders do not seem to perceive academic misconduct as an issue. It would be desirable to introduce academic integrity courses at every year of the students’ study, as well as teaching, training, and monitoring students’ use of the skills, to help establish their understanding of the concept. This would also involve the encouragement of electronic submissions and use of several methods of assessments. Also, in establishing these support skills, orientation sessions could be instituted for new students and staff which would foster the awareness of academic integrity, academic requirements, and institutional responses to academic misconduct cases. There would be the need to monitor students’ work and conduct reviews to check if they are acquiring and transferring the relevant skills across subjects. Whenever academic misconduct arises, these should be dealt with consistently in line with the institutional policies with a focus on educating the students. All students involved in such cases of misconduct should receive guidance and support on appropriate academic practice, and following proper investigation, penalties can then be utilized as appropriate (as per the institutional policies). The consistent handling of penalties and the acquisition of transferable skills are important to the context of African learning institutions. The institutional policies would need to be assessed periodically to check whether their procedures and guidelines are working effectively and to benchmark them against those of other institutions (primary, secondary, and postsecondary) where there are cases of good practice.

130

S.-M. Orim and A. Awala-Ale

In reviewing the policies, there is a need to ensure that they are accessible, detailed, and clear to all academic stakeholders. All these will involve the tasks listed below:

Review of the General Understanding • Focusing on attitudinal reorientation as suggested by Animasahun (2014). • Creating awareness of the need for academic integrity at all levels of learning. • Creating a general understanding of what academic integrity is, and what it constitutes, among all learning institutions in Africa.

Review of the Institutional Policies and Framework • Evaluating the academic institutional policies and frameworks. • Benchmarking against policies and frameworks for other academic institutions in developed countries. • Ensuring that the institutional policies are updated to focus on academic integrity as a whole. • Reviewing policies to focus on support for the academic community stakeholders. • Ensuring that all academic community stakeholders are aware of the regulations governing academic integrity in the learning institutions.

Adopt a Student-Focused Teaching Approach • Facilitating students’ self-awareness of their learning styles with a focus on how to apply this understanding to improving learning. • Teaching students how to study and engage with the content. • Teaching students how to write with the use of sources, for assessments.

Focus on Reorientation of the Staff and Students • Teaching staff and students about ethical values of self-worth, values of education, integrity, the principle of hard work, and academic responsibility. • Providing a conducive academic environment for the attainment of academic goals without compromising. • Rewarding, promoting, and motivating good academic integrity practices amongst the academic community’s stakeholders. • Adopting high quality and standards of integrity in the conduct of staff activities.

9

Academic Integrity Perspectives: Insights from Africa

131

Revise the Admission, Teaching, and Learning Quality Approaches • Ensuring that the admission policies into all levels of academic endeavor are competitive and transparent. • Monitoring institutions for standards and quality and ensuring that the staff from these regulatory bodies are not taking bribes. • Reviewing the institutional curriculum to allow for the development of innate potential.

Adopt Measures to Enhance the Assessment System • Refraining from reusing the same course assessment. • Adopting an electronic examination system that minimizes the existing academic misconduct challenges and lapses. • Protecting the examination questions sent to such electronic examination centers via the Internet or intranet, by encrypting the data and using biometric fingerprint authentication to screen the stakeholders (Adebayo & Abdulhamid, 2014).

Invest in Robust Text Matching Tools • Updating teaching materials to reflect current practices. • Ensuring that there are adequate and up-to-date tools for supporting students’ learning (books, centers for academic integrity, adequate infrastructure). • Ensuring that there are adequate and up-to-date tools for the detection of academic integrity misconduct in examinations, written submissions (essay type), and laboratory work. • Careful handling of activities relating to examinations such as question paper production, invigilation, marking, and result collation and computation (Abdulkareern & Alabi, 2004). • Adopting and implementing the use of a similarity detection software.

Summary Although there has been relatively little research carried out in most African educational institutions on academic integrity, much of the existing literature is in relation to HEI students and not to HEI lecturers or the Institutions. Also, most of the research is not strictly empirical in nature but based on perceptions of occurrences of various types of academic integrity issues. It appears that there are several areas where integrity is lacking in the African HEIs; there is a need for further in-depth research in relation to academic dishonesty.

132

S.-M. Orim and A. Awala-Ale

It will be useful if further research carried out in African educational institutions explore forms of academic misconduct, ascertain the actual prevalent forms, and recommend feasible and realistic measures that can promote academic integrity at all levels of learning in the different education institutions in Africa. In the same vein, it would be of great use to explore best practices in existent cases of academic integrity and how these have been achieved, and then highlight and promote these as models of good practice in African Institutions of learning. This is because like Foltýnek and Dlabolová (2020) argued that a focus on negative issues leads to a punitive approach to the management of academic integrity issues, without holistic consideration of the different reviewed perspectives as well as cultural and psychological issues (Błachnio et al., 2022). This focus would lead to highlighting detection and penalty as the default response, instead of preventative interventions borne out of a culture of academic integrity.

References Abdulkareern, D. R. A. Y., & Alabi, D. R. T. (2004). Curbing examination malpractice in the university system: A management perspective. Nigerian Journal of Education Research and Evaluators, 5(1), 1–10. Adebayo, O., & Abdulhamid, S. M. (2014). E-exams system for Nigerian universities with emphasis on security and result integrity. arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.0921. International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management (IJCIM), 18(2) ISSN 0858–7027. Anaman, A. A., & Agyei, F. (2021). Perception of and attitudes towards plagiarism among graduate students in Ghana. Library Philosophy & Practice, 1–20. Animasahun, R. A. (2011). The menace of examination malpractices, poor academic performance and academic failure among secondary school students: Focus on remediation. Paper presented at a workshop organised by the Polytechnic Ibadan, Ibadan. Animasahun, R. A. (2014). The menace of examination malpractices in Nigeria secondary schools and remediative measures towards attitudinal re-orientation: The counsellor’s perspectives. African Journal for the Psychological Studies of Social Issues, 16(2), 300–309. Appiah, M. K. (2016). Incidence of plagiarism among undergraduate students in higher educational institutions in Ghana. International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences, 6(3), 269–279. Balbuena, S. E., & Lamela, R. A. (2015). Prevalence, motives, and views of academic dishonesty in higher education. Online Submission, 3(2), 69–75. Billings, A., Gresham, M., Neal, M. R., Taylor, S. S., Winchell, D., Young, A., Fishman, T., Justice, A., Ramirez, B., Powell, M. T., & Yancey, K. B. (2005). New designs for communication across the curriculum. In C. Handa & S. J. McGee (Eds.), Discord and direction: The post-modern WPA (pp. 158–180). Utah State University Press. Birks, M., Mills, J., Allen, S., & Tee, S. (2020). Managing the mutations: Academic misconduct in Australia, New Zealand and the UK. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 16(1), 1–15. Błachnio, A., Cudo, A., Kot, P., Torój, M., Oppong Asante, K., Enea, V., et al. (2022). Cultural and psychological variables predicting academic dishonesty: A cross-sectional study in nine countries. Ethics & Behavior, 32(1), 44–89. Bretag, T. (2007). The emperor’s new clothes: Yes, there is a link between English language competence and academic standards. People and Place, 15(1), 13–21.

9

Academic Integrity Perspectives: Insights from Africa

133

Bretag, T., Mahmud, S., Wallace, M., Walker, R., McGowan, U., East, J., et al. (2014). ‘Teach us how to do it properly!’ An Australian academic integrity student survey. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7), 1150–1169. Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., Rozenberg, P., & van Haeringen, K. (2019). Contract cheating: A survey of Australian university students. Studies in Higher Education, 44(11), 1837–1856. De Jager, K., & Brown, C. (2010). The tangled web: Investigating academics views of plagiarism at the University of Cape Town. Studies in Higher Education, 35, 513–528. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03075070903222641. Eldin, Y. K. Z., & Ela, L. A. E. (2016). Implementing plagiarism awareness workshop to nursing faculty members, Damanhour University. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 7(1), 124–132. Ellery, K. (2008). Undergraduate plagiarism: A pedagogical perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 507–516. El-Shinawi, M., Mohamed, K. O., Fouad, Y. A., Fahmy, Y. M., Asar, H. A., Khalil, M. G., et al. (2016). Assessing the awareness of Egyptian medical students about responsible conduct of research and research ethics: Impact of an educational campaign. Accountability in Research, 23(4), 199–218. Fadele, J. A. (2007). Causes, effects and control of examination malpractice in educational institutions. Paper presented at the state education stakeholders interactive forum on combating examination malpractice in public and private secondary schools and the way forward, organised by the Ministry of Education, Osogbo. Famoriyo, B. (2007). Curbing examination malpractices. The key note address presented by the honourable commissioner for education at the workshop organised by Osun State Ministry of Education on a day sensitization on how to curb examination malpractices held at Zaso hotel, Osogbo. Farahian, M., Avarzamani, F., & Rezaee, M. (2020). Plagiarism in higher education across nations: A case of language students. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 14(1), 223–239. Finchilescu, G., & Cooper, A. (2018). Perceptions of academic dishonesty in a south African university: A Q-methodology approach. Ethics & Behavior, 28(4), 284–301. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2011). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Taylor & Francis. Foltýnek, T., & Dlabolová, D. (2020). Chapter 4: Academic integrity in Eastern Europe: Beyond corruption and plagiarism. In A research agenda for academic integrity. Edward Elgar Publishing. Retrieved Oct 21, 2022, from https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781789903768/ 9781789903768.0 Gebremariam, E. T., & Gadisa, D. A. (2021). Factors affecting the quality of undergraduate pharmacy students’ researches in Ambo University, Ethiopia: A qualitative study from advisors’ perspective. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 12, 745. Glendinning, I. (2014). Responses to student plagiarism in higher education across Europe. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 10(1). Haswell, S., Jubb, P., & Wearing, B. (1999). Accounting students and cheating: A comparative study for Australia, South Africa and the UK. Teaching Business Ethics, 3(3), 211–239. Idiegbeyan-ose, J., Nkiko, C., & Osinulu, I. (2016). Awareness and perception of plagiarism of postgraduate students in selected universities in Ogun State, Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1–25. Ison, D. C. (2018). An empirical analysis of differences in plagiarism among world cultures. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 40(4), 291–304. Kingori, P. (2021). Kenya’s “fake essay” writers and the light they shine on assumptions of shadows in knowledge production. Journal of African Cultural Studies, 33(3), 297–304. Koenig, L., Du Plessis, A., & Viljoen, M. (2015). The effect of a reading program on the reading performance of first-year students at a higher education institution. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(2), 297–305.

134

S.-M. Orim and A. Awala-Ale

Mammen, K. J., & Meyiwa, T. (2013). Perceptions and concerns on plagiarism and its implications for teacher education: A case study of a South African University. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(2), 99–108. Maxel, O. J. M. (2013). Plagiarism: The cancer of East African university education. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(17), 137–143. McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 522–538. McCabe, D., & Trevino, L. K. (2002). Honesty and honor codes. Academe, 88(1), 37. McGowan, U. (2005). Academic integrity: An awareness and development issue for students and staff. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 2(3), 56–66. Mohamed, M. E., Mohy, N., & Salah, S. (2018). Perceptions of undergraduate pharmacy students on plagiarism in three major public universities in Egypt. Accountability in Research, 25(2), 109–124. Mwamwenda, T. S. (2012). Maintaining academic integrity among East African university students. Africa Education Review, 9(3), 452–465. Okolie, U. C., Nwosu, H. E., Eneje, B. C., & Oluka, B. N. (2019). Reclaiming education: Rising above examination malpractices, and its contextual factors on study progress in Nigeria. International Journal of Educational Development, 65, 44–56. Okonta, P. I., & Rossouw, T. (2014). Misconduct in research: A descriptive survey of attitudes, perceptions and associated factors in a developing country. BMC Medical Ethics, 15(1), 1–8. Orim, S. (2017). Conceptual review of literature on student plagiarism: Focusing on Nigerian higher education institutions. World Journal of Educational Research, 4(1), 216. Orim, S. M. I., Davies, J. W., Borg, E., & Glendinning, I. (2013). Exploring Nigerian postgraduate students’ experience of plagiarism: A phenomenographic case study. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 9(1), 20–34. ISSN 1833-2595. http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/ IJEI/article/view/845/608 Orim, S. (2017). Conceptual Review of Literature on Student Plagiarism: Focusing on Nigerian Higher Education Institutions. World Journal of Educational Research. 4. 216. https://doi.org/ 10.22158/wjer.v4n1p216. Oyebamiji, J. (2011). The menace of examination malpractices. Paper presented at the counselling seminar organised for the CEC students of the polytechnic, Ibadan. Roach, R. (2001). Safeguarding against online cheating. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 18(8), 92. Scott, I., & Yeld, N. (2009, April 2). The four-year degree. Curriculum renewal in higher education in South Africa: Drivers and possibilities. Paper presented at conference on improving teaching and learning for success. University of Cape Town. Sentleng, M. P., & King, L. (2012). Plagiarism among undergraduate students in the Faculty of Applied Science at a South African higher education institution. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science, 78(1), 57–67. Stander, M. (2020). Strategies to help university students avoid plagiarism: A focus on translation as an intervention strategy. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(2), 156–169. Teferra, D. (2001). Academic dishonesty in African universities—trends, challenges, and repercussions: An Ethiopian case study. Tennant, P. W. G., & Duggan, F. (2008). Academic misconduct benchmarking research project (part II): The recorded incidence of student plagiarism and the penalties applied. Amber Project. Were, E., Kaguiri, E., & Kiplagat, J. (2020). Perceptions of occurrence of research misconduct and related factors among Kenyan investigators engaged in HIV research. Accountability in Research, 27(6), 372–389. Woldu, M. G. (2019). Unpacking research ethical stands and practices in academic institutions: A case study of a university from Ethiopia. Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1), 1633776.

Academic Integrity in Czechia and Slovakia

10

Toma´š Folty´nek, Veronika Kra´sničan, and Dita Henek Dlabolova´

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literature Review on Academic Integrity in Czechia and Slovakia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Integrity in Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prevention and Detection of Academic Misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research on Academic Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Best Practice Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contract Cheating in Czechia and Slovakia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Misconduct Scandals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qualitative Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plagiarism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contract Cheating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scandals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Culture of Academic Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Motivation for Working with Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

136 137 137 138 139 142 143 145 147 147 147 148 148 149 150 151

Abstract

Czechia and Slovakia used to be one country; they share the same cultural context and their educational systems developed together. Within the past years, there have been significant developments in the field of academic integrity in both countries – efforts in plagiarism detection, plagiarism prevention, and several projects on research integrity. This chapter summarizes recent projects, scientific publications, and several academic misconduct scandals. We present Czech and T. Foltýnek (*) Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia e-mail: foltynek@fi.muni.cz V. Krásničan · D. H. Dlabolová European Network for Academic Integrity, Brno, Czechia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_86

135

136

T. Folty´nek et al.

Slovak results of the International Contract Cheating Project (iCOP). We also conducted a qualitative survey by performing structured interviews with five senior academics involved in academic integrity bodies. The results of our research show that the overall awareness of ethical issues and related public debate has risen in the past decade. Despite the successful projects in the field of academic integrity, the community still suffers from systemic problems like the “publish or perish” culture or lack of ethics education. Keywords

Academic integrity · Czechia · Slovakia · Plagiarism · Contract cheating · Academic misconduct scandals

Introduction “Are you from Czechoslovakia?” Even 30 years after Czechoslovakia split into two independent countries, we are still being asked this question. Czechoslovakia existed from 1918 to 1992. Until 1945, Czechoslovakia included Zakarpattia, part of today’s Ukraine. Until 1918, there was only one general university in the territory of Czechoslovakia – Charles University in Prague – two technical universities (one in Prague and one in Brno), and two artistic universities (both in Prague). The second oldest university – Palacky University in Olomouc – was not operating between 1860 and 1946. After the foundation of a new country in 1918, the government was well aware that (higher) education was a pillar of modern society and decided to expand and diversify the portfolio of higher-education institutions. Komensky University in Bratislava was the first higher-education institution in Slovakia. In Brno, Masaryk University, Mendel University (of agriculture and forestry), and Veterinary University were founded. At that time, only 2% of the Czechoslovak population studied at universities, and only 12% of students were women (Grohová, 2018). A short period of Czech-Slovak separation during World War II did not have a significant impact, because universities were closed during the Nazi occupation anyway. After 1945, Czechoslovakia continued the development of its educational system, and several new universities were founded. In 1948, the Communist party started persecuting the academic communities in Czechoslovakia (UPOL, n.d.) and twisting the educational system to serve the purposes of the socialist country. Marxism-Leninism was an obligatory part of each study program, student exchanges and research partnerships were limited to the Soviet Union and its satellites, and young people with undesired political backgrounds were prevented from university studies. This lasted till 1989 when university students became the driving force of the so-called velvet revolution, which peacefully removed the Communist party from the ruling. Universities were among the first institutions in Czechoslovakia that started to cooperate with Western-European countries and transform the rigid socialist society

10

Academic Integrity in Czechia and Slovakia

137

into a modern liberal-democratic society. This process is not completed even after more than 30 years and probably requires several more generations. In mid-1992, the political leaders of Czechoslovakia came to the conclusion that splitting the country would prevent nationalism and would be beneficial both for Czechia and Slovakia. Since 1993, there have been two independent countries – Czechia and Slovakia – both of them integrating into the European Union 11 years later. As we can see, Czech and Slovak universities were established mainly in the same period and shared the same educational system for more than 70 years. Czech and Slovak universities together helped transform the society from communism to democracy, together entered the European Union, and together face current issues in higher education. Even after 30 years of separation, Czech and Slovak educational systems are still tightly interconnected. Czech and Slovak languages are very similar, and people can understand each other without problems. In 2021, there were 304,000 students in Czechia, 52,000 (17%) coming from abroad. The largest minority are Slovaks – almost half of all foreign students in Czechia (ČSÚ, 2022). This relation is largely asymmetric. Out of 95,000 students in Slovakia, 14,000 (15%) are foreigners, but only 2000 are from Czechia. By far, the largest student minority in Slovakia is 5500 Ukrainians (SCSTI, 2022). Regarding gender distribution, 55.6% of all students in Czechia and 57.3% of all students in Slovakia are women (ČSÚ 2022; SCSTI, 2022). Czech academics often teach at Slovak universities and vice versa, but there are no official numbers available. The interconnection between people and institutions also means the interconnection of problems and the ways how the problems are addressed. That is why we are writing about both countries together. If we wrote two separate chapters, they would be highly overlapping. The goal of this chapter is to map the developments of academic integrity in the recent 10 years, focus on current challenges, and describe measures that are generalizable and transferrable to other countries. Apart from our personal experience and research conducted within the last 10 years, we will also conduct a literature review and qualitative analysis based on structured interviews with senior academics in both countries.

Literature Review on Academic Integrity in Czechia and Slovakia Academic Integrity in Legislation In both countries, higher education is regulated by the law (Czech Higher Education Act, 2017; Slovak Higher Education Act, 2022). Neither the term “academic integrity” (or related) nor its principles are mentioned in any of them. Nonetheless, the laws define student academic misconduct and specify procedures for handling it. The common base of both laws is well visible, as the definition and subsequent procedures are almost identical. In both countries, all higher-education study programs are supervised and have to be approved by a public independent national body in a rigorous process, which should ensure and increase the quality of higher education. In Czechia, it is the National Accreditation Bureau for Higher Education

138

T. Folty´nek et al.

(NAU, n.d.), and in Slovakia, it is the Slovak Accreditation Agency for Higher Education (SAAVS, n.d.). The methodology and rules of the accreditation differ in both countries, but to some extent, principles of academic integrity are part of the evaluation criteria in both of them. Within the Czech methodology for accreditation of a study program at any level, there is one evaluation criterion related to integrity: “The university has taken sufficiently effective measures: to protect intellectual property and against deliberately acting against good morals during the studies, in particular against plagiarism and fraud in the studies” (NAU, 2022, p. 8). The Slovak “Standards for the internal higher education quality assurance system” require HEIs to have internal policies, structures and processes which assure (among others) “preservation of research integrity and adherence to academic ethics, vigilance against plagiarism and other academic fraud; enabling their detection and guarantee the drawing of consequences” (SAAVS, 2020, p. 2). A novelization of the Czech Higher Education Act from 2016 (effective from 2017) offers HEIs the possibility of so-called institutional accreditation. With institutional accreditation, HEIs can approve study programs through an internal procedure only. The National Accreditation Bureau may grant institutional accreditation if HEIs prove that their internal quality assurance processes are mature enough. The same novelization of the Czech Higher Education Act brought one significant change in dealing with academic misconduct – the possibility to rescind a diploma within a period of 3 years. According to the law, there are three reasons which allow the rector to rescind the diploma: an intentional criminal act in relation to obtaining the diploma, intentional and unauthorized use of someone else’s work grossly violating intellectual property legal regulations, and an intentional permanent continuous or repeated conduct against good manners. The procedure is performed by the HEI itself, and it is under the responsibility of its rector (Czech Higher Education Act, 2017, Art. 47c). The Slovak legislation took inspiration from this law amendment in 2020 and adopted very similar rules and principles. The Slovak law in addition enables individuals to renounce their diplomas (Slovak Higher Education Act, 2022, Art. 108f).

Prevention and Detection of Academic Misconduct Regarding the systems supporting plagiarism detection, in Czechia, a de facto national text-matching system has been developed and operated by Masaryk University. The system is available to HEIs and other institutions under the name Theses.cz and is mainly used for checking students’ final theses. As for fall 2022, Theses.cz is being used at all Czech public and State HEIs, by several vocational schools, and by two Slovak public universities (Theses, 2022). That makes Theses. cz the largest national repository of theses and other students’ work. It is worth noting that despite this wide national acceptance, Theses.cz is not an official national system – it was not developed by the government, nor it is enforced by the national laws and regulations. It has been a system created and operated by one university,

10

Academic Integrity in Czechia and Slovakia

139

and all involved institutions pay for this service. Another interface of the same system named Odevzdej.cz is intended mainly for student assignments; it is available to educational institutions upon registration and also to the general public. Masaryk University operates another two academic integrity-related systems. Repozitar.cz (Repository) enables storing and presenting scientific publications from involved institutions. The other system, PravyDiplom.cz (Genuine diploma), enables verification of the authenticity of a diploma based on a unique number of the diploma. In the fall of 2022, 31 Czech educational institutions were involved – the majority of public HEIs and several private ones. Slovakia has an official national system supporting plagiarism detection (SK ANTIPLAG), and the HEIs are obliged to use it for students’ final theses (Kravjar, 2015). This obligation was introduced in an amendment to the Higher Education Act in 2009. The HEIs are also obliged to use a central register of theses, where the theses are stored and made publicly available. The rules apply to final theses on all levels, including rigorous theses and habilitation theses, which in Czech and Slovak system serves as a main requirement to become an Associate professor (Slovak Higher Education Act, 2022).

Research on Academic Integrity Research on various topics related to academic integrity has been conducted in both countries, with the main focus on students’ misconduct and on academic writing. We describe the research on contract cheating as a stand-alone chapter as we are supplementing the literature review with previously unpublished results of our research. The most common form of research misconduct is plagiarism, which is probably the first topic that brought the focus on academic integrity in both countries. The international project “Impact of Policies for Plagiarism in Higher Education Across Europe” with data collected from 2012 to 2013 focused on students’ and teachers’ perceptions of plagiarism, its prevention, occurrence, detection, and related procedures. According to the project results, only 26% of Czech students received training in academic writing. On the contrary, 62% of Slovak students claim to receive the same kind of training, which was close to the EU average (60%). Approximately, the same fraction of students from both countries (75% of Czech students and slightly above 80% of Slovak students) were able to correctly identify a case of plagiarism (the EU average was slightly above 60%) (Foltýnek, 2013a, b, c; Foltýnek & Čech, 2013; Foltýnek & Glendinning, 2015). A possible explanation for the high awareness of Slovak students is that at the time of the data collection, plagiarism became the topic of a public debate, and the national text-matching software started being introduced to all Slovak universities (Foltýnek et al., 2014; Kravjar, 2015). Krajvar (2015) used the data from the abovementioned Slovak system SK ANTIPLAG and, based on the years 2013–2014, identified the fields of study with bachelor theses containing more than 25% text match: agricultural and forestry

140

T. Folty´nek et al.

technology, 32.6% of theses; health and safety protection at work, 23.4%; and land construction, 22.7%. In 2.7% of all theses, a text match higher than 40% was identified. Mahmud et al. (2019) focused on students’ perception of plagiarism policies in Czechia (compared to the UK, Poland, and Romania). Perceptions of plagiarism of Czech students differ in some aspects from their Western-European counterparts. They found a correlation between a positive perception of plagiarism policies and “Western” cultural indicators such as low power distance and high individualism. According to the study, Czech students’ perceptions were more similar to other Eastern European countries: Plagiarism policies – according to the students’ views – focused more on negative issues, such as detection and punishment (Mahmud et al., 2019). Alarming results about plagiarism come from the Slovak project “To dá rozum” (described in detail later); 84% of HEI students think that their colleagues sometimes submit plagiarized work (Hall et al., 2019). Some studies focus on students before entering higher education. For example, Honzíková et al. (2021) focused on secondary-school students and their preferred ways of cheating in Poland, Slovakia, and Czechia. The findings showed that students use digital technology (mobile phones and smart watches) more than paper crib notes to cheat during the exams. The publication of Bajtos et al. (2020) is based on the same data, and apart from the analyses of the ways of cheating, it also presents recommendations for schools. Another study by Bajtos (2020) focuses on the behavior of secondary-school teachers from Czechia, Slovakia, and Poland. According to the study, the students prefer direct rules preventing them from cheating, over indirect strategies further developing their learning skills. Data from the “To dá rozum” project show that more than a third of questioned HEI teachers claim that secondary-school students come to the HEIs unprepared in the area of ethical behavior, namely, in terms of honesty and responsibility (Hall et al., 2019). Bajtos (2021) focused on assessing the impacts of online teaching forced by the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on the opinion of students, there was an increase in plagiarism, students often used opportunities to cheat, and there was an overall negative impact on the quality of education they received. Some researchers focus on one institution or even on one faculty only. Dömeová and Jindrová (2013) surveyed students of some study programs at the Faculty of Economics and Management of the Czech University of Life Sciences about their behavior during tests and in written assignments and their attitudes toward unethical behavior and the sanctions. They found out that the main common unethical behavior during tests is getting information from students who have passed the test – 77.4% of students do it often, and many students also admit to unallowed communication with others. Regarding plagiarism, the most common behavior was the use of paper mills – 50% of students often or exceptionally use the Internet to download assignments. The surveyed students are primarily afraid of punishment; they don’t see their behavior as immoral (Dömeová & Jindrová, 2013). Smolík and Herbočková (2021) focused on perceptions and attitudes toward plagiarism of students of the Faculty of Regional Development and International

10

Academic Integrity in Czechia and Slovakia

141

Studies at Mendel University in Brno (Czechia). Forty-three percent of students agree that most of the teachers warn them about plagiarism, 33% agree that their classmates plagiarize, and 23% agree that cheating is widespread in their faculty. The survey also provided examples of plagiarism and apart from very clear cases (such as copy and paste from the Internet), and a significant number of students (from 30% to 60%) didn’t correctly assess very serious issues. Having these alarming results, the authors of the study recommend creating a tutorial on referencing (Smolík & Herbočková, 2021). This study inspired Filipec (2021) who repeated it at the Faculty of Law, Palacký University, in Olomouc (Czechia). The results were somewhat similar – also in this study, students recognized only very straightforward cases of plagiarism. Pabian (2015) criticizes research studies that only count students admitting some form of misconduct, but do not look for the causes. According to him, the causes are systemic and rooted in the distribution of funding in Czech higher education. Academics are primarily remunerated for science. Therefore, they devote a minimum of time and care to teaching and testing, which leads primarily to rote learning and subsequent testing of memorized knowledge. The students do not see the point in this form of learning and resort to misconduct. However, Pabian does not see it as cheating but as a rational response to the educational setting (Pabian, 2015). Dannhoferová et al. (2022) followed Pabian’s view and focused on exam cheating by asking students and teachers of one faculty of economics at a Czech university. Fifty-two percent of students admitted to preparing a cheat sheet for an exam, and circa half of them use it. Data from teachers was alarming – some of them would ignore student cheating in an exam, and the appropriate action for many of them means no penalty for the cheating student (such as a verbal warning). The low attention of teachers to cheating was also criticized by many students in the survey. The study provides several recommendations – a manual for teachers, the establishment of the position of the academic integrity coordinator, and a dedicated website on academic integrity. Quite a common approach to academic misconduct research is to survey students (or teachers) from various countries and compare the results. Usually, the conclusion is that the results are different for the involved countries. Unfortunately, often, this kind of research does not reflect the educational or cultural background and other contexts which cause the differences. Preiss et al. (2013) were comparing various forms of cheating between Czech students and US students. This study used even different datasets for both countries; anyway, they found out that Czech students were more engaged in all forms of cheating. Baysen et al. (2017) asked Czech and Turkish students to assess statements about academic writing to find out whether the students are able to recognize plagiarism. Czech students assessed more statements correctly than Turkish students. Farková (2013) investigated how Czech and Swedish academics evaluate cases describing possible student plagiarism. They compared their own data with a previously published Swedish study and found that the academics from both countries approached the evaluation differently.

142

T. Folty´nek et al.

Best Practice Examples In the past few years, several extensive projects in Czechia aimed to promote academic integrity. In 2020, there was a project financed by the Czech Ministry of Education “Strengthening the prevention of plagiarism in student work,” conducted by a consortium of nine Czech universities led by Masaryk University. The project outputs involved several webinars for academics and plagiarism prevention handbooks for students and teachers, which are available as Open Access eBooks (Foltýnek et al., 2020a, b). All project outputs are available from the project portal www.Akademick aEtika.cz. The authors of this chapter were strongly involved in the project. A significant side effect of the project for involved academics was getting to know each other and feeling quite a strong national academic integrity community. This was positive and very motivational, as almost all project participants agree that before the project, they felt alone in the country in their academic integrity efforts. It seems that this project started a successful series of cooperation. In 2021, the project had a follow-up under the same grant program with 20 involved HEIs named “Strengthening the academic integrity of university students, focusing on the risks and opportunities of distance education and assessment methods.” The 2022 followup focused on students’ social safety with 26 HEIs involved. In 2023, the project aims to focus on the support of the victims of academic misconduct. All projects continue to use and develop the academic integrity web portal and blog on www. AkademickaEtika.cz. In Slovakia, a project named “To dá rozum” (which means “That makes sense”) implemented by the independent non-governmental and non-profit organization MESA10 Centre for Economic and Social Analysis ran from 2016 to 2020 (To dá rozum, n.d.). It was financed from various sources – an EU program and a wide variety of commercial foundations. The goal of the project was to propose a complex change for all levels of Slovak education. The change derives from a vision based on an ideal state, which was defined by a panel of Slovak and international experts. The subsequent step was to define the weaknesses of the Slovak educational system based on the analysis of data collected via hundreds of group and individual interviews with various stakeholders. The project output is a more than 200-pagelong publication “Recommendations for Improving Education in Slovakia containing recommendations for all levels of education and covering a complex range of aspects of education.” The document contains a point “Development of academic and research ethics at HEIs,” which includes certain steps such as education of students and teachers in academic and research ethics, revision and update of disciplinary policies, creation of codes of ethics at HEIs, creation of a position of an ombudsperson for academic ethics, systematic research on academic misconduct, systematic construction of a database of student works, revision of the structure of courses in study programs, legislative support of retrospective retraction of diploma (which was enacted half a year later after publishing this document), and against contract cheating (To dá rozum, 2020).

10

Academic Integrity in Czechia and Slovakia

143

The Slovak Accreditation Agency for Higher Education is very active in the field of academic integrity. As members of the European Network for Academic Integrity, they not only enforce policies and processes for academic integrity within the accreditation standards but also offer some opportunities for experience exchange. The agency organizes annual national conferences on academic integrity devoted to topical issues, such as plagiarism, contract cheating, and scientific integrity. Another notable initiative, conducted by the Slovak Centre for Scientific and Technical Information, is the information portal about science, containing a dedicated section on research ethics (ERA Portal, n.d.). The portal was created within a Horizon Europe project, which also includes the elaboration of a Declaration on fostering the culture of scientific integrity in Slovakia (ERA Portal, 2021). The aim of the Declaration is the commitment of all organizations conducting research in Slovakia to comply with the highest ethical standards, in order to increase the trust of the public and international research community toward Slovak research institutions. The institutions may voluntarily commit to the Declaration.

Contract Cheating in Czechia and Slovakia The first study in the Czech Republic devoted to contract cheating was conducted in 2017, where Veronika Králíková (2017) investigated this issue for the first time as part of her final thesis. At that time, 8% of respondents admitted to contract cheating (Foltýnek & Králíková, 2018). This study was followed up by the project GEMS (Global Essay Mills Survey), which was only partially suitable for comparison with the first results due to a different methodology. Due to a larger variety of scenarios that identified respondents as “cheaters,” their number rose to 19.7% (Králíková et al., 2018, 2019). These findings opened a discussion in the Czech Republic about the seriousness of the situation. To familiarize academics with this type of cheating and outline ways to prevent or detect it, workshops and lectures were created and provided to academics. In 2020 and 2021, more data was collected in the Czech Republic and Slovakia as part of the iCOP project (International Contract Cheating Project). iCOP was conducted jointly by the European Network for Academic Integrity, Mendel University in Brno and the University of Wollongong in Dubai. The project provides its partners with a tool in the form of a questionnaire survey and methodology for data collection. For Slovakia, these are the first data showing the situation in the contract cheating market. To compare data in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, we created a dataset from data collected from three language versions of the survey: the Czech version of the questionnaire (collected in spring 2020), the Slovak version of the questionnaire (collected in spring 2021), and also the English version of the questionnaire, which was open to collect data throughout data collection in both countries. As the Czech and Slovak languages are very close to each other, the Czech version of the questionnaire was filled out by Slovak students and vice versa. For a clear

T. Folty´nek et al.

144

distribution of data, we decided that the key would be the country where the respondents study. A total of 1808 responses were collected from current students in Czechia and 709 from students in Slovakia. Given that there are approximately twice as many students studying in Czechia, this disparity in the amount of collected data is close to reality. It won’t surprise anyone that in both countries, most respondents (more than 70%) have already heard of contract cheating services. They learned about them on social media, from their peers, or found them through a web advertisement. There were also respondents in both countries who admitted having used these services. In the Czech Republic, it is 10.6% and in Slovakia, 5.6%. The reason for this significant difference has not yet been clearly revealed. These results have their limits due to the nature of the questionnaire; however, they show that contract cheating occurs in both countries. In both countries, the most common form of contract cheating did not involve any payment. The work for the students was done by their friends, classmates, or family members. In both countries, the most common motivator for this fraudulent behavior was lack of time. Furthermore, the respondents reported a lack of self-confidence and more assignments that had to be submitted by one deadline. About 40% of respondents in the Czech Republic and Slovakia responded positively to whether they knew someone who had their assignment or other work done by another person and thus committed contract cheating. Based on the questionnaire results, the respondents who committed contract cheating stated that there were 19 detected cases of contract cheating in the Czech Republic and none in Slovakia. In these cases, the punishments were mild; students had to resubmit their assignments or failed the course. None of the respondents was expelled (not even conditionally) from their studies because of contract cheating. Only 11.7% of respondents studying in Slovakia said they know someone who was revealed for contract cheating and 13.7% of respondents in Czechia know such a person too (Table 1).

Table 1 Overview of iCOP results from Czechia and Slovakia

% of respondents who have heard of contract cheating services % of respondents who admitted having used contract cheating services Detected contract cheating cases (from those who admitted contract cheating in the questionnaire) % of respondents who know someone who committed contract cheating % of respondents who know someone who was revealed for contract cheating

Respondents studying in Czechia (N ¼ 1808) 70.2%

Respondents studying in Slovakia (N ¼ 709) 82.9%

10.6%

5.6%

19

0

42.6%

37.4%

13.7%

11.7%

10

Academic Integrity in Czechia and Slovakia

145

Based on the data analysis that was briefly presented here, both countries face the problem of contract cheating very similarly. This may be due to the nearby culture as well as the education system. However, the difference in the number of respondents who admitted to contract cheating is greatly distorted by their willingness to confess to this unethical act, and it does not change the seriousness of the situation.

Academic Misconduct Scandals Almost all countries have experienced politicians accused of plagiarism. Tudoroiu (2017) analyzed plagiarism scandals in Germany, Hungary, and Romania and concluded that plagiarism constitutes a direct and aggressive threat to democratic structures and democracy itself. On the other hand, public exposure of plagiarism cases reflects the freedom of speech and free government-independent media. As plagiarists are everywhere, it is not a shame for a country to have plagiarism scandals. The shame is when the plagiarists remain in leading positions and when the country does not address the problem and does not adopt any measures to prevent misconduct. The negative consequences of academic misconduct scandals include loss of trust in the educational system and the scientific community as a whole (Tudoroiu, 2017). However, scandals are also an opportunity for systemic improvements (Sijtsma, 2017). In this section, we present noteworthy cases of academic misconduct, which has led to legislation or other systemic changes. A complete list of plagiarism cases in Czechia and Slovakia together with a comparative analysis is available in the study “‘I am De Facto a Thief in this Matter’: Thesis Plagiarism Cases of Elected Representatives and the Concept of Political Accountability (Case Study of Slovakia and the Czech Republic)” (Sekerák, 2022). In July 2018, two ministers of a newly appointed Czech government were forced to resign due to plagiarism. First, journalists found that several pages of the bachelor thesis of the Minister of Labor and Social Affairs, Petr Krčál, were copied from another author without any attribution. Immediately after the exposure, Petr Krčál resigned from the position of minister and did not run in the next elections (Sekerák, 2022). In the same month, the Minister of Justice, Taťána Malá, was accused of plagiarism in both of her master theses. Despite the clear evidence of plagiarism, Malá refused to admit any misconduct and claimed the whole case was a personal campaign against her. She resigned from the position of Minister of Justice but still kept the position of the Member of Parliament and continued to be an active politician. These two cases had immediate consequences in academia. For Mendel University in Brno (Taťána Malá’s alma mater), the case was a wake-up call to improve the processes related to plagiarism. A new plagiarism policy was adopted, the university bought a license for a second text-matching software tool, and academics at all faculties received training on plagiarism (delivered personally by the authors of this chapter). Masaryk University, a provider of the de facto national text-matching system, recognized plagiarism as a potential reputation threat and decided to prevent

146

T. Folty´nek et al.

potential scandal. All theses submitted at Masaryk University in the past 3 years were scanned for text match. Within an additional check, a team of experts examined a randomly selected sample of approx. 1% of all theses from all faculties submitted in 2000–2015. In ten cases, the university initiated a procedure of diploma revocation (Masaryk University, 2019a), and two diplomas were eventually revoked (Masaryk University, 2020). Apart from the diploma revocation, systemic problems were revealed in some faculties (Masaryk University, 2019b). The third reaction to the 2018 scandals was a joint project of nine Czech universities described in detail in the Best Practices Examples section. Plagiarism constitutes a relatively tangible and easily verifiable kind of academic misconduct. Within the past years, the Czech academic community also experienced several cases of data manipulation. The most severe scandal started around 2013 at Palacky University in Olomouc and persists till now (Schneider, 2020). The scandal started with image manipulation in a paper published in the Journal of American Chemical Society (JACS) in 2007. The paper was retracted, but then other suspicious papers appeared. Currently, there are ten suspicious papers in total, all of them having one corresponding author – Prof. Radek Zbořil, one of the most productive and cited Czech scientists. In an average year, Zbořil publishes 25 papers and receives over 6000 citations on Google Scholar. The suspicions include data fabrication and deliberate manipulation; in some cases, authors failed to provide raw data, which fuels the suspicions of unethical behavior. The case is also characterized by personal revenge (the whistleblower could not finish his PhD and was even forced to leave his job in a private company), fights for funding (Zbořil founded the Czech Advanced Technology and Research Institute of Palacky University in Olomouc), and mutual accusations of bullying, bossing, and privacy breaches (Schneider, 2020). Another scandal shook Mendel University in Brno after electing Prof. Vojtěch Adam, a new rector in 2021. Soon after the announcement of his election, Elisabeth Bik pointed out suspicious images indicating data manipulation in 21 of Vojtěch Adam’s papers. The ad hoc international committee established by Mendel University in Brno and the Central European Institute of Technology (CEITEC) examined 12 papers in which Adam was a corresponding author and confirmed the allegations. The committee recommended the retraction of six papers due to apparent and deliberate misconduct. In the other three papers, the committee confirmed discrepancies, possibly caused by negligence and recommended corrections (Bik, 2022). Vojtěch Adam resigned from the position of rector the day before the start date. CEITEC continued the investigations and eventually terminated the whole research group (CEITEC, 2022). Both cases are quite similar not only because of the deliberate manipulation of images to create stronger evidence supporting hypotheses. Both professors are very productive (Vojtěch Adam publishes, on average, one scientific paper per week). The focus on quantity over quality reflects the national policy of funds distribution and makes sense from a pragmatic point of view. More funding allows for hiring more researchers, which write more papers, and the research group grows. However, without proper quality assurance, the pressure for quantity inherently leads to negligence and in some cases to deliberate data manipulation.

10

Academic Integrity in Czechia and Slovakia

147

Qualitative Survey To capture changes in the past decade, we conducted structured interviews with five professors and associate professors – three from Czechia and two from Slovakia. All respondents have been involved in academic integrity as members of various ethical committees and other bodies dealing with academic integrity. The respondents wished to remain anonymous. The questions in the interview dealt with plagiarism, contract cheating, recent scandals, the overall culture of academic integrity, and motivation for working with integrity.

Plagiarism All five respondents think that the overall perception of plagiarism has changed during the past 10 or 20 years, i.e., since circa 2010. The respondents agree that even though the criteria as such remain the same, there is more media attention to the topic and more focus on technical solutions. “Plagiarism receives much more attention, not only from academics but also from the general public. Several cases of politicians resigned because of plagiarism” (Respondent 3). Respondent 5 named Slovak central repository as the main reason. According to Respondent 3, due to technological advancements, there are currently more opportunities for plagiarism but also more opportunities for detection. Respondent 2 pointed out the downside of the tools: “[IT tools] establish a new relationship between the student and his work and redefine it from ‘to copy or not to copy’ [to] the question of ‘to get caught or not to get caught. (...)’ And this purely mechanical issue is easy to circumvent” (Respondent 2). Respondent 4 echoed this concern: “If the effort to prevent plagiarism becomes the routine and thoughtless use of sophisticated IT tools, then, in my opinion, it will not help anything at all” (Respondent 4). Also, respondents feel that students and academics don’t perceive plagiarism as an ethical issue but rather as a policy issue: “I participated in plagiarism training several times. In most cases, participants were interested primarily in the extent to which they are allowed to imitate and combine someone else’s ideas” (Respondent 1). Respondent 4 also adds that the perception of plagiarism of the general public is distorted by mainstream media and their approach to originality. When one server publishes news, the other servers immediately copy it. “And this completely numbs the public’s perception of intellectual property – of bringing an original idea to mean something” (Respondent 4).

Contract Cheating Three out of five respondents have a personal experience with contract cheating. Two cases were more than 10 years old, and none of the three cases was proven and punished. Respondent 4 supervised a bachelor student who was apparently not able to deliver any meaningful text but then suddenly came up with a brilliant thesis.

148

T. Folty´nek et al.

Even though it was a blatant fraud, the supervisor was not able to prove anything, and in the end, the student passed. Respondent 2 also supervised a not-very-good bachelor student. The fellow students even notified the supervisor about the ghostwriter. However, the student denied all allegations, and there were no means of how to prove contract cheating, so even this student passed. The case described by Respondent 5 ended up at the disciplinary committee hearing. The committee asked questions about the content of the thesis. Nonetheless, the student was well prepared so the committee could not prove the misconduct. Only two out of five respondents commented on the general trend of contract cheating, but their views contradict. Even though they agree that students are well aware of contract cheating services, Respondent 4 is convinced that students are using them more, whereas Respondent 5 thinks that students are using them less because they are afraid of being caught. As there is no longitudinal study available, we are not able to verify any of these statements.

Scandals When asked about the impact of recent scandals, Respondent 3 thinks “it is necessary to strengthen ethical education, which is completely lacking here. Financial literacy and its teaching have been talked about for a long time, but I think that such ethical literacy would be equally important so that all people are able to think about those ethical questions.” Respondent 3 adds that ethical literacy education should start already at primary school, which settles the standards in society not to tolerate unethical behavior. However, this is rather a wish instead of a tangible impact. Respondents 2 and 4 confirm that scientific communities in particular disciplines had been long aware of the problems (namely, plagiarism of Vice Rector Kovář and data manipulation of Prof. Adam), but did not raise them. The respondents also agree that none of the scandals led to any systemic improvement.

Culture of Academic Integrity When asked what is the most pressing academic integrity issue in Czechia, Respondent 4 spontaneously responds, “Total loss of any boundaries,” and then adds that in the 1990s, ethics was something new that improved society. The decade after the millennium, the academic environment was cultivated, processes were standardized, and institutions participated in framework programs. “However, during COVID and after it, I have a feeling of a total loss of moral restraints” (Respondent 4). Respondent 5 also sees the main problem in “[the lack of] personal integrity and responsibility.” According to Respondent 2, the main cause is the massification of higher education. In the opinion of Respondent 2, too many students mean that they don’t perceive a university education as something exceptional on an intellectual level but rather a “professional education” that allows them to get a certificate leading to a higher salary.

10

Academic Integrity in Czechia and Slovakia

149

Respondent 2 mentions the pressure for publications, emphasis on quantity over quality, and subsequent publication in “soft predatory” venues: “[The problem is in] demand for publications (...) and citation counts. At the moment when there is institutional pressure on this - someone wants to”cheat “it and make a quick career” (Respondent 2). Respondent 5 totally agrees: “It is necessary to adapt to the conditions, and they are demanding. (...) In order to fulfil them, academics bypass the rules. They [recycle], fabricate, do quick research, write their names [to the papers], etc. Either I go with the flow and join and no one will find out because everyone does it. Or, I don’t do it, I’m honest and professional honour won’t allow me, but then I won’t get that project” (Respondent 5). The pressure often has a form of “helping” the institution: “Either you get habilitation or the accreditation ceases. (...) And suddenly the person starts churning out articles that are not of the appropriate level (...). And then they publish it in journals – not the hard predatory ones – but in the ones that are on the edge. (...) And this quantity over quality, which is pushed by the system into academic work, is terribly destructive” (Respondent 2). Respondent 3 states that the most pressing issue is “that we don’t have enough cultivated environment” that would prevent unethical behavior instead of supporting it. Respondent 3 adds that “a specific cause of our problems is the pressure on publication activity, on the quantity of those publications, and of course, this is at the expense of quality” (Respondent 3). Respondent 4 also adds a note about the overall setup in the society: “[The ethical issues] are terribly reduced to a legal level. If it’s legal, then it’s OK and why we deal with some ethics here” (Respondent 4). In general, respondents see the main problem in academics and their fight for power, whereas students are the hope for a better future. “The problems are on both sides, but I would say that it is worse on the side of the academics. (...) I think it is terribly important that the academics lead by example” (Respondent 3). “That is why talking to students is more and more important” (Respondent 4).

Motivation for Working with Integrity All five respondents agree that factors motivating academics to do their work with integrity are intrinsic, whereas extrinsic motivators and penalties are less efficient: • Respondent 1: “The joy of the work itself and the successes of their students, but also the involvement of students in scientific work, where they show novel paths.” • Respondent 2: “Self-esteem. People are proud of their work and would be ashamed to cheat, that is very basic. And at the same time the knowledge that their work contributes to the development of their discipline.” • Respondent 3: “Culture – the quality of the environment – (...) if there is tolerance for unethical behavior in that environment, then, of course, it is bad.” • Respondent 4: “Personal setting, intrinsic motivation. Repressions are inefficient.” • Respondent 5: “Professional honor, in the sense, that I am proud of what I do and my results matter.”

150

T. Folty´nek et al.

Conclusion Czechia and Slovakia are culturally and historically close to each other. Both countries belong to the Eastern European cultural segment, which has to be taken into account when interpreting the data from studies conducted in these countries. Also, there are some limitations in the transferability of the results of the research conducted in Western countries (Mahmud et al., 2019). Both countries face the same integrity issues in higher education; both countries made significant progress toward the culture of academic integrity. Summary of the most significant achievements in both countries: • Czechia – projects focused on plagiarism prevention and academic integrity in online education. • Czechia – handbooks on plagiarism (Foltýnek et al., 2020a, b). • Slovakia – national declaration on scientific integrity. • Slovakia – emphasis of the Slovak national accreditation agency for higher education on systemic improvements at a national level. Even though both countries made significant progress in the field of academic integrity, there is still a lot of work that has to be done. Let us take some of the suggestions from the book A Research Agenda for Academic Integrity, from the chapter dedicated to Eastern Europe, in which we draw the agenda for future research in the area of academic integrity. We call for more evidence-based approaches based on a deeper understanding of the consequences of introduced measures. More data is needed about assignment outsourcing, namely, in the context of recent advances in the artificial intelligence content generators. We also call for more research on region-specific and country-specific issues (Foltýnek & Dlabolová, 2020). To strengthen democracy, Slovak politicians should accept responsibility for their academic misconduct. Prompt resignation should be a natural outcome of every plagiarism scandal (Tudoroiu, 2017; Sekerák, 2022). According to the qualitative study, there should be more conversations with students about academic integrity issues. However, the academic community should not focus on student misconduct only. Misconduct committed by academics is much more severe, because it indicates a lack of professional integrity and gives bad examples to students. The respondents endorse the importance of intrinsic motivation and the development of a culture of academic integrity, from which not only the academic community but the whole society can benefit. Both Czechia and Slovakia have come a long way toward a culture of academic integrity. However, fully functioning academic integrity procedures and a community honoring fairness, responsibility, honesty, and trust are still far away. This process will surely bring many new challenges, but due to the proximity of the two nations, mutual support, cooperation, exchange of experience, and collaboration can only speed up and facilitate the path to building academic integrity in both countries. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the interviewees of the qualitative study for their time and valuable input for this chapter.

10

Academic Integrity in Czechia and Slovakia

151

Literature Bajtos, J. (2020). Regulation of school cheating of secondary school students from the teachers’ perspectivity. In ICERI2020 proceedings (pp. 1897–1901). https://library.iated.org/view/ BAJTOS2020REG Bajtos, J. (2021). On-line teaching during the Covid-19 pandemic period and its effects on the quality of teaching and on the possibilities of violating academic honesty from the students’ point of view. In INTED2021 proceedings (pp. 404–410). https://library.iated.org/view/ BAJTOS2021ONL Bajtos, J., Hasajova, L., & Gabrhelová, G. (2020). Methods of school cheating from the students’ point of view. In EDULEARN20 proceedings (pp. 1309–1315). https://library.iated.org/view/ BAJTOS2020MET Baysen, E., Hošková-Mayerová, Š., Çakmak, N., & Baysen, F. (2017). Misconceptions of Czech and Turkish university students in providing citations. In A. Maturo, Š. Hošková-Mayerová, D. T. Soitu, & J. Kacprzyk (Eds.), Recent trends in social systems: Quantitative theories and quantitative models. Studies in systems, decision and control (Vol. 66). Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-40585-8_16 Bik, E. (2022). New Mendel university rector found guilty of misconduct. Available from https:// scienceintegritydigest.com/2022/01/25/new-mendel-university-rector-found-guilty-of-miscon duct/. Accessed 2023-01-03. CEITEC. (2022). Research group of Prof. Vojtěch Adam terminated. Available from https://www. ceitec.cz/research-group-of-prof-vojtech-adam-terminated/t11068. Accessed 2023-01-03. ČSÚ. (2022). Studenti a absolventivysokýchškol v Českérepublice – 2001–2021. Available from https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/studenti-a-absolventi-vysokych-skol-v-ceske-republice. Accessed 2023-01-03. Czech Higher Education Act. (2017). Act no. 111/1998 Coll. (Amended And Consolidated) on higher education institutions and on amendments and supplements to some other acts (The Higher Education Act). Available (in English) from https://www.msmt.cz/file/43791_1_2/. Accessed 2023-01-10. Dannhoferová, J., Foltýnek, T., Dlabolová, D., & Fishman, T. (2022). Cutting the vicious circle: Addressing the inconsistency in teachers’ approaches to academic integrity breaches. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 15(1), 10–22. https://doi.org/10. 7160/eriesj.2022.150102 Dömeová, L., & Jindrová, A. (2013). Unethical behavior of the students of the Czech University of Life Sciences. International Education Studies [Online], 6(11). https://doi.org/10.5539/ies. v6n11p77 ERA Portal. (2021). Declaration on fostering the culture of scientific integrity in Slovakia. Available from https://eraportal.sk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/DECLARATION-on-Foster ing-the-Culture-of-Scientific-Intergrity-in-Slovakia_web.pdf. Accessed 2023-01-10. ERA Portal. (n.d.). Ethics in research. Available from https://eraportal.sk/en/eraportal/ethics-inresearch/. Accessed 2023-10-01. Farková, B. (2013). Intertextuality in student works – Comparison of results of the Swedish and the Czech study. In Plagiarism across Europe and beyond (pp. 14–26). Mendel University in Brno. https://academicintegrity.eu/conference/proceedings/2013/Farkova_Intertextuality.pdf Filipec, O. (2021). Ethics and plagiarism in students’ opinions: A case study from The Czech Republic. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 3(2), 103–115. https://doi.org/10. 33902/JPSP.2021274943 Foltýnek, T. (2013a). Plagiarism policies in the Czech Republic – Full report: Impact of policies for plagiarism in higher education across Europe [online]. Available at: http://plagiarism.cz/ ippheae/files/D2-3-05%20CZ%20IPPHEAE%20MENDELU%20Survey%20CzechNarrative %20FINAL.pdf. Accessed 2023-01-03. Foltýnek. (2013b). IPPHAE report Czechia. http://plagiarism.cz/ippheae/files/D2-3-05%20CZ% 20IPPHEAE%20MENDELU%20Survey%20CzechNarrative%20FINAL.pdf

152

T. Folty´nek et al.

Foltýnek. (2013c). IPPHEAE report Slovakia. http://plagiarism.cz/ippheae/files/D2-3-26%20SK% 20IPPHEAE%20MENDELU%20Survey%20SlovakiaNarrative%20FINAL.pdf Foltýnek, T., & Čech, F. (2013). Attitude to plagiarism in different European countries. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 60(7), 71–80. https://doi. org/10.11118/actaun201260070071 Foltýnek, T., & Dlabolová, D. (2020). Academic integrity in Eastern Europe: Beyond corruption and plagiarism. In T. Bretag (Ed.), A research agenda for academic integrity (pp. 40–54). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789903775 Foltýnek, T., & Glendinning, I. (2015). Impact of policies for plagiarism in higher education across Europe: Results of the project. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et SilviculturaeMendelianaeBrunensis, 63(1), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201563010207 Foltýnek, T., & Králíková, V. (2018). Analysis of the contract cheating market in Czechia. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-0180027-8 Foltýnek, T., Kravjar, J., & Glendinning, I. (2014). Case study: Policies, strategies and responses to plagiarism in Slovakia. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 7(1), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2014.070104 Foltýnek, T., et al. (2020a). How to avoid plagiarism. Karolinum. ISBN 978–80–246-4816-3. https://karolinum.cz/knihy/foltynek-how-to-avoid-plagiarism-24023 Foltýnek, T., et al. (2020b). How to prevent plagiarism in student work. Karolinum. ISBN 978–80–246-4817-0. https://karolinum.cz/knihy/foltynek-how-to-prevent-plagiarism-in-stu dent-work-24024 Grohová, H. (2018). Jak se studovalo za první republiky. Studenta. Available from https://www. studenta.cz/work/jak-se-studovalo-za-prvni-republiky/r~3aed8b00d5e611e8b295ac1f6b220ee8/. Accessed 2023-01-03. Hall, R., et al. (2019). Analýza zistení o stave školstva na Slovensku: To dá rozum. MESA10. https:// analyza.todarozum.sk/analyza-zisteni-o-stave-skolstva-na-slovensku.pdf Honzíková, J., Simbartl, P., & Bajtoš, J. (2021). Digital technology as a tool for school cheating in high schools. Journal of Technology and Information [Online], 12(2), 102–111. ISSN 1803537X. https://jtie.upol.cz/pdfs/jti/2020/02/08.pdf Králíková, V. (2017). Analýza trhu s podvodnými seminárními a závěrečnými pracemi v ČR. Diploma thesis. Mendel University in Brno, Faculty of Business and Economics. Available online from https://is.mendelu.cz/lide/clovek.pl?zalozka¼7;id¼50123;studium¼84877; zp¼58193;download_prace¼1 Králíková, V., Foltýnek, T., Dannhoferová, J., Dlabolová, D., & Turčínek, P. (2018). Global essay mills survey in Czechia: Insights into the cheater’s mind. In S. Razı, I. Glendinning, & T. Foltýnek (Eds.), Towards consistency and transparency in academic integrity. Peter Lang. Králíková, V., Foltýnek, T., & Vajdíková, R. (2019). Global essay mills survey: Is student cheating related to the national economy? Ethical Perspectives, 26(1), 91–118. https://doi.org/10.2143/ EP.26.1.3286290 Kravjar, J. (2015). SK Antiplag is bearing fruit. In Plagiarism across Europe and beyond – Conference proceedings, pp. 147–163. Available from https://academicintegrity.eu/confer ence/proceedings/2015/Kravjar_SKAntiplag.pdf. Accessed 2023-01-03. Mahmud, S., Bretag, T., & Foltýnek, T. (2019). Students’ perceptions of plagiarism policy in higher education: A comparison of the United Kingdom, Czechia, Poland and Romania. Journal of Academic Ethics, 17, 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-018-9319-0 Masaryk University. (2019a). Masarykova univerzita zahájí deset řízení o odebrání titulu.- Press release. Available from https://www.em.muni.cz/udalosti/12020-masarykova-univerzitazahajeni-deset-rizeni-o-odebrani-titulu. Accessed 2023-01-03. Masaryk University. (2019b). Výslkedky druhé kontroly závěrečných prací. Available from https:// is.muni.cz/do/mu/tiskove_zpravy/Druha_kontrola_zaverecnych_praci_NL.pdf. Accessed 2023-01-03.

10

Academic Integrity in Czechia and Slovakia

153

Masaryk University. (2020). Dva absolventi MUNI přijdou o titul. V dalším případě bude zneplatněna obhajoba. Press release. Available from https://www.em.muni.cz/udalosti/12478dva-absolventi-muni-prijdou-o-titul-v-dalsim-pripade-bude-zneplatnena-obhajoba. Accessed 2023-01-03. NAU. (2022). Doporučená osnova sebehodnotící zprávy pro akreditaci studijních programů. Available from https://www.nauvs.cz/attachments/article/71/RNAU-schvaleno-2022-203-7SP-podklad%20pril%20E.docx. Accessed 2023-01-10. NAU. (n.d.) National Accreditation Bureau for Higher Education. Available from https://www. nauvs.cz. Accessed 2023-01-10. Pabian, P. (2015). Why ‘cheating’ research is wrong: New departures for the study of student copying in higher education. Higher Education, 69, 809–821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734014-9806-1 Preiss, M., Klein, H. A., Levenburg, N. M., & Nohavova, A. (2013). A cross-country evaluation of cheating in academia – A comparison of data from the US and The Czech Republic. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11(2), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-013-9179-6 SAAVS. (2020). Štandardy pre vnútorný systém zabezpečovania kvality vysokoškolského vzdelávania. Available from https://saavs.sk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Standardy-prevnutorny-system-zabezpecovania-kvality-2.pdf. Accessed 2023-01-10. SAAVS. (n.d.) Slovak accreditation agency for higher education. Available from https://saavs.sk/ en/. Accessed 2023-01-10. Schneider, L. (2020). Extraordinary results of the Olomouc Nano-con. For better science. Available from https://forbetterscience.com/2020/07/13/extraordinary-results-of-the-olomouc-nano-con/. Accessed 2023-01-03. SCSTI. (2022). Štatistická ročenka – vysoké školy. https://www.cvtisr.sk/cvti-sr-vedecka-kniznica/ informacie-o-skolstve/statistiky/statisticka-rocenka-publikacia/statisticka-rocenka-vysokeskoly.html?page_id¼9596 Sekerák, M. (2022). ‘I am De facto a thief in this matter’: Thesis plagiarism cases of elected representatives and the concept of political accountability (case study of Slovakia and The Czech Republic). European Review, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798722000072 Sijtsma, K. (2017). Never waste a good crisis: Towards responsible data management. WCRI 2017 keynote address. Slovak Higher Education Act. (2022). Act. no. 131/2002 Coll. on Higher Education Institutions and on Amendments and Supplements to Some Other Acts. Available from https://www.slov-lex.sk/ pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/2002/131/20230101. Accessed 2023-01-10. Smolík, J., & Herbočková, L. (2021). Attitudes of students at the faculty of regional development and international studies toward plagiarism. Human Affairs, 31(1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10. 1515/humaff-2021-0005 Theses. (2022). Zapojené instituce. https://theses.cz/zapojeni. Accessed 2023-01-10. To dá rozum. (n.d.). To dá rozum. Available from https://todarozum.sk/#oprojekte. Accessed 202301-10. To dá rozum. (2020). Odporúčanie pre skvalitnenie školstva na Slovensku. Available from https:// todarozum.sk/admin/files/file_879_1620822885.pdf. Accessed 2023-01-10. Tudoroiu, T. (2017). No, prime minister: PhD plagiarism of high level public officials. European Review, 25(4), 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798717000229 UPOL. (n.d.). Historie univerzity. Available from https://www.upol.cz/univerzita/zakladniinformace/historie-univerzity/. Accessed 2023-01-03.

The State of Academic Integrity in the Anglophone Caribbean

11

Ruth Baker-Gardner

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plagiarism in Caribbean Societies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Integrity in Secondary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Integrity in Tertiary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strategies for Developing Academic Integrity in the Caribbean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Challenges to the Development of Academic Integrity in the Caribbean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

156 159 160 160 163 164 166 167 167

Abstract

As globalization increases access to tertiary education across national boundaries and fuels the migration of labor across regions, the Caribbean becomes a significant player in this movement. With its nationals gaining access to programs from universities across the world and taking advantage of employment opportunities in the global labor markets, many of which require education at the tertiary level, ensuring that academic integrity is developed and maintained in the Caribbean is of greatest concern. Research in academic integrity in the Caribbean is just emerging, and this chapter discusses plagiarism in Caribbean society generally and the approach to academic integrity at the secondary level. In addition, it examines academic integrity in higher education by focusing on students’ perceptions of plagiarism, its prevalence, and its presentation in plagiarism and accreditation policies. It concludes by discussing the challenges to academic integrity development in the region.

R. Baker-Gardner (*) The Department of Library and Information Studies, The University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_85

155

156

R. Baker-Gardner

Keywords

Academic integrity · Caribbean · Plagiarism · Higher education · Academic misconduct · CARICOM · Anglophone Caribbean · English-speaking Caribbean

Introduction Academic integrity is critical to the education landscape globally, and seeing that the Caribbean is a part of that global village, academic integrity is also important to the education system in the region. As a result of the shared history of colonization by Britain, social institutions in the Caribbean such as its education system still bear this historical influence. However, its proximity to North America has had a significant influence on its culture and practices. It is within this historical and geographical context that education is provided by governments in each territory through a local Ministry of Education. Any attempt to define the Caribbean would mean answering the question “Which Caribbean?” as there are six types of definitions (political, geographic, cultural, geological, historical, or diasporic) to choose from, and the one that is preferred will depend on one’s purpose for the definition. The New World Encyclopedia defines the Caribbean geographically as “a region of the Americas consisting of the Caribbean Sea, its islands, and the surrounding coasts. The region is located southeast of North America, east of Central America, and to the northwest of South America” (Caribbean, n.d.). In terms of boundaries: Stretching from The Bahamas in the north to Suriname and Guyana in South America, CARICOM [Caribbean Community] comprises states that are considered developing countries, and except for Belize, in Central America and Guyana and Suriname in South America, all Members and Associate Members are island states. (Member States and Associate Members, 2022)

CARICOM is a group of 20 countries the majority of which were colonies of Britain, but they have since become independent territories. Member States of CARICOM are: Antigua, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago. Associate members are those countries that are still dependent territories of Britain: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, and the Turks and Caicos Islands (Member States and Associate Members, 2022). Except for Haiti and Suriname, the official language spoken in these territories is English, a remnant of British influence. The countries together are referred to as the English-speaking or Anglophone Caribbean (Devonish, 2006, 283). Both Suriname and Haiti will be omitted from this discussion as their official language is not English, and this chapter specifically focuses on the Anglophone Caribbean.

11

The State of Academic Integrity in the Anglophone Caribbean

157

The Caribbean has a four-tiered education system which begins with early childhood education provided to students ages 3–6 years. After completing early childhood education, students progress to primary education for the next 6 years. In the final year of primary school, students take an entrance examination the results of which are used to assign them places in secondary schools where they will spend between 5 and 7 years. During this period, they take several regional examinations including the Caribbean Secondary School Certificate (CSEC) and Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examination (CAPE) which are offered by the Caribbean Examination Council (CXC). Passes from these examinations are used for matriculation into tertiary education or for entry into the labor force. At the tertiary level, they have several local institutions to choose from based on their areas of interest. They also have the option of traveling overseas to study or choosing from the many programs which are offered online by institutions globally. The interrelated nature of the education systems of the Caribbean is exemplified through CXC and The University of the West Indies (UWI) which are institutions of CARICOM. CXC was established in 1972, and it offers examinations that replaced the General Certificate of Education ordinary and advanced level examinations which originated out of the United Kingdom. CXC describes itself as “an institution that provides regional and internationally recognized secondary school leaving examinations relevant to the needs of the region; assist in Common Entrance and other types of examinations; produce teaching materials and train teachers to use the CXC syllabi; and advise regional governments on education” (Caribbean Examinations Council, 2022). The University of the West Indies is the premier higher education institution in the region with campuses in Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Antigua and Barbuda. It has a fifth virtual campus called the Open Campus. The UWI is ranked in the top 600 universities in the world, in the top 40 universities in Latin America and the Caribbean, and number 1 in the Caribbean (The University of the West Indies, 2022). Together, The UWI and CXC command a large share of the education market in the Caribbean, and it is almost impossible for a Caribbean national to complete his educational journey without enrolling in at least one of these institutions. Heyneman states that Latin America and the Caribbean have the second most corrupt education system globally (2011, 15), and this presents cause for concern for institutions at both the secondary and tertiary levels. It will mean that they will have to be vigilant in protecting their reputations in a system where cheating behaviors are practiced. There is also recent data to show that there is corruption in the educational systems of the Caribbean. The Global Corruption Barometer released by Transparency International presents data on bribery for the use of basic services in both Latin America and the Caribbean (Pring & Vrushi, 2019). The survey involved 17,000 citizens in 18 countries, and data was collected from January to March 2019. The responses for those who paid a bribe to use education services for countries within the Anglophone Caribbean for 2018 are displayed in Fig. 1. Over the period under examination, 27% of the respondents from Guyana paid a bride to access and use an educational service. The Bahamas reported the fewest instances of bribery (9%). The percentage of individuals who paid to access services

158

R. Baker-Gardner

Fig. 1 Bribery for use of education services in five Caribbean territories. (Source of data: Pring & Vrushi 2019, pp. 16–17)

that should be available free is rather alarming and may be a result of the difficulty of gaining quick access to them. However, this does not bode well for the Caribbean. This, therefore, means that academic integrity must now become a priority for CARICOM, with its two regional institutions, the ministries of education in each territory, and for institutions at both the secondary and tertiary levels as failure to attend to it in this kind of climate might have dire consequences. But why should the rest of the world be so concerned about academic integrity in the Caribbean? This region is important for three reasons. First, the global education sector derives its strength from the individual systems of which it is comprised. The Caribbean is very much a part of this global network. The UWI’s partnership with ten other universities in Africa, China, North and South America, and Europe shows the Caribbean’s involvement in the global education sector. In addition, the UWI’s high score of 90.3% for citations on the Times Education Ranking shows that its scholars are significant contributors to the scholarly communication process (The University of the West Indies, 2022). The use of research from the Caribbean by international scholars and the collaboration with other institutions show that the international community believes in the integrity of the region, and this has to be carefully guarded. Second, persons educated in the Caribbean take their qualifications elsewhere in the international labor market. The statistics on migration from the Caribbean are instructive in this discussion and point to the importance of having robust academic integrity systems in the region. It is reported that, as of 2020, there were 8.22 million Caribbean nationals living outside the region, and of this number, 89.6% were living in North America, South America, and Europe. North America was the preferred destination being home to 74.8% of the Caribbean emigrants (Migration Data in the

11

The State of Academic Integrity in the Anglophone Caribbean

159

Caribbean, 2021). As is expected, many of these individuals acquired education in the Caribbean prior to migrating, and so, receiving countries are employing individuals educated in the Caribbean with the expectation that they would have honestly acquired these certifications. Third, students from the Caribbean interface with the international education system. While living in the Caribbean, they may enroll in overseas universities to pursue their degrees. On the other hand, many of the Caribbean emigrants are likely to pursue additional education and training in the countries to which they migrate. Given the interaction of regional students with the international education systems and the challenges of academic integrity encountered by international students (Durrani, 2019; Sanni-Anibire et al., 2021), their understanding of academic integrity will be important in navigating these institutions. The Caribbean could be described as a late arrivant on the academic integrity landscape. Research on academic integrity in the region is just emerging, and as such its academic integrity systems could best be described as being at an infancy stage. This chapter presents a review of the available literature and provides an overview of the academic integrity practices in the region. The studies from the Caribbean used in this chapter focused on plagiarism and not on academic integrity generally. The term academic integrity is not frequently used in academic discourses in the Caribbean; however, the term plagiarism is widely known. Given the scarcity of empirical works on academic integrity in the Caribbean, and that plagiarism is the most frequently occurring form of academic misconduct (Plagiarism and Academic Integrity, 2022; What is Academic Misconduct, 2022), it is expected that the findings from these studies are applicable to academic integrity generally. This chapter is important because it shares with the community of scholars who have an interest in academic integrity the voice of the Caribbean on the issue. It is a useful addition to the literature as it combines and discusses the findings from several studies to give an overview of academic integrity in the Caribbean. It adds to the regional literature on academic integrity and signals to the international education community that the Caribbean has broken its silence and has now entered into the discussion. It examines plagiarism in Caribbean societies generally and then focuses on academic integrity at the secondary and tertiary levels. It then discusses ways the Caribbean has sought to manage academic integrity issues and the challenges to these approaches.

Plagiarism in Caribbean Societies Like in other societies, Baker-Gardner’s examination of newspaper articles found that plagiarism was present in the Caribbean. Of the 62 articles on plagiarism found in newspapers from across the Caribbean for the years 2002–2017, approximately 47% focused on plagiarism in education, while 29% focused on plagiarism in politics. These articles were from 26 newspapers from ten territories, demonstrating an awareness of plagiarism across the region. The most frequent breach of academic integrity based on an analysis of these articles was the unattributed borrowing of ideas, academic content, and academic and political speeches which accounted for 43.5% of the articles (Baker-Gardner, 2022, 92). The high percentage of articles in

160

R. Baker-Gardner

education is not necessarily a reflection of more plagiarism in that sector but instead could reflect the sensitivity of the education sector to academic misconduct. It must also be noted that the number of articles is not necessarily a reflection of the number of cases of academic misconduct, given that newspapers report what is “newsworthy” and not every case of academic misconduct would fall into this category.

Academic Integrity in Secondary Education As with other jurisdictions, the secondary education sector has also been impacted by academic misconduct. CXC has played a significant role in ensuring integrity in its examination processes and products, including the school-based assessments (SBA). CXC describes SBAs as “assessments administered in schools and marked by the students’ own teachers” (Caribbean Examination Council, 2020, 1). SBA was introduced in 1979, and the Council reports that it was the first major examining board to adopt this form of assessment. SBAs have since become an integral part of the examination process in the Caribbean. Seeing that SBA is done outside the examination room, academic integrity has to be given serious consideration. CXC has guidelines to this effect. In addition, the Ministries of Education in Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, the two largest countries in the English-Speaking Caribbean, have also created guidelines to ensure the integrity of SBAs. Like any other system in the world, the council will face cases of academic misconduct; however, Heyneman (2011) believes that an ethical academy can withstand these threats successfully. There were anecdotal references to academic integrity breaches at the secondary level reported by Caribbean newspapers, and these cheating behaviors were most prevalent in Jamaica (Baker-Gardner, 2022) which has the highest number of candidates for these examinations. These breaches included cheating inside and outside the examination room, the sale of examination papers, and the use of cell phones in examination rooms. Empirical data also point to plagiarism in SBAs (Baker-Gardner, 2022). The number of cases was minuscule when compared to the number of students who registered for these examinations. Where there were examination breaches, the Council responded by applying the sanctions specified in its policies and guidelines and through legal avenues in some cases where applicable. These sanctions included not awarding any grade for sections of the examination, disqualifying candidates, or warning them and allowing them to redo the SBA (Caribbean Examination Council, 2020). Investigations into some of these cases of misconduct show that teachers have been complicit in helping students to cheat (Baker-Gardner, 2022; Reid, 2013).

Academic Integrity in Tertiary Education Globally, academic integrity has received more attention at the tertiary level than any other, and the sparse research in the Caribbean follows this trend. This section examines the findings of research conducted on the perceptions of plagiarism, its

11

The State of Academic Integrity in the Anglophone Caribbean

161

prevalence and presentation in academic integrity, and plagiarism policies, as well as in accreditation policies and guidelines. Policies for Academic Integrity and Plagiarism: Like the rest of the Englishspeaking world which has plagiarism policies online (Hu & Sun, 2017), the majority of Caribbean HEIs had online policies that addressed academic integrity (BakerGardner, 2022) or were in the process of developing these policies (Porter, 2016). These policies existed in different forms. There were academic integrity policies that addressed plagiarism and other aspects of academic integrity such as cheating in examinations. There were policies that addressed plagiarism only. Institutions that considered academic misconduct a disciplinary issue embedded their guidelines on academic misconduct in the disciplinary policies (Baker-Gardner, 2022). Like other jurisdictions, there was great variation in the policies in terms of the contents, the approach to academic integrity, and the support systems provided to students (Hu & Sun, 2017; McGrail & McGrail, 2015). The most popular elements in these policies were a definition for plagiarism and a listing of the sanctions. Other elements included a listing of the types of behaviors classified as plagiarism and sources of assistance for students. Some institutions had plagiarism policies that addressed the issue in a superficial manner in a few sentences or paragraphs, while others took a more detailed approach. Some policies made distinctions between cases of plagiarism based on severity, with the less severe cases labeled as Level 1 and attracting lesser penalties than the more severe cases (Level 2). The majority of these policies were current; however, some institutions had policies more than a decade old published on their official website (Baker-Gardner, 2022). Given the significant changes in the educational landscape over the past decade, coupled with the belief that the Internet is now fueling cheating behaviors, especially plagiarism (Yeung et al., 2018; Sureda-Negre et al., 2015, 105; Jereb et al., 2018) and contract cheating (Newton, 2018), this was clearly not acceptable and spoke to the lack of attention to academic integrity. Prevalence of Plagiarism: Secondary data garnered from four universities give an insight into the prevalence of plagiarism at the tertiary level within the region. These four universities are located in Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Barbados. The data revealed that over a 15-year period, there were a total of 220 cases of plagiarism reported in these institutions. The determinant as to whether a case could be categorized as Level 2, which is the more extreme, was whether or not the student intentionally plagiarized (University Regulations on Plagiarism Graduate Diplomas and Degrees, 2013). When compared to systems with robust academic integrity processes, the number of cases could best be described as negligible. However, Boyle, Boyle and Carpenter’s (2016) finding that only approximately 50% of the students caught plagiarizing were reported might mean that these figures are not truly representative of the number of students who are cheating. According to Baker-Gardner (2022), the average annual number of cases of plagiarism in the Caribbean when calculated against the number of students enrolled in these institutions was 1:1500. This when compared to 1:236 obtained from the University of Mary Washington and 1:453 from Oxford University (Baker-Gardner, 2022) shows a significant disparity. In interpreting this finding, the reader has to bear

162

R. Baker-Gardner

in mind that both Oxford and the University of Mary Washington have developed academic integrity systems, an element that was missing in the Caribbean. The University of Mary Washington treats academic integrity as a core institutional value that is visible and audible on campus. It has an active honor council, and in 2020, it held an honor convocation. In addition, the institution has workshops on writing for students and provides links to other websites with information on academic integrity. It provides students the opportunity to report violations of the honor code and places a summary of its cases online (Academic Integrity, 2022), an action believed to be successful in decreasing cheating behaviors (Vazquez-Recio et al., 2016, 5711; Bahadori et al., 2012; Sisti, 2007, 222). It is possible that the significant disparity between the number of actual cases and the number of reported cases in the Caribbean is due to a lack of institutional support, psychological discomfort, opportunity cost (Thomas, 2017), lack of evidence, and the time required to follow through with the process (Keith-Spiegel et al., 1998), among others. Another factor that needs to be given consideration in the Caribbean scenario is that only the more serious cases of plagiarism are highlighted and dealt with at the institutional level. The Level 1 cases in this context would have been dealt with at the course or departmental levels and so would not be included in that number. The findings revealed that some cases of plagiarism were going undetected in the Caribbean, as was the case globally. Porter’s investigation into the perceptions of plagiarism among teachers’ college students revealed that 72% of the 40 respondents indicated that they had copied an assignment from the Internet; however, none of these students were caught. In addition, approximately 58% admitted to not citing sources, and about 68% indicated that they did not cite their sources correctly, although this latter behavior does not necessarily constitute plagiarism. This empirical data is supported by the findings by Baker-Gardner and Smart (2017) in which students reported that they plagiarized unintentionally due to a lack of knowledge; however, these students were also not caught. Internationally, Rutgers University reported that 12% of the 16,000 students enrolled in highly ranked universities in the United States reported that they were regular cheaters (Cyberplagiarism and Statistics, 2022). In terms of actual numbers, this would be 1920 students who cheated regularly. This would mean the ratio of cheaters in the student populations used in the Rutgers’ study is approximately 1:8. Throughout the literature, there is a disparity between those who reportedly cheat and the number of cases detected; however, it is difficult to determine the gap. Therefore, the Caribbean with its seemingly low cases of academic misconduct cannot take comfort in numbers. Perceptions of Plagiarism: Perceptions of plagiarism are widely studied, so much so that Nushi and Firoozkohi (2017) make reference to Pecorari who advocates that there is no need for further investigations on this aspect of the topic. However, while this might be true for other geographic locations, there is a need for research of this nature in the Caribbean to see how perceptions of plagiarism compare with those globally. This research is also important for the Caribbean seeing that perceptions are likely to impact behavior. Based on the findings of studies that examined Caribbean students’ perceptions of plagiarism, it can be concluded that their beliefs did not differ much from what was obtained in the literature.

11

The State of Academic Integrity in the Anglophone Caribbean

163

Whereas the majority of students viewed plagiarism as wrong, there was still a small but significant number who either believed it was right or was undecided (BakerGardner, 2022; Porter, 2016; Walcott, 2016). The difference between those who believed it was wrong and those who believed it was right or were undecided was marginal (Baker-Gardner, 2022). Those who believed it was wrong felt that assigning harsher penalties would deter students from plagiarizing (Baker-Gardner, 2022; Porter, 2016). The need to complete their studies and help their friends were significant factors that were likely to induce students to plagiarize (Baker-Gardner, 2022; Porter, 2016). Another recurring issue found in the literature which might impact cheating behaviors was students’ perception of their lack of understanding of plagiarism (Baker-Gardner, 2022; Porter, 2016; Walcott, 2016). Caribbean students’ perception of plagiarism concurred with the findings of Power that students tended to disconnect themselves from the issue (2009), and this might be due to either lack of understanding of the concept of plagiarism or a misunderstanding of its severity. In addition, those who wanted justification for plagiarism avoided responsibility by placing it on the faculty and the institution (Carpenter et al., 2006). One other significant perception that needs to be highlighted here is the difference in perception between faculty and students. Students believe that the faculty was overexaggerating the seriousness of plagiarism whereas they perceive that it is not all that important (Baker-Gardner, 2022). Although the perceptions of faculty toward plagiarism were not examined in the Caribbean context, based on students’ responses it could be deduced that students and faculty hold opposing perspectives on the matter, with the former viewing it as less serious than the latter (Gullifer & Tyson, 2010, 17; Lynch et al., 2017). Academic Integrity and Accreditation: Accreditation agencies in the Caribbean are proactive and are to embrace the inclusion of academic integrity in their standards for both program and institutional accreditation (Baker-Gardner, 2022). Three such agencies are the University Council of Jamaica, the National Accreditation Board of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and the National Accreditation Council of Guyana. The guidelines from Jamaica are the most detailed. This document sets out in precise detail what evidence needs to be provided to demonstrate that academic integrity is assured for both program and institutional accreditation. The focus of these three agencies is mainly on having policies for academic integrity which included established procedures for dealing with such breaches. Institutions are also required to provide data on the number of cases of academic misconduct (Baker-Gardner, 2022). It is expected that as the body of research on academic integrity in the Caribbean expands, these accreditation agencies will begin to require that institutions provide evidence of a more formal system to support academic integrity development in students.

Strategies for Developing Academic Integrity in the Caribbean Even with its emerging system of academic integrity, there are some strategies being implemented that are reaping success. Education is advocated as the most effective means of developing academic integrity generally, and action research done in the

164

R. Baker-Gardner

Caribbean shows that it holds true for the region. Welsh-Unwala (2019) conducted a small-scale study with 110 computer students over a period of five semesters. This involved education on plagiarism, and the design of assignments aimed at giving students opportunities to practice what they were learning. She reported that “Following the class, students indicated a greater understanding of plagiarism, more agreements with stricter penalties for plagiarism, and less agreement on the acceptability of reusing past assignments” (33). This was in concert with students’ appeal for education on plagiarism which they believed would be helpful in ensuring that they do not plagiarize unintentionally (Baker-Gardner, 2022). Other studies also show a great desire on the part of students to be educated about plagiarism (Porter, 2016; Walcott, 2016), and this can be seen as applicable to academic integrity generally. Currently, the majority of tertiary institutions in the region offer tutorials and seminars on citation and referencing mainly through the libraries. In addition, some institutions offer foundational writing courses aimed at developing writing skills (Baker-Gardner, 2022). Students being trained as teachers in Jamaica also get the opportunity to pursue a course in information literacy (Jamaica Information Service, 2017). These should assist in developing academic integrity. However, the challenge is that these tend to be ad hoc approaches that do not meet the needs of students and do not target the development of necessary skills in a systematic way. Gilbert et al.’s (2007) model of an institutional audit to identify the various academic integrity initiatives in each institution and to systematize these is pertinent in this context. This situation would suggest that an academic integrity audit is needed by Caribbean institutions as this will provide an overall picture of academic integrity practices and also reveal areas that need to be developed and strengthened.

Challenges to the Development of Academic Integrity in the Caribbean The region faces several significant challenges with respect to the development of academic integrity. The first of these is a singular focus on plagiarism and not a holistic understanding of academic integrity generally. This results in sessions geared toward helping students avoid plagiarism generally focusing mainly on citation and referencing. This narrow focus ignores the complexity of plagiarism (Sutherland-Smith, 2008) and does little to resolve what Sutherland-Smith describes as the “layered reality of the issue” (2008, 3). Insufficient knowledge of plagiarism is a significant contributor to the practice (Gullifer & Tyson, 2010; Ismail, 2018). Whereas students are able to provide a definition of plagiarism, they are unable to avoid the practice due to superficial knowledge (Power, 2009, 650). The focus on citation and referencing does not address this important causative factor, and it reinforces students’ already incorrect understanding of the issue and oversimplifies the solution. Another challenge to academic integrity in the Caribbean is the lack of instructions at the secondary level (Baker-Gardner, 2022; Baker-Gardner & Smart, 2017),

11

The State of Academic Integrity in the Anglophone Caribbean

165

which has negative implications for students who enter tertiary education. There are three main reasons for this. First, instructions on academic integrity are best delivered through media and information literacy (Lomness et al., 2021); however, the region has no programs nor curricula for media and information literacy. Information literacy is taught in some school libraries in Antigua, The Bahamas, Guyana, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago. However, there is no formal curriculum, nor is there any standardization of what is taught across schools in the same territories. Second, both Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago have launched new curricula in the past five years. These upgrades to the curriculum were important given the pervasive nature of information and communication technology and its integration into the educational process. This integration makes it essential for students to have a good understanding of academic integrity as they now have almost unlimited access to the works of others and the avenues through which to access paper mills. Although there were few elements of academic integrity embedded in the curriculum, the language of the field was not consistently used (Baker-Gardner, 2022). Third, there was no evidence that the teachers in Jamaica were equipped to deliver instructions in academic integrity (Porter, 2016) even though they are exposed to courses in information literacy during their training (Jamaica Information Service, 2017). To further compound this problem, school librarians in the Caribbean are the professionals considered most qualified to teach these skills; however, there is a shortage of qualified librarians and school librarians are normally pushed to the periphery of the schools’ operations (Shelley-Robinson, 2007). Two studies (Baker-Gardner & Smart, 2017; Baker-Gardner, 2022) conducted among students in higher education highlight a lack of instructions in plagiarism at the secondary level as a causative factor in lack of knowledge of plagiarism and a contributor to unintentional plagiarism at the tertiary level. Although students in Porter’s (2016) study did not identify a lack of instructions at the secondary level as a factor that exacerbated plagiarism, 40% indicated that they did not know how to cite their sources and another 52.5% did not know when to cite their sources (283). Both reasons point to a lack of instructions in plagiarism, and given that the majority of these respondents were in year 1, it is possible this weakness was at the secondary level. Lack of instruction in academic integrity at the secondary level will result in students who enter tertiary institutions without the prerequisite knowledge. In addition, it was discovered that students learned cheating behaviors early in their academic career and that these are usually difficult to change in later years (Tauginienė & Gaižauskaitė, 2018). For these reasons, a robust program for academic integrity at the secondary level would be beneficial to students and to the region as a whole. Another challenge to academic integrity development in the Caribbean is the individualized approach by each institution which could stem from a lack of regional or national policies to address the issue. One feature of this approach is the deafening silence in the public sphere about academic integrity as institutions tend to be silent as it is believed that to admit there is a challenge to academic integrity might negatively impact an institution’s image in a competitive market for tertiary students. The issue is highlighted only when serious cases are reported in the news. Another

166

R. Baker-Gardner

challenge that is connected to the lack of regional or national policies is the lack of nationally accepted definitions for the concepts and behaviors related to academic integrity. This was most evident in the analysis of plagiarism policies which showed the variations in definitions and the incorrect categorization of some of the behaviors which are labeled plagiarism for example collusion (Baker-Gardner, 2022). Another issue that cannot be overlooked is the lack of expertise in academic integrity. This is expected in a system in which not much attention is paid to it, so there are not many opportunities for individuals to develop expertise in the area. This lack of expertise was also evident in some of the policies as they lacked depth and incorrectly labeled some behaviors. One of the possible explanations for the lack of expertise is limited research on academic integrity in the Caribbean which results in a limited understanding of the issue. However, this is changing as over the past six years, five articles and a book have emerged, and it is expected that the number of research articles will continue to grow, shedding light on the challenge. The lack of robust educational programs for academic integrity is an expected outcome of the challenges. Generally, the region takes a punitive approach to academic integrity. There is an emphasis on students’ responsibility for practicing academic integrity without the systems required to help them learn about academic integrity and develop the required skills to practice it. Whereas there are activities offered by the university libraries and some foundational work is done in “foundation” writing courses, the centralized approach to academic integrity which is promoted by the literature, and which is considered most effective, is not practiced.

Summary The four-tiered education system of the Caribbean presents its nationals with an education that is comparable to that offered worldwide as evidenced by the ability of the UWI, its flagship institution, to be rated among the best in the world. To further strengthen its position as a region with a robust education system, attention has to be paid to the academic integrity mandate as academic misconduct can tarnish the reputation of the entire region. The attention given to academic integrity in the Caribbean narrowly focuses on plagiarism, and this is due in part to a lack of understanding of what constitutes academic integrity. The emerging literature on academic integrity demonstrates that the region shares some characteristics with others in terms of students’ perception of plagiarism; it is an indicator that the low number of reported cases should not be construed as low levels of participation in academic misconduct. The attention being given to academic integrity in the research literature signals a move in the right direction as the Caribbean attempts to focus attention on a matter that is critical to education quality. In addition, the presence of policies on plagiarism and academic integrity and the inclusion of academic integrity in the accreditation process demonstrate an awareness in the region that needs to be further harnessed and directed so that there can be advancements in this matter. These are early days

11

The State of Academic Integrity in the Anglophone Caribbean

167

yet, and the expectation is that the region will shake off its present lethargy and join those regions that are now giving full attention to academic integrity.

Cross-References ▶ Academic Integrity and International Students: An Inclusive Approach

References Academic Integrity. (2022). University of Mary Washington. Accessed November 20, 2022 from https://academics.umw.edu/academicintegrity/citation-resources/. Bahadori, M., Izadi, M., & Hoseinpourfard, M. (2012). Plagiarism: Concepts, factors and solutions. Iranian Journal of Military Medicine, 14(3), 168–177. Autumn. http://militarymedj.ir/article-11049-en.pdf. Baker-Gardner, R. (2022). Academic integrity in the Caribbean: Plagiarism policies, perceptions, prevalence and possible solutions. The UWI Press. Baker-Gardner, R., & Smart, C. (2017). Ignorance or intent? A case study of plagiarism in higher education among LIS students in the caribbean. In D. M. Velliaris (Ed.), Handbook of research on academic misconduct in higher education (pp. 182–205). IGI Global. Boyle, D. M., Boyle, J. F., & Carpenter, B. W. (2016). Accounting student academic dishonesty: what accounting faculty and administrators believe. The Accounting Educators' Journal Special Edition, 39–61. http://www.aejournal.com/ojs/index.php/aej/article/view/329/171. Caribbean. (n.d.). New world encyclopedia. Retrieved November 27, 2022 from https://www. newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/caribbean Caribbean Examination Council. (2020). School-based assessment (SBA) handbook for teachers. Retrieved November 1, 2022 from https://www.learningsaba.com/2021_October/SBA-Hand book-2020.pdf Caribbean Examinations Council. (2022). CXC. CARICOM. Retrieved October 30, 2022 from https://caricom.org/institutions/caribbean-examinations-council-cxc/ Carpenter, D. D., Harding, T. S., Finelli, Montgomery, C. J., & Passow, H. J. (2006). Engineering students’ perceptions of and attitudes towards cheating. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(3), 181–194. Cyber Plagiarism and Statistics. (2022). Check for Plagiarism. Retrieved November 10, 2022 from https://www.checkforplagiarism.net/cyber-plagiarism Devonish, H. (2006). The anglophone caribbean. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K. Mattheier, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Volume 3: an international handbook of the science of language and society (pp. 2083–2095). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110184181.3.9.2083 Durrani, A. (2019, July 23). What international students should know about academic integrity. Retrieved November 10, 2022. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/201907-23/what-international-students-should-know-about-academic-integrity Gilbert, G., Day, B., Murillo, A., Patton, J., Sibley-Smith, A., & Smith, B.. (2007) Promoting and sustaining an institutional climate of academic integrity. Accessed May, 2020 from https://files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510583.pdf. Gullifer, J., & Tyson, G. A. (2010). Exploring university students’ perceptions of plagiarism: A focus group study. Journal of Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), 463–481. Heyneman, S. P. (2011). The concern with corruption in higher education. In T. B. Gallant (Ed.), The ethical academy: A systems approach to understanding misconduct and empowering change in higher education (pp. 13–26). Routledge.

168

R. Baker-Gardner

Hu, G., & Sun, X. (2017). Institutional policies on plagiarism: The case of eight Chinese universities of foreign languages/international studies. System, 66, 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. system.2017.03.015 Ismail, K. H. (2018). Perceptions of plagiarism among medical and nursing students in Erbil, Iraq. Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal, 18(2), e196–e201. https://doi.org/10.18295/squmj. 2018.18.02.012 Jamaica Information Service. (2017, October 29). Student teachers to learn media, information literacy. Jamaica Observer. http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/career-education/studentteachers-to-learn-media-information-literacy_115280&template¼MobileArticle. Jereb, E., Perc, M., Lämmlein, B., Jerebic, J., Urh, M., Podbregar, I., & Šprajc, P. (2018). Factors influencing plagiarism in higher education: A comparison of German and Slovene students. Plos One, 13(8), e0202252. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202252 Keith-Spiegel, P., Tabachnick, B. G., Whitley, B. E., & Washburn, J. (1998). Why professors ignore cheating: Opinions of a national sample of psychology instructors. Ethics & Behavior, 8(30), 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb0803_3 Lomness, A., Lacey, S., Brobbel, A., & Freeman, T. (2021). Seizing the opportunity: Collaborative creation of academic integrity and information literacy LMS modules for undergraduate Chemistry. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(3), 102328. Lynch, J., Everett, B., Ramjan, L. M., Callins, R., Glew, P., & Salamonson, Y. (2017). Plagiarism in nursing education: An integrative review. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26(19–20), 2845–2864. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13629 McGrail, E., & McGrail, J. P. (2015). Exploring web-based university policy statements on plagiarism by research-intensive higher education institutions. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13 (2), 167–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-015-9229-3 Member States and Associate Members. (2022). CARICOM. Accessed October 25, 2022 from https://caricom.org/member-states-and-associate-members/ Migration data in the Caribbean. (2021, August 27). Migration Data Portal. Accessed October 28, 2022 from https://www.migrationdataportal.org/regional-data-overview/migrationdataCaribbean#:~:text¼As%20of%202020%2C%2090.5%20per,America%2C%20Europe% 20and%20South%20America Newton, P. M. (2018). How common is commercial contract cheating in higher education and is it increasing? A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018. 00067 Nushi, M., & Firoozkohi, A. H. (2017). Plagiarism policies in Iranian university TEFL teachers’ syllabuses: an exploratory study. International Journal of Educational Integrity, 13(12). https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40979-017-0023-4 Plagiarism and Academic Integrity. (2022). St. Petersberg College. Accessed November 10, 2022 from https://spcollege.libguides.com/c.php?g¼254383&p¼1695452 Porter, J. (2016). The Perception of Plagiarism Among Students in one Teachers’ College. In C. H. Gentles (Ed.), 60th yearbook of teacher education: 60th world assembly teachers for a better world: Creating conditions for quality education – Pedagogy, policy and professionalism (pp. 273–282). The University of the West Indies. July 18–21, 2016. Power, L. G. (2009). University students’ perceptions of plagiarism. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(6), 643–662. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27750755?seq=14#metadata_info_ tab_contents Pring, C., & Vrushi, J. (2019). Global corruption barometer Latin America and the Caribbean 2019: Citizens’ views and experiences of corruption. Retrieved October 1, 2022 from https:// www.transparency.org/en/gcb/latin-america/latin-america-and-the-caribbean-x-edition-2019 Reid, T. (2013, October 6). Dunce move – Teacher causes cxc to cancel grades for 70 JC sixthformers. The Gleaner. http://jamaicagleaner.com/gleaner/20131006/lead/lead1.html. Sanni-Anibire, H., Stoesz, B. M., Gervais, L., & Vogt, L. (2021). International students’ knowledge and emotions related to academic integrity at Canadian postsecondary institutions. International Journal of Education Integrity, 17(21). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00088-4

11

The State of Academic Integrity in the Anglophone Caribbean

169

Shelley-Robinson, C. (2007). School libraries in the Caribbean: A Jamaican case study. In S. Renwick & C. Peltier-Davis (Eds.), Caribbean libraries in the 21st century: Changes, challenges, and choices (pp. 95–118). Information Today. Sisti, D. A. (2007). How do high school students justify internet plagiarism? Ethics and Behavior, 17(3), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420701519163 Sureda-Negre, J., Comas-Forgas, R., & Oliver-Trobat. M. (2015). Academic plagiarism among secondary and high school students: Differences in gender and procrastination. Comunicar, 44 (22), 103–110. Sutherland-Smith, W. (2008). Plagiarism the internet and student learning: Improving academic integrity. Routledge. Tauginienė, L., & Gaižauskaitė, I. (2018). Integrity management in high schools: Paving a way to misconduct? In S. Razı, I. Glendinning, & T. Foltýnek (Eds.), Towards consistency and transparency in academic integrity (pp. 105–116). Peter Lang. Thomas, A. (2017). Faculty reluctance to report student plagiarism: A case study. African Journal of Business Ethics, 11(1), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.15249/11-1-148 University of the West Indies. (2022). Times higher education. https://www.timeshighereducation. com/world-university-rankings/university-west-indies Vázquez-Recio, R., Calvo-García, G., López-Gil, M., Picazo-Gutiérrez, M., Ruiz-Bejarano, A.M., & Calvo-Gutiérrez, P. (2016). Conceptions and causes of plagiarism among university students of the degree in infant and primary education. In INTED2016 proceedings (pp. 5705–5713). Walcott, P. (2016). Attitudes of second-year computer science undergraduates toward plagiarism. Caribbean Teaching Scholar, 6, 63–80. https://journals.sta.uwi.edu/ojs/index.php/cts/article/ view/1649 Welsh-Unwala, K. (2019). Plagiarism education in science: the effect of instruction on student attitudes. International Journal of Bahamian Studies, 25, 33–44. http://journals.sfu.ca/cob/ index.php/files/article/viewFile/319/pdf_65. What is academic misconduct. (2022). University of Edinburgh. https://www.ed.ac.uk/academicservices/students/conduct/academic-misconduct/what-is-academic-misconduct#:~: text¼Plagiarism%20is%20the%20most%20common,a%20problem%20within%20higher% 20education. Yeung, A. H. W., Chu, C. B. L., Chu, S. K.-W., & Fung, C. K. W. (2018). Exploring junior secondary students’ plagiarism behavior. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 50 (4), 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000616666625

Academic Integrity in North America: A Comparison of Canada and the USA Sarah Elaine Eaton

12

and Teresa “Teddi” Fishman

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Integrity: Contrasting and Comparing the USA and Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Higher Education Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quality Assurance and Accreditation Boards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Honor Codes in the USA Versus Honor Culture in Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Misconduct Case Management, Sanctioning, and Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, Decolonization, and Indigenization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ongoing Challenges and Calls to Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

172 172 175 176 177 178 179 181 182 182 183 184 184

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to compare and contrast approaches to student academic integrity in the USA and Canada. To explore the points of difference, we explore five aspects of academic integrity which are addressed differently in the USA and Canada: (1) higher education governance; (2) quality assurance and accreditation; (3) honor codes versus an honor culture; (4) academic misconduct case management, sanctioning, and appeals; and (5) equity, diversity, inclusion, decolonization, and Indigenization.

S. E. Eaton (*) Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada e-mail: [email protected] T. “T.” Fishman Richmond, VA, USA © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_84

171

172

S. E. Eaton and T. “T.” Fishman

Keywords

Academic integrity · Educational integrity · Academic misconduct · Academic dishonesty · Canada · United States · Honor codes · Honor councils · Honor culture · Policy · Education policy · Higher education · Student affairs · Academic affairs · Plagiarism · Cheating · Quality assurance · Restorative justice

Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to compare and contrast approaches to student academic integrity and its attendant practices in the USA and Canada. The impetus for this work came from discussions within the European Network for Academic Integrity (ENAI) Policy Working Group, of which we are both members. The working group invites presentations from its members on academic integrity policies in their respective countries. After sharing presentations about our respective countries, Canada and the USA, further conversations about the differences between these two countries led us to develop this chapter. The examples provided in this chapter are meant to be illustrative, not exhaustive. The presented examples are not meant to universalize our respective countries or cultures, and nor are they meant to represent the views of everyone in each country. In fact, so much variation exists that even selecting representatives of an “average” proved impossible. Instead, the examples are meant to showcase points on a vast spectrum, and to illustrate that although there are many useful approaches to academic integrity, and certainly some are more appropriate than others, there is no singular, universal “best” approach. What works well to promote and uphold academic integrity in one context may not work in another.

Background Many notable researchers have engaged in comparative analyses of academic integrity policies and practices before us, and much related work is featured in this volume. In this section, we highlight some of the key distinctive features of approaches taken by selected institutions in Canada and the USA, building upon previous scholarship as well as personal observations and experiences to provide a selective comparative analysis of these two neighboring, English-speaking nations. To our knowledge, McCabe (2005) was the first to collect empirical data specifically on academic integrity internationally. McCabe’s work built on that of Bowers (1964), and although McCabe originally focused on higher education within the USA, he went on to expand data collection to other countries, including Canada (Christensen Hughes & McCabe, 2006). By 2005, McCabe had administered his survey across 67 US and 16 Canadian campuses (McCabe, 2005), including responses from undergraduate students (n ¼ 51,611 in the USA; n ¼ 19,460 in Canada); graduate students (n ¼ 9080 in the USA; 2199 in Canada); faculty

12

Academic Integrity in North America: A Comparison of Canada and the USA

173

members (n ¼ 9740 in the USA; n ¼ 2576 in Canada); and teaching assistants (n ¼ 710 in the USA n ¼ 1037 in Canada), for a total of 96,413 total respondents, measuring both behaviors in which they admitted to having engaged and their thoughts about them (McCabe, 2005). Although McCabe (2005) did not offer commentary about the differences in the sample sizes between the two countries, it is relevant to note that the USA has approximately ten times the population of Canada. As of the end of 2022, the estimated overall population of the USA was over 333 million (US Census Bureau, 2023) whereas the population of Canada was approximately 39 million (Statistics Canada, 2023). At the time McCabe was collecting data for his survey (approximately two decades prior to the writing of this chapter) in the 2002–2003 academic year, there were over 13 million undergraduate and more than three million graduate students enrolled in the USA (US Census Bureau, 2022) and 1,562,643 enrolled in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2022). In contrast, as of 2020–2021 (the most recent comparative data available), there were approximately 17+ million postsecondary (13 million undergraduates and four million graduates) students enrolled in the USA (US Census Bureau, 2022) and 2,171,712 in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2022). Although McCabe opted to aggregate the survey results in two papers he wrote comparing Canadian data with data from the USA (McCabe, 2005, McCabe et al., 2006), in one paper he noted some differences between the two countries, specifically with regard to what he called “serious test and exam cheating” (McCabe, 2005, p. 4), stating that: [S]ignificantly more US faculty (54%) versus Canadian faculty (45%) report observing such cheating, a result that is supported by the greater number of US students (22%) versus Canadian students (19%) that self-report serious test/exam cheating. The same trend can be seen among graduate students, but the differences in this case are fairly trivial – 10% for US graduate students versus 9% for Canadian graduate students. (McCabe, 2005, p. 4)

As far as we know, there has been no other similar data set of comparative size and scale collected about academic misconduct in Canada and the USA since McCabe administered his survey in the early 2000s. However, there is evidence that plans are underway for new survey data to be collected based on McCabe’s original survey (see ▶ Chap. 103, “Rebooting a Legend: The ICAI/McCabe Student Survey”). Other comparative analysis of academic integrity cultures, practices, and policies that include the USA and Canada can be found in the work of Bertram Gallant (2008), Eaton (2022), Eaton and Christensen Hughes (2022), Hossain et al. (2022), and Sutherland-Smith (2011). In a knowledge synthesis article, Bretag (2019) highlighted some important differences between Australia and other countries, which served as a useful point of departure for thinking about axiological differences in how countries think about and approach academic integrity. In particular, she noted that McCabe’s advocacy of honor codes “resulted in a strongly moralistic approach which centered on students’ commitment to value and ethics” (p. 6). Bretag (2019) pointed out that, “the focus on the U.K. was less on cheating and the moral development of the student, and more on students’ responsibilities. . .”

S. E. Eaton and T. “T.” Fishman

174

(p. 7), noting that the approach in Australia was similar to that of the UK. She further noted that Australian researchers focused on plagiarism and took “a different direction to their American counterparts,” addressing plagiarism specifically “not as a failing by individual students, but as a by-product of falling educational standards and quality in the context of internationalization” (Bretag, 2019, p. 8). Bretag also recognized that some American scholars, especially those specializing in writing instruction and composition (citing the work of Howard 1995, 1999, 2001 specifically), have viewed plagiarism as a skill deficiency, rather than an individual failure. We have summarized some of Bretag’s (2016, 2019) ideas from this knowledge synthesis in Table 1, noting the country, axiological approach, and the systems level (i.e., individual, institutional, or societal) as being the possible origin for breaches of academic integrity. We acknowledge that the summary provided in Table 1 shows the perspective of only one scholar (Bretag, 2019) and would no doubt spark debate among scholars in the respective countries, and the designations and delineations become more complex the deeper one delves. It is particularly worthwhile to note the differing schools of thought in the USA. Bretag (2019) differentiated between those whose work focuses on values and honor codes (e.g., McCabe) and those who advocate against

Table 1 Overview of Bretag’s analysis of academic integrity approaches in select Englishspeaking nations Country The USA

Australia

United Kingdom

Axiological approach Moralistic approaches that favor values and honor codes (heavily influenced by McCabe’s work)

Academic development approach to plagiarism, rooted in skill-building, rather than moralism, as influenced by Kibler (1998) and Howard (1995, 1999, 2001) Academic integrity as a quality assurance matter, which is negatively affected by the commodification of higher education

Academic integrity as a quality assurance matter, which is negatively affected by the commodification of higher education

Systems-level approach Academic integrity breaches as an individual student failing and responsibility At the institutional level, honor codes have historically mattered more than institutional policies Opportunity for individual skillbuilding Advocacy for plagiarism to be viewed as a writing development issue rather than misconduct in institutional policies Societal level influenced by the massification and commercialization of higher education, leading to poorer learning conditions and lack of student support. Effective institutional policies are key to ensuring academic integrity Combined individual and institutional responsibility, students’ responsibilities to avoid plagiarism through appropriate writing practices, coupled with institutional policies to deter and penalize plagiarism (Thomas & Scott, 2016)

12

Academic Integrity in North America: A Comparison of Canada and the USA

175

Table 2 Overview of American schools of thought related to academic integrity and relevant research School of thought Values-based school Skill developmentbased school

Examples of notable US-based contributions to academic integrity scholarship (an incomplete list) Bertram Gallant (2008), McCabe (1992, 2005), McCabe et al. (2006), and Rettinger (2006) Kibler (1998), Howard (1995, 1999, 2001), Jamieson (2013), Panning Davies & Howard (2016), and Robillard (2008)

moral judgments in favor of focusing on academic skill development (e.g., Kibler or Howard) which is evident in the research scholarship. However, Bretag’s observations nevertheless serve as a useful point of departure for deeper analysis. To further explore the ideas presented by Bretag (2019), we conducted a brief (and incomplete) bibliographic analysis of American scholars working within these two different schools of thought. Even a brief analysis shows little evidence of collaboration (e.g., coauthored papers) among individual scholars in each of the respective American schools of thought, as seen in Table 2. Further analysis that is beyond the scope of this chapter would be needed to better understand the ways in which scholars from these differing schools of thought are enacted in practice. What is evident from a cursory inquiry is that more effort is needed among American scholarship on academic integrity to cross ontological or epistemological boundaries and consider the ways in which these differing schools of thought with regard to academic integrity might manifest in pedagogy or policy, and ultimately might impact students and their learning. Bretag’s (2019) knowledge synthesis points to the USA as being the one country among English-speaking nations where moralistic or values-based approaches to academic integrity dominate in any significant way. An obvious omission in Bretag’s synthesis is that of Canada, which we read as signaling the historical dominance of the USA, Australia, and the UK in academic integrity research among English-speaking nations. A surge in empirical scholarly contributions from Canada related to academic integrity since the late 2010s (e.g., Eaton et al., 2023; Ferguson et al., 2022; Hamilton & Wolsky, 2022; Packalen & Rowbotham, 2022; Stoesz & Los, 2019) provides a basis for considering how Canadian scholarship, as well as institutional practices and approaches, can be considered in relation to other English-speaking nations, especially the USA, given the geographical proximity of the two countries. In the section that follows, some differences between the USA and Canada are explored, relating to academic integrity.

Academic Integrity: Contrasting and Comparing the USA and Canada To explore the points of difference, we examine five aspects of academic integrity which are addressed differently in the USA and Canada: (1) higher education governance, accreditation, and quality assurance; (2) honor codes versus an honor

176

S. E. Eaton and T. “T.” Fishman

culture; (3) institutional supports and structures; (4) academic misconduct case management, sanctioning, and appeals; and (5) equity, diversity, inclusion, decolonization, and Indigenization. Of course, these are not the only aspects of difference and there is room for deeper exploration in future work. Our hope, however, is that highlighting these particular aspects provides the reader with some insights into why and how academic integrity differs across these two countries.

Higher Education Governance An overview of academic integrity in Canada has been written about previously (see Eaton & Christensen Hughes, 2022) and is also covered elsewhere in this handbook (see Eaton et al., 2023). However, it is worth highlighting that with respect to Canada, Jones (2014) notes that: In some important respects higher education in Canada is the story of a network of institutions that break all the rules in terms of accepted norms of organizational theory and system design. There is no national “system”, no national ministry of higher education, no national higher education policy and no national quality assessment or accreditation mechanisms for institutions of higher education. Higher education policy is highly decentralized, but even at this level there is, with a few exceptions, relatively little long-range planning, and a quite limited policy research infrastructure. At the same time, this is a country that boasts one of the highest participation rates in postsecondary education in the world, with widely respected university and college sectors. This is a country with very high levels of educational attainment, and a number of leading research universities. (p. 1)

Similarly, a chapter dedicated to American academic integrity policies and quality assurance is featured elsewhere in this volume (▶ Chap. 54, “US Accreditation and Quality Assurance: Standards and Processes; Issues and Opportunities”) and has been written about elsewhere; at first glance, the structure and organization of American higher education bears many similarities to its neighbor to the north. It, too, enjoys high participation rates and an overall reputation for quality; higher education in the USA is likewise decentralized, highly varied, and specialized and features vast differences in approaches to policy, accreditation, and quality assurance between regions, institutions, and sometimes even programs within institutions. While the presence of a national Department of Education suggests a degree of federal oversight and uniform standards, in practice, that department has minimal authority to set standards for most aspects of higher education and almost no direct oversight role regarding academic integrity. Differences among the hundreds of institutions include public versus private; 2-year, 4-year, and graduate institutions; for-profit versus nonprofit and not-for-profit; and the full spectrum of Carnegie categorizations which classify institutions according to features including research productivity, size of enrollment, highest degree granted, and percentage of transfer students enrolled. The concept of “college” in the USA has expanded to include all manner of degree-granting institutions (Baum et al., 2013), and the same wide

12

Academic Integrity in North America: A Comparison of Canada and the USA

177

diversity of institutions that allows for innovation and specialization also complicates attempts to set uniform policies or standards that would be appropriate to all.

Quality Assurance and Accreditation Boards The Canadian Degree Qualifications Framework (CDQF) provides quality assurance standards for degree-granting institutions across the country, but each province and territory bears the responsibility for quality assurance of its higher education programs (Thacker & McKenzie, 2022). Unlike the USA, where there is a federal US Department of Education, Canada has no federal education ministry or department, and nor does it have a national quality assurance body for the tertiary sector (Thacker & McKenzie, 2022). Thacker and McKenzie (2022) note that although, “the CDQF includes the notion of academic integrity as a learning outcome requirement, the implementation and review of this quality indicator across the sector is nebulous” (p. 591). In general, there remains a great opportunity for provincial and regional higher education quality assurance bodies in Canada to take a more active role in promoting academic integrity as a key feature of quality education. Differences in the contexts in which the two countries’ education systems evolved and the governments of the countries themselves led oversight of higher education in the USA to be conducted in several significantly different ways. As Barbara Brittingham (Brittingham, 2009) notes, America’s distinctive approach to education oversight and governance can be attributed to the unique convergence of three main factors: Limitations upon federal government inscribed within the American constitution, outcomes of court cases affirming institutional rights to selfgovernance, and cultural values that celebrate independence and reject government intervention. The US Constitution does not list oversight of education as a function of the federal government, and thus, that responsibility rests with the states. States, having been left to envision and oversee their own educational policies and practices, did so, and when early challenges to institutional independence went to court, their freedom to govern themselves was affirmed. This freedom, coupled with American cultural distrust and resentment of governmental interference, allowed for originality and innovation, but also left the USA without comprehensive federal higher education quality standards, quality assurance mechanisms, or direct government oversight of the vast assortment of institutions that swiftly grew to include public and private, religious and secular, professional schools, divinity schools, teacher-training schools, and trade schools. To fulfill the need for quality assurance absent in uniform federal standards, independent accreditation organizations were developed to meet that need (Brittingham, 2009). Paradoxically, while the US Department of Education does not directly provide quality assurance oversight to colleges and universities, they do, along with the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), evaluate and recognize both accrediting agencies and state agencies that perform similar functions with regard to quality assurance in their respective states. Applicants for this recognition are reviewed by both the department’s Accreditation Group and the National Advisory

178

S. E. Eaton and T. “T.” Fishman

Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) (n.d.). Once recognized, the accreditors perform oversight and evaluation, as well as the function that gives them their tremendous power and provides essential value to the institutions they serve: Accreditation is the means by which institutions of higher learning establish eligibility for their students to qualify for federal student aid (US Department of Education, 2022) Thus, while accreditation in the USA is technically voluntary and not a function of the federal government directly, in practice, the oversight performed by accrediting agencies, which must be vetted by the Department of Education or CHEA, has an enormous impact as gatekeeper to the financial aid that is essential in funding higher education. The role of accreditors expanded from that of assessing and certifying quality as a matter of public interest and for prospective students, to including quality assurance for the purpose of access to federal student aid; government oversight has assumed greater significance and garnered greater attention. Today, although the US Department of Education still does not oversee quality control directly, the Department of Education sets qualifications for the accrediting agencies who then certify institutional financial soundness as well as academic standards. Input and scrutiny from the federal government have increased, even though it is the accreditors who articulate and evaluate standards and practices (based on institutional goals) relating to academic integrity and quality control.

Honor Codes in the USA Versus Honor Culture in Canada Much of the foundational research into academic integrity in the USA featured comparisons of schools with honor codes to those without (McCabe et al., 1999, 2002). Because McCabe’s research regarding “honor code schools” versus “no-code schools” was groundbreaking within the field, it is important to note that the presence of an honor code alone is not sufficient to designate an “honor code school” for the purpose of McCabe’s research. Instead, he credits a 1985 study done by B. Melendez, using four criteria to make the distinction: (1) A student honor pledge; (2) Student responsibility for reporting violations; (3) Unproctored examinations; and (4) Student (peer) adjudication of honor code violations (McCabe & Trevino, 1993). (Note: the authors of this piece were not able to locate the Melendez study but are including it as described and cited by McCabe.) A variation on the honor code school model is the so-called “modified honor code” schools, which differ by dropping the requirement that students report peer violations, and leave open the question of proctoring of exams, but still feature a code or pledge to which students attest, as well as student participation to uphold that code. This last mandate, student buy-in and willingness to participate, turned out to be most critical, as McCabe noted after 15 years of research on academic integrity; it is the culture – particularly the culture encountered by students as they enter the university – that determines attitudes toward, and adherence to, academic integrity rather than the presence or absence of a code (McCabe, 2005). Nevertheless, many institutions in the USA have used honor codes as catalyst for, a signal of, and, in unfortunate cases, a “nod” to their commitment to principles of academic integrity.

12

Academic Integrity in North America: A Comparison of Canada and the USA

179

While the overarching goal of honor codes – to establish and maintain high standards of integrity within the scholarly community – is largely the same among institutions that employ them, the expression of that goal, and how to reach it, varies tremendously. Among “code schools,” one can find Agnes Scott College, where the approach is overtly collective and students pledge to be, “bound by honor to develop and uphold high standards of honesty and behavior; to strive for full intellectual and moral stature; to realize my social and academic responsibility in the community” (Honor System). One can also find the West Point Military Academy, where the code focuses on the singular cadet, each of whom affirms the most traditional of honor codes, “A Cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.” At Agnes Scott, the approach focuses on students’ responsibilities and relationships to each other, the institution, and society. There, students commit that, in the event that they witness an academic integrity violation, they will approach the person in question and encourage her to come forward (Agnes Scott College, 2022). At West Point, the code focuses on personal requirements characterized by the institution as “unyielding” and a cadet who does not report a classmate they witness committing a violation can find themselves guilty of an honor code offense (i.e., misconduct) by having “tolerated” the misdeed (United States Military Academy West Point, n.d.). Both honor codes reflect the values of the respective schools and depend on students to uphold them, but the specifics of what they ask of students are as different as the institutions themselves, and while neither example is representative, the pair illustrate the diversity that is found among honor code schools. In contrast to the USA, honor codes are not at all common in Canadian higher education institutions (Eaton & Christensen Hughes, 2022; Hamilton & Wolsky, 2022; Poitras Pratt & Gladue, 2022). The lack of honor codes in Canada, or any other country, should not be conflated with an absence of honorable conduct or a lack of honorable values. McCabe et al. (2012) noted that a school can have an honor culture, without having an honor code. It is fair to say that higher education institutions in Canada focus more on developing systems and cultures of integrity that do not involve honor codes but are similarly grounded in notions of fairness, justice, and accountability. The honor code system is a uniquely American way of approaching academic integrity, and although its use has been adopted to a small extent in other countries, Canada has developed its own methods and mechanisms for achieving similar goals.

Academic Misconduct Case Management, Sanctioning, and Appeals In both the USA and Canada, individual institutions have the autonomy to investigate, manage, and adjudicate academic misconduct allegations or cases. It is common for postsecondary institutions to develop academic integrity and misconduct policies and procedures that reflect institutional values, programmatic and professional standards, and the “personalities” of their respective schools, thus echoing the wide diversity of institutional identities mentioned above. It is impossible to

180

S. E. Eaton and T. “T.” Fishman

characterize either country’s approach to academic misconduct case management as a whole, but the following descriptions provide characteristics that can be observed in each. In the USA, the range of approaches to academic misconduct case management includes instances that diverge in many ways, including whether cases are managed primarily by academic faculty, student affairs staff, or students themselves. As mentioned above, “honor code schools” generally center student leadership for dissemination of information related to integrity standards, investigation of integrity breaches, and adjudication integrity offenses. This student leadership, it should be noted, has been shown to be, in many cases, stricter rather than less strict, as faculty and administrators often fear (McCabe & Pavela, 2004). The “modified code” schools often rely more heavily on student-faculty or student-staff partnerships while “non-code” schools typically rely on faculty and/or staff alone or with a minority of student participants. Other points of difference include whether central (institutional or programmatic) reporting of offenses by faculty is mandatory or discretionary, the nature of penalties being – primarily educative, punitive, or both; how breaches are documented and how they appear (or do not) in student records; and the processes, if any, for “redemption” or removal of such notations. While there are some recent innovations, including increasing attention to restorative justice processes, perhaps because university leaders are ever cognizant and wary of the possibility of litigation, the majority of misconduct processes, whether conducted by faculty, staff, or students, remain rooted in adversarial, legalistic practices even while we see a welcome shift from strictly punitive to more education-based consequences. With regard to how academic misconduct cases are managed in Canadian higher education, Morrison and Zachariah (2022) provide a comprehensive description elsewhere. They highlight that misconduct case management is based on administrative law practices and follows the principles of natural justice. Students have the right to know the case brought against them, they have the right to respond, and decisions regarding consequences must be fair and reasonable. Students also have a right to appeal decision and processes are in place at Canadian higher education institutions that follow the principles of natural justice. It is worth nothing that Canada is generally considered a much less litigious society than the USA, and this also applies to academic misconduct. As noted by Morrison and Zachariah (2022), “the number of cases in which findings of academic misconduct have been challenged in the Courts is small” (p. 535). An analysis of 140 court decisions in Canada relating to academic misconduct cases revealed that overwhelmingly courts found in favor of upholding decisions made by the university except in cases where the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice had not been followed (Kelleher, 2016). For an analysis of academic integrity policies in Canada, see Eaton et al. (2022); Miron et al. (2021); and Stoesz and Eaton (2022). In some Canadian schools, restorative justice and restorative practices are embedded as part of academic misconduct case management and resolution (Sopcak, 2019, 2020; Sopcak & Hood, 2022). Although there is increasing interest in the use of

12

Academic Integrity in North America: A Comparison of Canada and the USA

181

restorative practices as one way to resolve academic misconduct, this approach has not been universally adopted across the country.

Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, Decolonization, and Indigenization Although matters relating to equity, diversity, and inclusion have been important for generations, the impact of discrimination and racism sharpened after George Floyd was murdered by white police officers while in police custody in Minneapolis, Minnesota (USA), in May 2020. Floyd’s murder sparked social protests internationally and calls for change, including antiracism education, policy, and practice (see Dreyer et al., 2020; Samayeen et al., 2022). There is an entire section of this handbook dedicated to discussing equity, diversity, inclusion, decolonization, and Indigenization in more depth. We, nevertheless, think it is important to briefly consider how our respective countries approach these important matters with respect to academic integrity. A unique feature of equity discourse as it relates to academic integrity in the USA has been a focus on race and, in particular, antiblack racism (see Parnther, 2020; Parnther & Eaton, 2021; Tichavakunda, 2022). US Scholars have increasingly brought attention to proctoring and other student surveillance technology, criticizing its unequal treatment of nonwhite students, students with disabilities or special needs, students without equal access to technology, and international and nontraditional students, and many have brought attention to implicit and explicit bias in the classroom (see Parnther, 2020; Silverman, 2022); the majority of work in this area has been outside the field of academic integrity scholarship, and sadly, in most instances, too little has been done at the institutional level to address, in concrete and substantive ways, issues of consistency and fairness (Oravec, 2022). Although considerations of antiblack racism have been largely absent from Canadian academic integrity discourse and this remains an area of growth for Canada, Canadian scholars have catalyzed conversations and understanding about how to decolonize and Indigenize academic integrity. The work of Gladue (2020a, b, 2021), Lindstrom (2022), Maracle (2020), and Poitras Pratt and Gladue (2022) are among the most notable contributions. Links between academic misconduct and “Pretendians” (a term used to refer to non-Indigenous persons who falsely claim Indigenous ancestry) made national news in Canada when a high-profile individual was found to have falsely claimed Indigenous ancestry and had also misrepresented her academic qualifications (see Leo, 2022). Turning toward another equity-deserving group, international students (especially those for whom English is an additional language) and their experiences with academic integrity have been discussed at length by scholars in the USA (e.g., Murphy, 2022; Parnther, 2022) and Canada (e.g., Eaton & Burns, 2018; Hu & Zhang, 2021; Khoo & Kang, 2022; Openo, 2019). Academic integrity practice and scholarship related to those from equity-deserving groups has not always had a social justice or equity focus. We contend that, in both countries, there is room for improvement in terms of making equity, social justice, and human rights a greater focus of academic integrity work not only in our own countries, but also around the

182

S. E. Eaton and T. “T.” Fishman

world. For further insights, see the section of this handbook dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion edited by Dr. Ceceilia Parnther.

Summary Although the USA and Canada have many things in common generally, there are also many differences. We have highlighted some of these differences as they pertain to higher education and academic integrity. The honor code and modified honor codes systems in higher education that Don McCabe and others have researched, developed, and endorsed allow for an admirable degree of student efficacy, coconstruction, collaboration, and leadership to achieve academic integrity goals, and the absence of national academic integrity mandates allows for customization, and responsiveness to local cultural mores. Those same systems as well as their “non-code school” counterparts also reflect American ideologies of individualism and self-determination, and echoes of Puritan conceptions of moral responsibility (Fishman, 2016). The purpose of this chapter has been to compare and contrast academic integrity between the USA and Canada. We have contemplated these differences from five angles: (1) higher education governance; (2) quality assurance and accreditation; (3) honor codes versus an honor culture; (4) academic misconduct case management, sanctioning, and appeals; and (5) equity, diversity, inclusion, decolonization, and Indigenization. In some respects, academic integrity practices in Canada are more aligned with other Commonwealth countries, such as Australia or the UK, than they are with the USA, insofar as academic integrity is treated as a behavioral issue more than a moral failing. Also, there is more attention paid in Commonwealth countries to the systemic barriers and contributors that lead to misconduct, whereas in the USA there has historically been a greater focus on misconduct as an individual responsibility, with less consideration for the ways in which the higher education may contribute to unethical conduct. In Canada, there has been more of a focus on developing cultures of integrity, without need of honor codes as a means to achieve that end. Two dominant and somewhat divergent schools of thought regarding academic integrity are evident in the USA: a values-based school of thought and a skills-development-based school of thought. In Canada, there are considerations for both of these schools of thought, and in addition, the systemic barriers to student success and academic integrity that are more prevalent in Commonwealth countries are also considered.

Limitations An obvious limitation of this chapter is that, as authors, we each write from our individual perspectives and our views do not represent those of everyone in our respective nations. The examples discussed in this chapter are not exhaustive, nor

12

Academic Integrity in North America: A Comparison of Canada and the USA

183

can we claim them to be representative; instead, they are chosen to be illustrative, and to reflect our own experiences and observations. We have also provided some generalized overviews of complex systems such as accreditation and academic integrity adjudication processes, forgoing details in favor of brevity. As is the case for all writing, we acknowledge the potential for unintended bias. In our attempt to show a range of examples, we recognize that we may have highlighted exceptions, rather than what would be considered “normal” (if we could establish such a thing.) We have confined ourselves nearly exclusively to academic integrity and higher education policy and analysis, excluding potentially relevant discourse from fields like psychology, sociology, and public policy more generally. We fully acknowledge that there is room for deeper analysis and dialogue and much to be learned from both countries.

Ongoing Challenges and Calls to Action This comparative analysis, however limited, provides a useful point of departure for further study and dialogue. One activity that could provide useful insights for practitioners might include reciprocal site visits to campuses in each other’s country to see how student affairs’ academic integrity offices, or student-run honor councils, operate in their respective locations. Another opportunity for further development of the field includes having scholars from both countries research and write together and to conduct collaborative international research that includes Canada and the USA. To date, there has been limited scholarly collaboration on academic integrity, with a few notable exceptions (e.g., Christensen Hughes & McCabe, 2006; the Partnership on University Plagiarism Prevention – PUPP, 2023). There is much that academic integrity scholars, educators, practitioners, and policymakers in the USA and Canada can learn from one another. Comparisons that focus on what works, and why, can be instructive and insightful. It is useful to resist the temptation to think that any other country is better or more advanced than one’s own in terms of academic integrity, and instead, look to successful examples as potential “tools” one might add to one’s own tool bag, noting that each country has its own strengths, weaknesses, and unique histories and contexts. There are no cookie-cutter or standardized solutions to complex social problems (Wheatley & Frieze, 2011), and misconduct of all kinds, including in the academy, certainly counts as a complex social problem. Solutions, in any given case, are only as successful as their appropriateness to the context in which they are applied. It is a worthwhile exercise not only to critique the weaknesses of the system in which one works, but also to recognize the strengths therein. There is no single way to “do” academic integrity, but instead there are many different approaches, each with their strengths and limitations. We hope that this chapter might provide a springboard to further studies not only of Canada and the USA, but also to any context in which comparisons between approaches help all stakeholders to improve.

184

S. E. Eaton and T. “T.” Fishman

Cross-References ▶ Rebooting a Legend: The ICAI/McCabe Student Survey

References Baum, S., Kurose, C., & McPherson, M. (2013). An overview of American higher education. The Future of Children, 23(1), 17–39. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2013.0008 Bertram Gallant, T. (2008). Moral panic: The contemporary context of academic integrity. ASHE Higher Education Report, 33(5), 1–12. Bowers, W. J. (1964). Student dishonesty and its control in college. Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University. Bretag, T. (2016). Educational integrity in Australia. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (1st ed., pp. 23–38). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_2 Bretag, T. (2019). From ‘perplexities of plagiarism’ to ‘building cultures of integrity’: A reflection on fifteen years of academic integrity research, 2003–2018. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 6. www.herdsa.org.au/herdsa-review-higher-education-vol-6/5-35 Brittingham, B. (2009). Accreditation in the United States: How did we get to where we are? New Directions for Higher Education, 2009(145), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.331 Christensen Hughes, J. M., & McCabe, D. L. (2006). Academic misconduct within higher education in Canada. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 36(2), 1–21. http://journals.sfu.ca/ cjhe/index.php/cjhe/article/view/183537/183482 Dreyer, B. P., Trent, M., Anderson, A. T., Askew, G. L., Boyd, R., Coker, T. R., Coyne-Beasley, T., Fuentes-Afflick, E., Johnson, T., Mendoza, F., Montoya-Williams, D., Oyeku, S. O., Poitevien, P., Spinks-Franklin, A. A. I., Thomas, O. W., Walker-Harding, L., Willis, E., Wright, J. L., Berman, S., ... Stein, F. (2020). The death of George Floyd: Bending the arc of history toward justice for generations of children. Pediatrics, 146(3). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020009639. Eaton, S. E. (2022, July 18). Academic integrity in Canada: Deepening our commitment to reconciliation, decolonization, and indigenization. ETICO. https://etico.iiep.unesco.org/en/ academic-integrity-canada-deepening-our-commitment-reconciliation-decolonization-andindigenization Eaton, S. E., & Burns, A. (2018). Exploring the intersection between culturally responsive pedagogy and academic integrity among EAL students in Canadian higher education. Journal of Educational Thought, 51(3), 339–359. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26873077 Eaton, S. E., & Christensen Hughes, J. (2022). Academic integrity in Canada: Historical perspectives and current trends. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge (pp. 3–24). Springer. Eaton, S. E., Stoesz, B. M., Godfrey Anderson, J. R., & LeBlanc-Haley, J. (2022, January 13). Atlantic provinces academic integrity and contract cheating policy analysis. Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission (MPHEC) [online]. Fredericton, NB, Canada. http://hdl. handle.net/1880/114259 Eaton, S. E., Stoesz, B. M., Crossman, K., Garwood, K., & McKenzie, A. (2023). Faculty perspectives of academic integrity during COVID-19: A mixed methods study of four Canadian universities. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education. Ferguson, C., Toye, M. A., Carver, C., Pictin, T., Eaton, S. E., & Boisvert, S. (2022). Understanding student experiences with commercial contract cheating and other outsourcing behaviours: Research report. https://prism.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/115343 Fishman, T. (2016). Academic integrity as an educational concept, concern, and movement in US institutions of higher learning. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 7–21). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_1

12

Academic Integrity in North America: A Comparison of Canada and the USA

185

Gladue, K. (2020a). Indigenous Academic Integrity (written). https://taylorinstitute.ucalgary.ca/ sites/default/files/Content/Resources/Academic-Integrity/21-TAY-Indigenous-AcademicIntegrity.pdf Gladue, K. (2020b, November 13). Indigenous paradigms in practice: Relationships, story and academic integrity [webinar]. Academic integrity: Urgent and emerging topics webinar series. Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning, University of Calgary. https://youtu.be/ I0ZJl3dLmKg Gladue, K. (2021). Indigenous academic integrity (website). https://taylorinstitute.ucalgary.ca/ resources/indigenous-academic-integrity Hamilton, M. J., & Wolsky, K. L. (2022). The barriers to faculty reporting incidences of academic misconduct at community colleges. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge (pp. 467–485). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1 Hossain, Z., Çelik, Ö., & Hertel, C. (2022, July 11–15). Academic integrity policy and instruction in K-12 schools in Australia, Canada, England and the United States. In 50th annual conference of the International Association of School Librarianship and the 25th International Forum on Research on School Librarianship, Columbia, SC, USA. Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57(7), 788–806. Howard, R. M. (1999). Standing in the shadow of giants: Plagiarists, authors and collaborators. Ablex Publishing Corp. Howard, R. M. (2001). Forget about policing plagiarism: Just teach! Chronicle of Higher Education, B24. http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v48/i12/12b02401.htm Hu, J., & Zhang, C. (2021). ESL student plagiarism prevention challenges and institutional interventions. Teaching culturally and linguistically diverse international students in open and/or online learning environments: A research symposium (Online). University of Windsor, ON. Jamieson, S. (2013). Reading and engaging sources: What students’ use of sources reveals about advanced reading skills. Across the Disciplines, 10(4). Jones, G. A. (2014). An introduction to higher education in Canada. In K. M. Joshi & S. Paivandi (Eds.), Higher education across nations (Vol. 1, pp. 1–38). B.R. Publishing. Kelleher, W. E. (2016). Canadian laws relevant to university student academic discipline. Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University, Prescott Valley, AZ. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Khoo, E., & Kang, S. (2022). Proactive learner empowerment: Towards a transformative academic integrity approach for English language learners. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 18(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-022-00111-2 Kibler, W. L. (1998). The academic dishonesty of college students: The prevalence of the problem and effective educational prevention programs. In L. R. D. D. Burnett & K. O. Clifford (Eds.), Academic integrity matters. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Leo, G. (2022, December 14). Rescind Turpel-Lafond’s honorary degrees or we'll return ours, say high-profile Indigenous women. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/ turpel-lafond-honorary-degrees-1.6684340 Lindstrom, G. (2022). Accountability, relationality and Indigenous epistemology: Advancing an Indigenous perspective on academic integrity. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge (pp. 125–139). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1 Maracle, I. B. J. (2020). Seven grandfathers in academic integrity. First Nations House for Indigenous Student Services, University of Toronto. https://studentlife.utoronto.ca/wpcontent/uploads/Seven_Grandfathers_in_Academic_Integrity.pdf McCabe, D. (1992). The influence of situational ethics on cheating among college students. Sociological Inquiry, 62(3), 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1992.tb00287.x

186

S. E. Eaton and T. “T.” Fishman

McCabe, D. L. (2005). Cheating among college and university students: A North American perspective. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.21913/ IJEI.v1i1.14 McCabe, D. L., & Pavela, G. (2004). Ten (updated) principles of academic integrity: How faculty can foster student honesty. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 36(3), 10–15. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00091380409605574 McCabe, D. L., & Treviño, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 522–538. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 2959991 McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (1999). Academic integrity in honor code and non-honor code environments: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Higher Education, 70(2), 211–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1999.11780762 McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2002). Honor codes and other contextual influences on academic integrity: A replication and extension to modified honor code settings. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 357–378. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40196458 McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(3), 294–305. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40214383 McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Treviño, L. K. (2012). Cheating in college: Why students do it and what educators can do about it. Johns Hopkins University Press. Miron, J. B., McKenzie, A., Eaton, S. E., Stoesz, B. M., Thacker, E., Devereaux, L., Persaud, N., Steeves, M., & Rowbotham, K. (2021). Academic integrity policy analysis of publicly-funded universities in Ontario, Canada: A focus on contract cheating. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 197, 62–75. https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjeap/ article/view/72082 Morrison, M., & Zachariah, P. (2022). Student academic misconduct through a Canadian legal lens. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge (pp. 535–552). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1 Murphy, G. A. (2022). Bringing language diversity into integrity research – What, why, and how. Journal of College and Character, 23(1), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/2194587X.2021. 2017974 National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI). (n.d.). https://sites. ed.gov/naciqi/ Openo, J. (2019). The international dimension of academic integrity: An integrative literature review. Canadian Perspectives on Academic Integrity, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.11575/cpai. v2i2.68091 Oravec, J. A. (2022). AI, biometric analysis, and emerging cheating detection systems: The engineering of academic integrity? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 30, 175. https://doi. org/10.14507/epaa.30.5765 Packalen, K., & Rowbotham, K. (2022). Student insight on academic integrity. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge (pp. 353–375). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1 Panning Davies, L. J., & Howard, R. M. (2016). Plagiarism and the Internet: Fears, facts, and pedagogies. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 591–606). Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_16 Parnther, C. (2020, October 9). Creating a culture of equity in academic integrity: Best practices for teaching and learning. Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning, University of Calgary. https://youtu.be/59mBo9neEgY Parnther, C. (2022). International students and academic misconduct: Considering culture, community, and context. Journal of College and Character, 23(1), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 2194587X.2021.2017978 Parnther, C., & Eaton, S. E. (2021, June 23). Academic integrity and anti-Black aspects of educational surveillance and e-proctoring. Teachers College Record. https://journals.sagepub.

12

Academic Integrity in North America: A Comparison of Canada and the USA

187

com/pb-assets/cmscontent/TCZ/Commentaries%20Collection/2021%20Commentaries/Aca demic%20Integrity%20and%20Anti-Black%20Aspects%20of%20Educational%20Surveil lance%20and%20E-Proctoring-1650325575.pdf Partnership on University Plagiarism Prevention (PUPP). (2023). https://pupp.uqo.ca/en/home/ Poitras Pratt, Y., & Gladue, K. (2022). Re-defining academic integrity: Embracing Indigenous truths. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge (pp. 103–123). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03083255-1 Rettinger, D. (2006). Applying decision theory to academic integrity decisions. In E. M. Anderman & T. B. Murdock (Eds.), Psychology of academic cheating. Elsevier Science & Technology. Robillard, A. E. (2008). Situating plagiarism as a form of authorship: The politics of writing in a first-year writing course. In R. M. Howard & A. E. Robillard (Eds.), Pluralizing Plagiarism: Identities, contexts, pedagogies. Boynton/Cook Publishers. Samayeen, N., Wong, A., & McCarthy, C. (2022). Space to breathe: George Floyd, BLM Plaza and the monumentalization of divided American urban landscapes. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 54(14), 2341–2351. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1795980 Silverman, S. E. (2022). Why are academic accommodations positioned as “situationally sanctioned cheating?”. https://sarahemilysilverman.com/2022/01/05/why-are-academic-accommo dations-positioned-as-situationally-sanctioned-cheating/ Sopcak, P. (2019, October 25). MacEwan University’s adoption of restorative practices in response to academic misconduct Alberta Council on Academic Integrity (ACAI) Provincial Meeting, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c-lBGavLX6RLjYcrkSh6bh9qMCnFFJNx/view?usp¼sharing Sopcak, P. (2020). Restorative practices for academic integrity. International Center for Academic Integrity (April 27). https://www.academicintegrity.org/blog/restorative-practices-for-aca demic-integrity/ Sopcak, P., & Hood, K. (2022). Building a culture of restorative practice and restorative responses to academic misconduct. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge (pp. 573–571). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3030-83255-1_30. Statistics Canada. (2022). Postsecondary enrolments, by field of study, registration status, program type, credential type and gender. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action? pid¼3710001101 Statistics Canada. (2023). Population estimates. Retrieved January 1, 2023 from https://www150. statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid¼1710000901&cubeTimeFrame.startMonth¼01& cubeTimeFrame.startYear¼2022&cubeTimeFrame.endMonth¼10&cubeTimeFrame. endYear¼2022&referencePeriods¼20220101%2C20221001 Stoesz, B. M., & Eaton, S. E. (2022). Academic integrity policies of publicly funded universities in western Canada. Educational Policy, 36(6), 1529–1548. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0895904820983032 Stoesz, B., & Los, R. (2019). Evaluation of a tutorial designed to promote academic integrity. Canadian Perspectives on Academic Integrity, 2(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.11575/cpai.v2i1. 61826 Sutherland-Smith, W. (2011). Crime and punishment: An analysis of university plagiarism policies [Report]. Semiotica: Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies, 187, 127. Thacker, E. J., & McKenzie, A. (2022). Using quality assurance frameworks to support an institutional culture of academic integrity at Canadian universities. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge (pp. 519–534). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1 Thomas, J., & Scott, J. (2016). UK perspectives on academic integrity. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 39–53). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_22 Tichavakunda, A. (2022). Let’s talk about race and academic integrity. Inside Higher Ed. https:// www.insidehighered.com/views/2022/06/30/academic-integrity-issues-are-not-race-neutralopinion

188

S. E. Eaton and T. “T.” Fishman

United States Military Academy West Point. (n.d.). West Point Cadet Honor Code and Honor System. Retrieved February 8, 2023 from https://www.westpoint.edu/military/simon-center-forthe-professional-military-ethic/honor US Census Bureau. (2022). CPS historical time series tables on school enrollment. Retrieved January 3, 2023 from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/school-enrollment/ cps-historical-time-series.html US Census Bureau. (2023). Growth in U.S. Population shows early indication of recovery amid COVID-19 pandemic. Retrieved January 2, 2023 from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/ press-releases/2022/2022-population-estimates.html US Department of Education. (2022, November 16). College accreditation in the United States— [Educational Guides]. https://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation.html Wheatley, M. J., & Frieze, D. (2011). Walk out, walk on: A learning journey into communities daring to live the future now. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Aligning Theoretical and Practical Considerations for Academic Integrity Education: A Canadian Perspective

13

Matt Rahimian

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Integrity and Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Educational Purposes and Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Applying the Backward Design Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integrating Academic Integrity into the Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Practical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assessment Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Embedding Academic Integrity into Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Curriculum Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Some Recommendations for Integrating Academic Integrity into the Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

190 191 191 191 192 192 193 194 194 195 198 198

Abstract

Academic integrity has become one of academia’s main discussion points and concerns. Many of us were on the verge of promoting discussions advocating culture shifts in academic integrity on our campuses when the Pandemic hit. With the COVID-19 pandemic, discussions of academic integrity and departures from it increased unprecedently. Building academic integrity into the curriculum can increase students’ opportunities to be familiarized with it and learn how to maintain it. This chapter discusses the importance of embedding academic integrity into the curriculum. To further the discussion, after reviewing some theoretical and practical factors, the importance of including academic integrity across the curriculum is discussed. We can use the Backward Design model as an effective tool to integrate academic integrity into the curriculum and create an alignment. A practical guide for doing that is provided that proposes five steps in integrating academic integrity into the curriculum: (1) adding academic integrity M. Rahimian (*) Huron University College, London, ON, Canada © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_137

189

190

M. Rahimian

values to the course outcome, (2) modifying lesson outcomes to incorporate newly adapted course outcomes, (3) designing instructional activities based on the new lesson and course outcomes, (4) adapting the evaluation techniques to incorporate new instructional activities and course outcomes, and (5) practicing an iterative evaluation to ensure an alignment exists between different elements of our curriculum including course and lesson outcomes, instructional activities, and evaluation practices. Keywords

Curriculum development · Academic integrity · Curriculum alignment · Backward design · Outcome-based education · Course design

Introduction Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, academic integrity has received more attention, especially in post-secondary education. With the Pandemic of 2020 pushing education online, attention to academic integrity in post-secondary education increased (e.g., Andie Burazin et al., 2020; Panico, 2020). Later, with the launch of ChatGPD, discussions in the media, and public interest in academic integrity, had another sudden boost (e.g., Hristova, 2023; Roberson, 2023; Wong, 2023). More than before, many academic integrity practitioners and scholars advocate for taking educational approaches to academic integrity (e.g., Garwood, 2022; McNeill, 2022; Rossi, 2022). Academic integrity has to be at the core of higher education. When we confer degrees to our students, we certify that the bearers have achieved specific competencies and skills. Receiving academic credits without possessing the required knowledge and skills is not ethical. Additionally, the lack of academic integrity in students’ work will result in conferred credentials that do not represent the skills and competencies they should represent. The result will be losing trust in higher education institutes (e.g., Eaton & Christiansen Hughes, 2022). At a given institution, we might start a set of initiatives to change the culture of academic integrity. Initiatives such as sending academic integrity awareness documents to students when they are admitted to our programs, adding academic integrity in our orientation weeks, mandating students to pass modules on it, including academic integrity statements in our course outlines, having student groups advocating for academic integrity, developing instructional content such as videos and infographics, and discussing academic integrity in our first class sessions. The list can continue as academic integrity practitioners have been actively devising innovative ways to promote it. However, a question to bear in mind is the magnitude of these initiatives’ effectiveness. In other words, how far can we go with these initiatives? Moreover, how can we ensure that academic integrity is built into the academic work students do? When integrating academic integrity into the curriculum, we need to consider two critical factors: (a) we need to build it into the curriculum, and (b) our academic

13

Aligning Theoretical and Practical Considerations for Academic. . .

191

integrity initiatives need to be balanced out with the rest of the curriculum. In other words, academic integrity needs to be ingrained or embedded in a program and then courses within that program. It needs to be aligned with the rest of the curriculum, thus creating a coherent whole. Building academic integrity into the courses and balancing the curriculum might make the integration more challenging. This paper discusses the integration of academic integrity into the curriculum using discussions in the field of education, such as applying the Backward Design Model. A conversation on some practical considerations for such integration will follow. Finally, practical recommendations are provided for integrating academic integrity into a course.

Academic Integrity and Curriculum There are some theoretical and practical concerns when building academic integrity into the curriculum. In this section, first, some theoretical considerations are discussed. Practical factors will follow the theoretical discussions. Focusing on education’s purpose can help understand why academic integrity needs to be considered an educational matter. The Backward Design Model can help in the integration of academic integrity into the curriculum. Practical factors such as the way of integration, assessment challenges, and curriculum alignment will be discussed in detail.

Educational Purposes and Missions The purpose of education has been defined as preparing learners to apply their learned knowledge and skills in real-life situations and function well in society (US Department of Education, n.d.). Operating with a set of competencies and skills requires acquiring them in the first place. To acquire those competencies and skills, students need to follow certain practices, such as academic integrity practices. Therefore, including academic integrity in the fabric of students’ education is necessary. Teaching students about proper academic integrity practices within their field of study and work needs to be part of their education (Evans-Tokaryk, 2014). By teaching our students about academic integrity norms and practices, we indirectly prepare them for their future careers and endeavors.

Applying the Backward Design Model In the Backward Design model, the educators develop the course objectives first and then design the course backward (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). Similarly, in Outcome-Based Education, we start designing our curriculum by developing learning outcomes first, focusing on what learners can do at the end of each program and course (Rao, 2020; Spady, 1994). One of the challenges of integrating academic

192

M. Rahimian

integrity objectives in courses using the Outcome-Based Education model is whether to add them as independent objectives or integrate them into each course outcome. Many courses have their own outcomes, and instructional hours are already stretched. Now adding an academic integrity component as extra content can create an additional burden on instructors. Additionally, it might create an image of content to be learned for a specific course or part of a few courses rather than an integral part of education. Moreover, while including academic integrity as teachable content has the benefit of emphasizing its importance as an academic subject, it is possible to under-emphasize its overall importance in students’ learning and professionalism. In the following section, I will elaborate on this discussion.

Integrating Academic Integrity into the Curriculum Integrating academic integrity in curricula has at least two goals. On the one hand, we wish to explore whether we need to add academic integrity as an added component to the course content. On the other hand, one can argue for adding academic integrity at different course levels. In the first case, academic integrity is treated as a course component, and students learn about it like other subjects. The second approach embeds academic integrity into the curricula via integration in different places. There are benefits and disadvantages to each of these approaches. Adding academic integrity as a component of the course legitimizes it as an important course content. However, its discussion would be limited to the sections that it is taught. When students learn academic integrity as a subject, they likely learn it as an independent learning concept. Applying this approach might make it challenging for the students to see the relationship between academic integrity and other course contents. On the other hand, embedding academic integrity in course content has the benefit of presenting it to students in different areas of the course. This way, there is a higher chance for students to be exposed to the ideas and practices of academic integrity. Similarly, students can learn applications of academic integrity in different areas of the course. This increases the chances for students to see the relationship between academic integrity and different competency domains in the curriculum. However, there are some practical factors or considerations when we intend to integrate academic integrity into the curriculum that will be the focus of discussion in the following section.

Practical Considerations Time is one of the main concerns for many faculty members intending to implement academic integrity into their course outlines. Faculty members often follow provincial or federal guidelines for developing their courses. In Canada, we often follow provincial guidelines because education is a provincial responsibility. This means specific competencies and skills need to be included in syllabi, thus limiting the time

13

Aligning Theoretical and Practical Considerations for Academic. . .

193

left for other competencies to be integrated into courses. Therefore, when we encourage faculty to integrate academic integrity into their course outline, one of the primary concerns might be the time dedication needed to include academic integrity at any syllabus level. Another challenge that some junior faculty members might face is a core understanding of the academic integrity norms and practices as they align with other regulations and guidelines. With new developments in technology and educational methods, it is fair to assume that faculty members first need to develop a thorough understanding of the academic integrity norms within their field. Then, they need to keep up to date with new developments in academic integrity practices to address new ways of academic misconduct. Another challenge new faculty members might face in integrating academic integrity in their courses is their knowledge and understanding of educational and teaching methods. For example, somebody teaching Math or Biology may or may not have certificates in teaching and learning. In 2020, when the pandemic hit, education needed to move to online spaces to accommodate the quarantines. Back then, those familiar with online education could think about innovative ways to accommodate the new teaching and learning environments. Similarly, they were more capable of implementing appropriate academic integrity measures to safeguard the integrity of assessments. The same is true for any integration of academic integrity into curricula. Assessment is another challenge of integrating academic integrity into curricula. Aligning course objectives with assessments is challenging. Adding academic integrity to the course assessment increases the challenge on two levels: first, it requires aligning outcomes with assessments, and next, it needs building academic integrity into the assessment. For example, using authentic assessments for evaluations can be time-consuming, and curriculum developers and faculty members might find it overwhelming to accommodate such assessments in their syllabi. To elaborate, if a traditional assessment takes two hours to administer, an authentic assessment might take several hours, depending on the nature of the course and the number of students being evaluated. In that scenario, integrating authentic assessment means shifting the content schedule, rethinking the back-wash effect of assessment, and contemplating how much of the learning can be modified to incorporate an authentic assessment. The following section discusses some assessment challenges of integrating academic integrity into curricula.

Assessment Challenges Although adding academic integrity as a course component legitimizes academic integrity as a related course discipline, as discussed previously, embedding it throughout courses provides the benefit of fabricating academic integrity into the discipline by promoting it across the course. Additionally, if it is done correctly, the already busy schedules for some courses likely do not get cluttered with excessive course content. Furthermore, we can extend its presence beyond a single course

194

M. Rahimian

when embedding academic integrity into the curriculum. By doing so, we can expect an increased adherence to academic integrity norms and practices. As a by-product, this approach will help shift the culture of academic integrity by increasing awareness and presence of information related to academic integrity. Implementing academic integrity into the curriculum would require careful reconsideration of courses. The next step is considering the challenges of embedding academic integrity in courses in a coherent and manageable way. These two concerns will shape the conversation in the following section.

Embedding Academic Integrity into Curriculum When we intend to embed academic integrity into a curriculum, we face at least two questions: (1) how do we integrate academic integrity values in our courses coherently so it goes well with other course content? Moreover, (2) how can we manage the integration of academic integrity in our curricula so that it does not overwhelm the content? The first question concerns creating alignment in our courses while adding academic integrity components. The second question concerns the content manageability of our curriculum after including academic integrity in it. The answer to these questions can guide us in creating an academic integrity integration that aligns well with other elements of our curriculum. Embedding academic integrity into the curriculum requires considering multiple factors, such as the existing curricula and historical and political contributing factors (Stoesz, 2022). Context plays a significant role in what and how we can introduce some elements into the curriculum. Therefore, focusing on goals might make it more manageable to integrate academic integrity into curricula. Since our graduates are expected to have specific competencies and skills, one can argue that achieving those competencies and skills is impossible without maintaining academic integrity. Therefore, integrating academic integrity becomes a socially responsible mandate for educational institutes. Focusing on the outcomes can provide a middle-ground platform to justify and operationalize integrating academic integrity values into the curriculum.

Curriculum Alignment Curriculum alignment is creating consistency and coherency among different curriculum elements, including the expected outcomes and other educational activities in the program or course (International Bureau of Education, n.d.). In this definition, the emphasis is on considering the intended outcomes and building the curriculum from there. The Backward Design Model in Education (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998) also emphasizes focusing on the intended outcomes and developing our curriculum backward. Curriculum scholars specify three areas that need to be aligned to create an alignment in a curriculum: teaching, assessment, and documented curricula (Squires, 2012). Creating alignment in the curriculum can be a very challenging task. Pak et al. (2020) suggest using technical and adaptive approaches when creating alignment in a curriculum. By technical approaches, they refer to using

13

Aligning Theoretical and Practical Considerations for Academic. . .

195

the existing tools, knowledge, and documents to address curriculum alignment challenges. On the other hand, adaptive challenges in curriculum refer to the practical adaptation of new outcomes into the curriculum. Synthesizing the discussion on adding academic integrity into the curriculum using an embedded model on the one hand and the above discussion on adaptive and technical challenges of introducing new outcomes into the curriculum, we can conclude that the integration of academic integrity into the curriculum is facing at least three challenges: (1) the necessity of academic integrity integration into the curriculum, (2) the technical challenges of integrating it, and (3) employing an adaptive approach for its integration. Considering these three elements, using an approach that uses both the Backward Design Model and creates an alignment in the curriculum outcomes and academic integrity inclusion in the curriculum can help address the issue at multiple levels. First, using the Backward Design Model and Outcome-Based Education provides the necessary tools and justification for academic integrity inclusion in the curriculum. Second, an aligned integration of academic integrity into the curriculum makes its integration easier. Third, there needs to be ongoing support to be adaptive in the integration process. The third point refers to the need for continuous support to make the integration happen successfully. At many universities and colleges, centers for teaching and learning exist to support curriculum development and share best practices in teaching. The following section shares some practical recommendations for integrating academic integrity into the curriculum.

Some Recommendations for Integrating Academic Integrity into the Curriculum Using the discussions on applying the Backward Design Model, the argument for using a wide-integrated approach for academic integrity addition, and creating alignment in the curriculum while adding academic integrity components, here are a few steps for academic integrity integration into the curriculum: 1. Modifying course outcomes to incorporate academic integrity within them. 2. Modification/Adjustment of lesson outcomes to align them with the course outcomes 3. Designing activities to meet the new outcomes 4. Evaluating and fixing evaluation techniques to meet the new course outcomes 5. Using an iterative evaluation of the curriculum to ensure an alignment exists among different components, including course outcomes, lesson outcomes, teaching activities, and evaluation procedures. The five steps are visually represented in the graph below (Fig. 1). One of the first steps in integrating academic integrity values into the curriculum is incorporating them into the course outline. This means evaluating each course outcome to explore the possibility of including an academic integrity element. The idea is illustrated using an example from a curriculum guiding document:

196

M. Rahimian

1. Incorporation of academic integrity in the course outcomes

2. Modification of lesson and activity outcomes to align them with the new course outcomes

3. Designing and redesigning activities to meet the new lesson and activity outcomes

5. Re-evaluation of the course outcomes, lesson outcomes, and evaluation techniques to ensure an alignment among them exists 4. Examine the evaluation techniques and align them with the course and activity outcomes

Fig. 1 A model for integrating academic integrity into the curriculum “By the end of this course, students will be able to identify and develop data collection instruments and measures for planning and conducting sociological research” (Council of Ontario Universities, 2012, p. 12).

Here is a slightly modified version where the idea of incorporating academic integrity into the learning objective has been demonstrated: By the end of this course, each student can develop five to seven data collection instruments and the relevant measurement means needed for planning and conducting sociological research using the standard academic integrity norms in the field.

In this refined version, the word “students” has been replaced with “each student” to emphasize the importance of the skills and competency of each student. In addition to that, the number of data collection instruments has been specified as the hypothetical numbers five to seven. By developing clear expectations and later communicating those expectations with the students, we can promote trust as a fundamental value of academic integrity (International Center for Academic Integrity, 2021). Finally, in the end, the phrase “using the standard academic integrity norms in the field” has been added to emphasize academic integrity incorporation. Next, we can generate lesson and assignment objectives and evaluation techniques based on our modified course outcome.

13

Aligning Theoretical and Practical Considerations for Academic. . .

197

A sample lesson outcome can be: At the end of this session, students can name three data collection tools often used in sociological research papers by independently searching published online papers over the past 5 years following the academic integrity norms and practices.

In this lesson outcome, there is an emphasis on being able to search the databases and identify specific tools. An emphasis on following academic integrity norms and practices is provided as a reminder. Next, we need to design activities to build toward this lesson objective. One way of doing that is to apply the concepts of scaffolding, initially developed by Vygotsky, and the gradual release of responsibilities framework. Through scaffolding, educators support the learning process by providing guidance for the learning and decreasing the level of support as the learners progress in their learning (Santrock, 2017; Woolfolk et al., 2012). The gradual release of responsibility model suggests instructional activities, such as skill-building activities, to be modelled by the instructor, followed by a guided activity by the students on the same skill or competency. Finally, a student-led activity would conclude the instruction (Webb et al., 2019). In this model, the learners’ responsibilities increase as the instruction proceeds. The idea of an instructional session has been summarized in the following steps: 1. The instructor leads an activity where they create the scenario. An example can be: “In our field, we need to research sociological concepts, entities, and events. There are research tools that we can use. Let us work together to determine what research tools researchers have used. To do that, let us brainstorm about some sociological concepts, hot topics, or whatever you are interested in.” Then, the instructor writes down one idea on the board and encourages the class to think of other ideas. Next, they choose one idea, project their laptop screen on the board and open a search engine such as their library search page or Google Scholar. Then, they show how to formulate a search prompt, restrict the research to the last five years, and download a journal paper. Then, they show the class how to identify the information they need related to the data collection tool used for the paper. 2. The instructor divides the class into groups of three, assigns one phrase from the board to each group and asks them to work together to find one research tool used in a paper in that area. The instructor clarifies that to follow academic integrity practices, all peers in each group need to contribute to the work. One suggestion to facilitate that is for the students to assign different tasks to different group members, followed by sharing their work to complete the activity. Students can ask the instructor or their peers if they have any questions. 3. The instructor asks the students to perform another task similar to the previous one, but individually. They explain that researchers in the field need to be able to do the work independently, and students need to finish a similar activity as part of the course evaluation. During this task, the students will learn how to perform the

198

M. Rahimian

task independently while the instructor will provide additional support. After the activity, some students will share their findings voluntarily. 4. Finally, students are asked to find three common data collection tools used in sociological research by exploring journal papers published in the past five years. The instructor reminds them to do the activity individually and submit the names of the data collection tools in the course Dropbox, including where they found the tool with proper citations. This section provided some recommendations for creating alignment in our curriculum while including academic integrity components. Using a five-step guide, the process of adding academic integrity was illustrated using examples regarding the course outcome and instructional activities. It is worth mentioning that the illustrations are non-exhaustive examples of creating alignment in the curriculum while integrating academic integrity into it.

Summary Introducing academic integrity into a course is one thing, and integrating it into the curriculum is something else. While we can make some changes, such as mentioning academic integrity values, talking about its norms and practices, and modelling the way, total integration of it in the curriculum is more challenging while necessary. This paper presented an illustration of integrating academic integrity into the curriculum. Using the Backward Design Model, five steps were presented to integrate academic integrity into the curriculum. These steps are (1) incorporating academic integrity in the course outcomes, (2) adjusting lesson outcomes in each course to align them with the course outcomes and incorporate academic integrity values, (3) developing instructional activities for the new outcomes, (4) revisiting and modifying the evaluation techniques for the new course outcomes, and (5) performing an iterative evaluation of the entire curriculum for alignment. As a final note, the proposed strategies are not conclusive, and practitioners can continue developing methods of incorporating academic integrity into the curriculum.

References Andie Burazin, A., Lovric, M., & Jungic, V. (2020, September, 23). Let them cheat: Why it’s tempting for college and university instructors to look the other way. CBC News. https://www. cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-academic-cheating-1.5576990 Council of Ontario Universities. (2012). Ensuring the value of university degrees in Ontario. Retrieved from https://cou.ca/reports/ensuring-the-value-of-university-degrees/ Eaton, S. E., & Christiansen Hughes, J. (2022). Academic integrity in Canada: Historical perspectives and current trends. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christiansen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge (pp. 431–447). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-030-83255-1

13

Aligning Theoretical and Practical Considerations for Academic. . .

199

Evans-Tokaryk, T. (2014). Academic integrity, remix culture, globalization: A Canadian case study of student and faculty perceptions of plagiarism. Across the Disciplines, 11(2). https://doi.org/ 10.37514/ATD-J.2014.11.2.07 Garwood, K. (2022). Supporting academic integrity in the writing Centre: Perspectives of student consultants. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christiansen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge (pp. 431–447). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03083255-1 Hristova, B. (2023, February 02). Some students are using ChatGPT to cheat — here’s how schools are trying to stop it. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/chatgpt-schoolcheating-1.6734580 International Bureau of Education. (n.d.). Curriculum alignment. http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/ glossary-curriculum-terminology/c/curriculum-alignment International Center for Academic Integrity. (2021). The fundamental values of academic integrity (3rd ed.) https://academicintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Fundamental-Values2014.pdf McNeill, L. (2022). Changing “hearts” and minds: Pedagogical and institutional practices to foster academic integrity. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge (pp. 487–503). Springer. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-030-83255-1 Pak, K., Polikoff, M. S., Desimone, L. M., & García, E. S. (2020). The adaptive challenges of curriculum implementation: Insights for educational leaders driving standards-based reform. AERA Open, 6(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420932828 Panico, G. (2020). University cheating might be up — but don’t just blame students. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/university-cheating-might-be-up-but-don-t-justblame-students-1.5618272 Rao, N. J. (2020). Outcome-based education: An outline. Higher Education for the Future, 7(1), 5–21. Roberson, J. (2023, February 15). ChatGPT raises concerns of academic integrity. The Rider News. https://www.theridernews.com/chatgpt-raises-concerns-of-academic-integrity/ Rossi, S. L. (2022). Revisioning paraphrasing instruction. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge (pp. 411–429). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1 Santrock, J. W. (2017). Educational psychology (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. Spady, W. G. (1994). Outcome-based education: Critical issues and answers. American Association of School Administrators. Squires, D. (2012). Curriculum alignment research suggests that alignment can improve student achievement. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 85(4), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2012.657723 Stoesz, B. M. (2022). Understanding provincial and territorial academic integrity policies for elementary and secondary education in Canada. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge (pp. 141–161). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1 U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). The federal role in education. U.S. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html Webb, S., Massey, D., Goggans, M., & Flajole, K. (2019). Thirty-five years of the gradual release of responsibility: Scaffolding toward complex and responsive teaching. The Reading Teacher, 73(1), 75–83. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). What is backward design? In Understanding by design (1st ed., pp. 7–19). Merrill Prentice Hall. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20160721163755/ http://www.fitnyc.edu/files/pdfs/Backward_design.pdf Wong, J. (2023, January 21). Curveball or game changer? ChatGPT, AI tools under watch on Canadian campuses. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/chatgpt-aitools-highered-1. 6716521 Woolfolk, A. E., Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2012). Educational psychology (5th Canadian ed.). Pearson.

Part II Academic Integrity Through Ethical Teaching and Assessment

Academic Integrity Through Ethical Teaching and Assessment: Overview and Current Trends

14

Brenda M. Stoesz

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ethic of Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nine Principles of Ethical Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pedagogical Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dealing with Sensitive Topics and Student Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Valid Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Principle: Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

204 204 206 208 210 211 213 213 214

Abstract

“Teaching is an ethical undertaking,” and those who identify as ethical educators believe and act in the best interest of their students; and it stands to reason that the activities of ethical teaching must include those that promote academic integrity and support deep learning. This section of the Handbook of Academic Integrity, 2nd Edition, aims to describe how academic integrity can be promoted through ethical teaching and assessment. The authors outlined various approaches (e.g., authentic assessment, experiential learning, program-level course design, and accommodation) and practices (e.g., duplicate and salami publication) that demonstrate ethical professional practices within higher education. This overview chapter links the authors’ chapters to the existing literature describing ethical care and principles of ethical teaching and assessment. An identification of the gaps in the literature about ethical teaching and assessment in higher education, directions for future research, and considerations for changes in approaches to fostering cultures of integrity close the chapter. B. M. Stoesz (*) Centre for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_89

203

204

B. M. Stoesz

Keywords

Assessment · Care · Ethics · Higher Education · Integrity · Postsecondary · Principles of ethical teaching

Introduction Professionals, including postsecondary educators (Dodd, 2005; Reiser, 1994), have an ethical obligation to the public to act in ways that are fair, based on standards of right and wrong, meet certain obligations, and benefit society (Velasquez et al., n.d.). To teach ethically means to believe and act in students’ best interests, to interact respectfully with students, colleagues, and administrators, and to be viewed as competent, reliable, accountable, having high standards, and being conscientious. Ethical teaching and assessment are particularly important because of the inherent power dynamic between students and teachers (Colnerud, 1972; Reiser, 1994). An imbalance is a consequence of the administration of assessments designed to gather information about students’ acquisition of knowledge, skills, and potential. This information is then used to make decisions that will affect students directly, such as progress in programs and eligibility for scholarships, internships, and other opportunities. Thus, it is crucial that the ethical implications associated with teaching strategies and assessment approaches are considered carefully and subsequent decisions are unbiased, so as not to disadvantage students unfairly. This overview chapter summarizes ways in which the ethics of teaching and assessment in higher education has been articulated in the peer-reviewed literature – two prominent ideas include the ethic or duty of care and the principles of ethical teaching. The authors of this part’s chapters have used various frameworks to organize their ideas, strategies, approaches, and perspectives for promoting academic integrity through ethical teaching and assessment. This overview chapter explains how each chapter provides details that demonstrate that ethic of care and/or principles of ethical teaching were considered. The ethic of care and principles of ethical teaching are rarely discussed in higher education (as it is most often reserved for teaching in K-12), but should be considered essential when discussing the best ways to support postsecondary students in their development and career pursuits (Barrow, 2015). This overview chapter concludes with an identification of the gaps in the literature about ethical teaching and assessment in higher education, directions for future research, and considerations for changes in approaches to fostering cultures of integrity.

Ethic of Care During the COVID-19 pandemic when teaching and learning transitioned from in-person to online environments, postsecondary educators were reminded of the importance of adopting an ethic of care – to consider well-being and care along with (or to replace) the traditional meaning and metrics of excellence in teaching (Corbera

14

Academic Integrity Through Ethical Teaching and Assessment: Overview. . .

205

et al., 2020; Feldman, 2020; Tomsons, 2022). The ethic of care is defined as a practice (or acts of caring) and an attitude rather than a set of principles, which requires the building and maintenance of relationships and creating environments where people feel safe (Tronto, 1998). The four elements of caring about (attentive to an unmet need), caring for (taking responsibility to meet the need), caregiving (being competent to meet the need), and care-receiving (responsiveness of the receiver) are posited to comprise the ethic of care. Failure of care results when these elements are unbalanced, out of alignment, or care practices conflict (Henry & Oliver, 2022). For example, even when courses are designed well and instruction of content is clear (actions that may signal caring for and caregiving), educators’ attitudes can make or break (also signaling caregiving or lack therefore) the learning experience for students. Aligned or misaligned care practices can result in either the perception that the educational environment is encouraging and supportive or is adversarial and unsafe (response signaling care is or is not received) (Barrow, 2015; Scott, 2015). Thus, in teaching and assessment, the postsecondary institution, instructors, and students must all contribute to an educational environment that is perceived as one that cares deeply about education and is actively working to create safe spaces for learning. The notion of the need to take care of students to foster cultures of integrity is evident in the discussion shifts from punitive models to holistic approaches that include an educative focus (Bertram Gallant & Drinan, 2008; Bretag & Mahmud, 2016) and the value of the whole postsecondary community in encouraging integrity, discouraging cheating, and holding each other accountable. Some conversations of the past, however, have suggested caring about academic integrity and students is demonstrated through the adoption of honor code systems (e.g., McCabe & Trevino, 1993), but there are problems with this view. Shifting the bulk of the responsibility of academic integrity from faculty and administrators to students does little to show care. Academic integrity and “academic misconduct [are] collective [challenges] and that stakeholders have responsibilities and duty of care to each other” (Gedajlovic & Wielemaker, 2020: 66). The ethic of care in higher education necessitates the commitment to develop trusting and respectful relationships between students, educators, and administrators (▶ Chap. 19, “Integrity Through Experience: Fostering a Culture of Academic Integrity Through an Experiential Learning Approach”). The authors of this section of the Handbook of Academic Integrity (2nd Edition) have infused their chapters with an ethic of care in teaching and assessment to promote academic integrity. White (▶ Chap. 21, “Walking the Talk: Modelling Integrity as University Professionals as Part of Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Activities”), Roig (▶ Chap. 23, “On Recycling Our Own Work in the Digital Age”), and Norris et al. (▶ Chap. 17, “Academic Integrity and Accommodations: The Intersections of Ethics and Flexibility”), for example, describe modeling ethical behavior as one way to demonstrate care and concern about academic integrity but also care and concern about students as people. That attitude will be passed onto members of our society. In medical education programs, educators ask, “What better instruction can students receive about the importance of concern for their patients than being treated by their teachers with concern?” (Reiser, 1994: 873). In “Walking the talk: Modelling integrity as university professionals as part of teaching, learning and assessment activities,”

206

B. M. Stoesz

White urges educators to embody the values of honesty, trust, respect, fairness, responsibility, and courage so that students have exemplars from which to learn and act with integrity as they proceed through their postsecondary studies. The importance of embodiment of values for creating cultures of academic integrity is also described by Brooks (▶ Chap. 19, “Integrity Through Experience: Fostering a Culture of Academic Integrity Through an Experiential Learning Approach”) in “Integrity through experience: Fostering a culture of academic integrity through an experiential learning approach” and Norris et al. (▶ Chap. 17, “Academic Integrity and Accommodations: The Intersections of Ethics and Flexibility”) in “The intersection of academic integrity and accommodations.” Roig describes the importance of modeling ethical behavior in research and publishing to graduate students in “Recycling our own work in the digital age” in his updated chapter (see also Roig, 2015). Ethic of care is also demonstrated when educators and administrators work toward providing quality teaching and learning experiences (▶ Chap. 19, “Integrity Through Experience: Fostering a Culture of Academic Integrity Through an Experiential Learning Approach”), develop assessments that are valid (▶ Chap. 18, “Guidelines for Creating Online MCQ-Based Exams to Evaluate Higher Order Learning and Reduce Academic Misconduct”), and align course and program objectives to learning activities and assessments (▶ Chap. 16, “Coordinating Ethical Assessment at the Program Level”). It can be argued that adopting an ethics of care is consistent with and demonstrated when educators adhere to the principles of ethical teaching as outlined by Murray et al. (1996). It is important to note that the ethics of care and principles of ethical teaching are not at odds. In fact, they complement each other to a large extent, and this will be evident in the next section of this overview chapter.

Nine Principles of Ethical Teaching The Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (a Canadian organization that brings together postsecondary educators and students) and several awardwinning postsecondary instructors outlined and published “ethical principles that define the professional responsibilities of university professors in their role as teacher” (Murray et al., 1996: 57). These principles include content competence, pedagogical competence, dealing with sensitive topics, student development, dual relationships with students, confidentiality, respect for colleagues, valid assessment of students, and respect for the institution. See Table 1 for descriptions of the nine principles of ethical teaching. The authors in this section have aligned their perspectives and the research on ethical teaching and assessment with the principles of ethical teaching, namely pedagogical competence, dealing with sensitive topics, student development, and valid assessment, but have also addressed some of Watson’s (2022) proposed additions and revisions (see Table 1). In a recent webinar, Watson (2022) described the strengths and limitations of the principles of ethical teaching as originally constructed, including the lack of explicit information about academic integrity,

14

Academic Integrity Through Ethical Teaching and Assessment: Overview. . .

207

Table 1 Ethical principles in university teaching Principle 1. Content competence

2. Pedagogical competence

3. Dealing with sensitive topics 4. Student development

5. Dual relationships with students

6. Confidentiality

7. Respect for colleagues 8. Valid assessment of students

Description “A university teacher maintains a high level of subject matter knowledge and ensures that course content is current, accurate. Representative, and appropriate to the position of the course within the student’s program of studies” (Murray et al., 1996: 58) “A pedagogically competent teacher communicates the objectives of the course to students, is aware of alternative instructional methods or strategies, and selects methods of instruction that, according to research evidence (including personal or self-reflective research), are effective in helping students to achieve the course objectives” (Murray et al., 1996: 58) Proposed revisions: • Ensuring student access to course materials and experiences • Classroom management competence • Antiracist and equity-focused teaching practices (e.g., awareness of systemic biases and impact on student success; instructors supporting a growth mindset) (Watson, 2022) “Topics that students are likely to find sensitive or discomforting are dealt with in an open, honest, and positive way” (Murray et al., 1996: 59) “The overriding responsibility of the teacher is to contribute to the intellectual development of the student, at least in the context of the teacher’s own area of expertise, and to avoid actions such as exploitation and discrimination that detract from student development” (Murray et al., 1996: 59–60) “To avoid conflict of interest, a teacher does not enter into dual-role relationships with students that are likely to detract from student development or lead to actual or perceived favoritism on the part of the teacher” (Murray et al., 1996: 60) Proposed revisions: • Expand to include the context of students as partners • How does mentorship, graduate student supervision fit? (Watson, 2022) “Student grades, attendance records, and private communications are treated as confidential materials and are released only with student consent, for legitimate academic purposes, or if there are reasonable grounds for believing that releasing such information will be beneficial to the student or will prevent harm to others” (Murray et al., 1996: 61) Proposed revision: • Privacy of student data (e.g., protecting student data from third parties) (Watson, 2022) “A university teacher respects the dignity of her or his colleagues and works cooperatively with colleagues in the interest of fostering student development” (Murray et al., 1996: 62) “Given the importance of assessment of student performance in university teaching and in students’ lives and careers, instructors are responsible for taking adequate steps to ensure that assessment of students is valid, open, fair, and congruent with course objectives” (Murray et al., 1996: 63) (continued)

208

B. M. Stoesz

Table 1 (continued) Principle

9. Respect for the institution Proposed additions Professional development

Indigenization and reconciliation

Description Proposed revision: • Assessment practices that take student well-being into account (e.g., considering innovative assessment strategies) (Watson, 2022) “In the interests of student development, a university teacher is aware of and respects the educational goals, policies, and standards of the institution in which he or she teaches” (Murray et al., 1996: 58) • Continuous reflection on teaching practice (e.g., knowledge of teaching and learning is never fixed and a willingness to address ethical practice is included in reflection) • Competency in curriculum design and engagement in curricular improvement (e.g., at the course level as per principle 1 but also in collaboration at the program level; designing for academic integrity) (Watson, 2022) • Indigenous and Western knowledge systems; two-eyed seeing; addressing the question of “being at the table” vs. “rebuilding the table” (Watson, 2022)

Notes: Principles and their definitions as per Murray, H., Gillese, E., Lennon, M., Mercer, P., & Robinson, M. (1996). Ethical principles for college and university teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 66, 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966611. Revisions and additions as per Watson, G. (2022). Ethical principles for university teaching: 25 years later. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼SWV_J-WuV_4

Indigenous pedagogies, continued professional development in teaching and learning, antiracist and equity-focused teaching practices, and classroom management in the descriptions of the original principles. For example, some authors in this section have also challenged readers to think deeply about disability specifically and inclusive education broadly (▶ Chaps. 17, “Academic Integrity and Accommodations: The Intersections of Ethics and Flexibility,” and ▶ 20, “Integrating Academic Integrity: An Educational Approach”) (more about these chapters below). Watson argued further that the act of student learning has not transformed much in the past 25 years, although one cannot argue that the diversity of the postsecondary student population has widened. Teaching, however, has become much more complex, demanding, and nuanced than it once was (see also Scott, 2015), necessitating revisions and additions to the original principles of ethical teaching.

Pedagogical Competence Extensive research training in a particular field or content area is often the key qualifier for teaching in higher education, and faculty and contract (or sessional) instructors are often not required to complete formal training in andragogy and/or pedagogy (Crider, 2022; Murtonen & Vilppu, 2020). Lack of formal training to teach at the postsecondary level, however, may lead to the adoption of teaching strategies that are based solely on experience as postsecondary students and that do not align

14

Academic Integrity Through Ethical Teaching and Assessment: Overview. . .

209

with evidence-based practices. This teaching by trial-and-error (Crider, 2022) might result in decreased teaching quality and unsatisfactory learning experiences for students. Training in effective teaching strategies, however, is incredibly important as “a pedagogically competent teacher communicates the objectives of the course to students, is aware of alternative instructional methods or strategies, and selects methods of instruction that, according to research evidence (including personal or self-reflective research), are effective in helping students to achieve the course objectives” (see principle 2, Murray et al., 1996: 58). Brooks (▶ Chap. 19, “Integrity Through Experience: Fostering a Culture of Academic Integrity Through an Experiential Learning Approach”) and Openo (▶ Chap. 15, “Academic Integrity and the Affordances and Limitations of Authentic Assessment”) suggest that competence in implementing experiential learning and authentic assessment is important and, if implemented with careful consideration, promote academic integrity. In ▶ Chap. 19, “Integrity Through Experience: Fostering a Culture of Academic Integrity Through an Experiential Learning Approach,” Brooks summarized how experiential learning can engage learners, support the development of specific competencies, and promote academic integrity. Brooks highlights the gap in the literature that connects experiential learning and academic integrity and describes how educators can deliberately foster a culture of academic integrity in the experiential learning environment through careful course design and thoughtful delivery of strategies. As with other pedagogical strategies, the implementation of experiential learning strategies will not automatically result in all students learning with integrity. This is a point that must be stressed. No single strategy can cure the cheating problem, and students in these and other types of learning environments may still choose to make poor decisions and find opportunities to engage in inappropriate actions (Schibrowsky & Peltier, 1995). In addition, instructors must think through the ethical issues associated with the use (or misuse) of experiential learning activities (Bradford, 2019). For example, students may be required by their course instructors to reflect on their learning experiences; however, the ethical considerations of the disclosure that is often expected of these reflections are rarely considered. Therefore, as educators plan to incorporate teaching and learning strategies that may be new to them, they must consider the benefits of the strategies to student learning as well as any unintended consequences of implementing them. Openo (▶ Chap. 15, “Academic Integrity and the Affordances and Limitations of Authentic Assessment”) goes on to discuss how careful crafting of authentic assessments can promote students to learn with integrity in ▶ Chap. 15, “Academic Integrity and the Affordances and Limitations of Authentic Assessment.” The author begins by describing two recent events: large-scale academic misconduct in a law and ethics course within an engineering program at the University of Regina and the collapse of a pedestrian bridge at Florida International University. Although the two events were not linked directly, Openo draws connections between study and practice in the engineering profession as an example of why it is important to learn with integrity in postsecondary education to prevent tragedies from occurring in the “real world.” Open argues for the benefits of authentic assessment to encourage student engagement and prevent misconduct. Authentic assessments tie course

210

B. M. Stoesz

content to the real-world knowledge and skills (in a more direct way than other types of assessment) so that students are more likely to see the relevance of their studies to their future professions. But there are constraints to adopting authentic assessments that must be considered, such as limited time for planning, understanding how to design such assessments, and how to guide students through these types of assessments. Authentic assessments also do not prevent all types of academic misconduct as students have been known to outsource even those assignments that are rated high in authenticity to contract cheating companies or family and friends (Ellis et al., 2020). Implementing a pedagogical strategy effectively may require training and does require practice. Adherence to the principle of pedagogical competence necessitates engaging in professional development opportunities (e.g., workshops, readings, and conference attendance) to acquire new knowledge and skills in teaching, and the appropriate context to apply the strategy to be an effective educator. Watson (2022) proposed a revision of the principle of pedagogical competence to include consideration of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). Although EDI is written about by many authors in another section of this handbook (see ▶ Chap. 65, “Decolonization, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Academic Integrity: Introduction”), Norris et al. (▶ Chap. 17, “Academic Integrity and Accommodations: The Intersections of Ethics and Flexibility”) described various pedagogical strategies and academic accommodations that can be implemented to support students with learning and mental health challenges in ▶ Chap. 20, “Integrating Academic Integrity: An Educational Approach.” Norris et al.’s chapter challenges postsecondary educators to resist perceiving accessibility, accommodation, and academic integrity as conflicting constructs (▶ Chap. 17, “Academic Integrity and Accommodations: The Intersections of Ethics and Flexibility”). In line with this view, Morris (▶ Chap. 20, “Integrating Academic Integrity: An Educational Approach”) stresses that, using an EDI lens, educators must reflect deeply on their choices for promoting academic integrity and identifying academic integrity breaches. Failure to implement the most ethical choices in teaching and learning will continue to have detrimental effects on students who fall into particular groups (e.g., minority groups, first-year students, nontraditional educational backgrounds, and students with disabilities) who are often overrepresented in academic misconduct cases.

Dealing with Sensitive Topics and Student Development Academic integrity and academic misconduct can be sensitive topics, especially for some student groups (Sanni-Anibire et al., 2021), those who have a history of allegations of cheating, or educators who have been required to deal with difficult cases of academic misconduct (e.g., Openo & Robinson, 2021). Despite the discomfort that this topic may provoke, it is important for educators to have the courage to speak to and with students about sensitive issues in “open, honest, and positive way[s]” (Murray et al., 1996: 59). In her chapter in this section of the Handbook of Academic Integrity, 2nd Edition, White (▶ Chap. 21, “Walking the Talk: Modelling

14

Academic Integrity Through Ethical Teaching and Assessment: Overview. . .

211

Integrity as University Professionals as Part of Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Activities”) proposed strategies that help attenuate the sensitivity of the topic of academic integrity, make it more friendly, and remove the fear. White outlined various practical ways that educators can model academic integrity for their students and described how she and her teaching team implemented these ideas into an accounting course at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). Dealing with difficult topics sensitively “and avoid[ing] actions such as exploitation and discrimination” fosters an open and safe learning environment and will contribute to the intellectual development of the student (Murray et al., 1996: 59–60). Student development can also be encouraged through modeling ethical behavior (as described above). Graduate student advisors and supervisors are obliged to educate graduate students about practices in research, including the publication process, that are ethical or unethical and to model these practices. It is common to see that actions that are acceptable and typical in professional contexts spill into educational contexts where they may not be aligned with the academic integrity and academic misconduct policies and procedures of a postsecondary institution (e.g., legal profession and judiciary; Watson Hamilton, 2022). Researchers may also engage in the practices of duplicate and salami publication (where the latter refers to the inappropriate dividing of data into portions that are prepared separately for publication) (Ding et al., 2020). It has been argued that these practices are unethical and have detrimental effects, including “distortion of scientific evidence” and “perpetuating the flawed academic reward systems by emphasizing quantity over quality of publication” (Ding et al., 2020: 282). Graduate students and their advisors and supervisors are encouraged to read Roig’s (▶ Chap. 23, “On Recycling Our Own Work in the Digital Age”) chapter to understand more fully the importance of appropriate and inappropriate recycling of their own work (e.g., assignments, thesis, journal articles, and conference presentations) and when decisions to engage in certain publication practices are made, to be as transparent as possible so that the reader of the published work is made aware of the context.

Valid Assessment As described in the introduction section of this overview chapter, “Given the importance of assessment of student performance in university teaching and in students’ lives and careers, instructors are responsible for taking adequate steps to ensure that assessment of students is valid, open, fair, and congruent with course objectives” (Murray et al., 1996: 63). Three authors in this section have addressed different issues within the area of valid assessment from grading standards to creating assessments for individual courses to conceptualizing assessment strategies within programs. Updated from the first edition of the Handbook of Academic Integrity (see Foster, 2015) on “Grading standards in higher education: Trends, context, and prognosis,” Foster (▶ Chap. 22, “Grading Standards in Higher Education: Trends, Context, and Prognosis”) summarized the issue of grade inflation and outlined why grade inflation

212

B. M. Stoesz

should cause educators, administrators, and employers to worry or not. Foster contends that gradual inflation that is equal for everyone will have no real effect – similar to effects observed with monetary inflation. If grade inflation rises rapidly and steeply, however, the ability to understand what grades mean is weakened and grades can no longer be considered a valid metric of learning. Inflated grades therefore lose their value. Foster explains that students have the most to lose from grade inflation as declining standards mean that more students are meeting the (lower) standard and they will have to work harder to show professors and employers what sets them apart from peers, with their peers being the competition for scholarships, entry to graduate studies, and jobs. Increasing competition could potentially drive students to make poor decisions regarding their academic work and commit violations of academic integrity in an attempt to gain advantage over other students. Newton reminds us in ▶ Chap. 18, “Guidelines for Creating Online MCQ-Based Exams to Evaluate Higher Order Learning and Reduce Academic Misconduct,” about the potential benefits of using a variety of assessments, and that multiplechoice questions (MCQs) can be part of that assessment battery if the scores that are produced show evidence of being reliable and valid. Newton goes on to explain that MCQ-based assessments have often been given a bad rap – MCQs are often deemed unsuitable for testing higher (vs. lower) learning and assumed to be easy to cheat on, suggesting that MCQs are not valid measures of learning. Readers are reminded, however, that lack of validity can apply to any assessment that is poorly designed. An important strength of Newton’s chapter is that he has synthesized the literature on creating valid and reliable MCQs (which arguably also applies to any other assessment). For example, educators must begin and end with the purpose(s) of a lesson and the course – what are the learning outcomes? Newton then provides guidance on how to write these types of questions and considerations for the context of the assessment (e.g., open vs. closed book, timing). Consistent with other authors in this section, Bens (▶ Chap. 16, “Coordinating Ethical Assessment at the Program Level”) reasons that ethical assessment requires that all stakeholders in the educational community (e.g., students) understand expectations for engaging in the educational community, perceive that their best interests are considered, and that trust is established between all its members in “coordinating ethical assessment at the program level.” She further describes how the meso level of the 4 M Framework (Simmons, 2020) can be used to organize and align content and assessment strategies across specific programs of study and between micro (individual educator), macro (institution), and mega (broader community) levels to ensure that these purposes are met. Bens describes three approaches to coordinating programs to support learning and provide valid assessment, and thereby support the development of academic integrity. These approaches involve setting the appropriate conditions for assessment, supporting the student, and changing the nature of assessment. Bens does not deny, however, that barriers, such as the lack of the ability for educators to reach common ground about alignment across a program, that there are no guarantees that the risks for engaging in academic misconduct will be eliminated for all students, and that large-scale changes to existing programs can be

14

Academic Integrity Through Ethical Teaching and Assessment: Overview. . .

213

time-consuming and require a great deal of effort, which may pull faculty away from their other responsibilities (i.e., primary research programs). Despite these barriers, the long-term gains from reconceptualizing program development will include greater benefits for student learning, more competent graduates, and a stronger workforce.

Additional Principle: Professional Development Watson (2022) suggests that professional development, particularly in the area of academic integrity, should be an additional principle of ethical teaching. In her chapter, “Integrating academic integrity: An educational approach,” Morris (▶ Chap. 20, “Integrating Academic Integrity: An Educational Approach”) proposes an institutional approach that focuses on teaching and learning to promote academic integrity. An educational approach requires all members of a postsecondary institution, including students, educators, administration and leadership, and higher educational professionals, to foster cultures of integrity. One way to encourage this positive approach is through the provision of professional development for staff, and tutorials and workshops for students. Changing the lexicon of academic integrity and academic misconduct (e.g., using phrases like “assignment outsourcing” rather than “contract cheating,” “meeting” rather than “hearing,” and “outcome” rather than “penalty”) (▶ Chap. 20, “Integrating Academic Integrity: An Educational Approach”) should be included in these professional and student development opportunities. Teaching and learning centers are key to providing professional development about academic integrity and evidence-informed pedagogies to support excellence in teaching within higher education (Forgie et al., 2018).

Summary In Part II, “Academic Integrity Through Ethical Teaching and Assessment,” the authors examined the interactions between academic integrity, ethical teaching and assessment, and alignment of learning environment and student needs to improve future teaching and assessment activities (Bearman et al., 2016). Nonetheless, there are gaps in this section that must be acknowledged. Importantly, this section did not fully discuss the importance of indigenization, decolonization, and reconciliation (see Poitras Pratt & Gladue, 2022) or how higher education has been impacted by rapid advancements of technology and changes in the way assessment security is viewed (see Dawson, 2020) as part of the ethical teaching landscape. For an in-depth discussion on these topics, readers are encouraged to navigate to the parts on the “Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Academic Integrity” and the “Role of Technology and Cybersecurity in Academic Integrity.” Another gap in the discussion of academic integrity through ethical teaching and assessment in this section is the intersection between academic integrity and leadership in the classroom. In her chapter, White (▶ Chap. 21, “Walking the Talk:

214

B. M. Stoesz

Modelling Integrity as University Professionals as Part of Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Activities”) challenged postsecondary institutions as a whole and individual faculty members to reflect on how their reputations as researchers, educators, and contributors to the public good are connected to the culture (or lack) of integrity in teaching and learning, and to change their actions accordingly. Adhering to the ethics of teaching practices and assessment requires ethical leadership. Ethical behavior in followers (e.g., postsecondary students) starts with ethical leaders (e.g., faculty/instructors are leaders to students) (Grigoropoulos, 2019; Rabie & Abdul Malek, 2020). Ethical leadership is “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making” (Brown et al., 2005: 120). Although the leadership in academic integrity is described in more detail in other chapters in this handbook (▶ Chap. 109, “Academic Integrity Leadership and Community Building in Canadian Higher Education”), it is important to iterate here that educators are leaders to students in the local teaching and learning environment. As such, showing great leadership in academic integrity means taking approaches to teaching and assessment that are principled and visible to students. Students can then learn how to make thoughtful decisions in completing their academic work and developing effective leadership skills as well. Ethical leadership may not be visible or even extraordinary and “. . . might even be considered to be mundane (e.g., steadfast, everyday adherence to standards of conduct) rather than visionary or transformational” (Brown et al., 2005: 122), but this way of being that is consistent and free of grandeur can have a meaningful and lasting impact on students and their overall learning experiences.

References Barrow, M. (2015). Caring in teaching: A complicated relationship. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 15(2), 45–59. Bearman, M., Dawson, P., Boud, D., Bennett, S., Hall, M., Bearman, M., Dawson, P., Boud, D., & Bennett, S. (2016). Support for assessment practice: Developing the assessment design decisions framework. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(5), 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13562517.2016.1160217 Bertram Gallant, T., & Drinan, P. (2008). Toward a model of academic integrity institutionalization: Informing practice in postsecondary education. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 38(2), 25–43. Bradford, D. L. (2019). Ethical issues in experiential learning. Journal of Management Education, 43(1), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562918807500 Bretag, T., & Mahmud, S. (2016). A conceptual framework for implementing exemplary academic integrity policy in Australian higher education. In Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 463–480). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8 Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002 Colnerud, G. (1972). Teaching and teacher education. Chinese Education, 5(2), 105–112. https:// doi.org/10.2753/CED1061-19320502105

14

Academic Integrity Through Ethical Teaching and Assessment: Overview. . .

215

Corbera, E., Anguelovski, I., Honey-Rosés, J., & Ruiz-Mallén, I. (2020). Academia in the time of COVID-19: Towards an ethics of care. Planning Theory & Practice, 21(2), 191–199. https://doi. org/10.1080/14649357.2020.1757891 Crider, C. (2022). Pedagogical content knowledge for nurse educators: An intersection of disciplines. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 17(4), 449–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2022. 01.001 Dawson, P. (2020). Defending assessment security in a digital world. In Defending assessment security in a digital world. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429324178 Ding, D., Nguyen, B., Gebel, K., Bauman, A., & Bero, L. (2020). Duplicate and salami publication: A prevalence study of journal policies. International Journal of Epidemiology, 49(1), 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyz187 Dodd, S. (2005). Doing the right thing: Ethical issues in higher education. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 97(3), 20–26. 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 and Development, 39(3), 454–469. https:// doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1680956 Feldman, J. (2020). An ethics of care: PGCE students’ experiences of online learning during covid19. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.14426/cristal. v8i2.326 Forgie, S. E., Yonge, O., & Luth, R. (2018). Centres for teaching and learning across Canada: What’s going on? The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2018.1.9 Foster, G. (2015). Grading standards in higher education: Trends, context, and prognosis. In Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 1–14). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7 Gedajlovic, E., & Wielemaker, M. (2020). Neither abuse, nor neglect: A duty-of-care perspective on academic integrity. Canadian Perspectives on Academic Integrity, 3(2), 63–69. https://doi.org/ 10.11575/cpai.v3i2.71655 Grigoropoulos, J. E. (2019). The role of ethics in 21st century organization. International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(2), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2019.189.12 Henry, J. V., & Oliver, M. (2022). Who will watch the watchmen? The ethico-political arrangements of algorithmic proctoring for academic integrity. Postdigital Science and Education, 4(2), 330–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00273-1 McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 522. https://doi.org/10.2307/2959991 Murray, H., Gillese, E., Lennon, M., Mercer, P., & Robinson, M. (1996). Ethical principles for college and university teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 66, 57–63. https:// doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966611 Murtonen, M., & Vilppu, H. (2020). Change in university pedagogical culture – The impact of increased pedagogical training on first teaching experiences. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(3), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.3.20 Openo, J. A., & Robinson, R. (2021). The emotional labour of academic integrity: How does it feel? Canadian Perspectives on Academic Integrity, 4(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.11575/cpai.v4i1. 71350 Poitras Pratt, Y., & Gladue, K. (2022). Re-defining academic integrity: Embracing indigenous truths. In Academic integrity in Canada (pp. 103–123). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1_5 Rabie, M. O., & Abdul Malek, M. (2020). Ethical leadership and employee ethical behavior: A moderated mediation mechanisms. SEISENSE Journal of Management, 3(2 SE), 73–88. https:// doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v3i2.321 Reiser, S. J. (1994). The ethics of learning and teaching medicine. Academic Medicine, 69(11), 872–876. Roig, M. (2015). On recycling our own work in the digital age. In Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 1–13). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_15-1

216

B. M. Stoesz

Sanni-Anibire, H., Stoesz, B. M., Gervais, L., & Vogt, L. (2021). International students’ knowledge and emotions related to academic integrity at Canadian postsecondary institutions. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00088-4 Schibrowsky, J. A., & Peltier, J. W. (1995). The dark side of experiential learning activities. Journal of Marketing Education, 17(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/027347539501700103 Scott, D. E. (2015). The nebulous, essential dimensions in effective university teaching: The ethic of care and relational acumen. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 12(2), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.12.2.9 Simmons, N. (2020). The 4M framework as analytic lens for SoTL’s impact: A study of seven scholars. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 8(1), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.20343/ TEACHLEARNINQU.8.1.6 Tomsons, K. (2022). The ethics of care and online teaching: Personal reflections on pandemic postsecondary instruction. In J. J. Fellows & L. Smith (Eds.), Gender, sex, and tech! An intersectional feminist guide. Women’s Press. Tronto, J. C. (1998). An ethic of care. Generations: Journal of the American Society on Aging, 22(3), 15–20. Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T. S., & Meyer, M. J. (n.d.). What is ethics? Markkula Center for Applied Ethics: Ethics Resources. Retrieved December 13, 2022, from https://www.scu.edu/ ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-ethics/ Watson, G. (2022). Ethical principles for university teaching: 25 years later. YouTube. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v¼SWV_J-WuV_4 Watson Hamilton, J. (2022). The distinctive nature of academic integrity in graduate legal education. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada. Ethics and integrity in educational contexts (pp. 333–350). Springer International Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1_17

Academic Integrity and the Affordances and Limitations of Authentic Assessment

15

Jason Openo

Contents Academic Integrity and the Affordances and Limitations of Authentic Assessment . . . . . . . . . . From Cops to Coaches: The Shifting Approach of Academic Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Changing the Nature of the Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Authentic Assessments: What They Are and Why We Need them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Affordances and Limitations of Authentic Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

218 219 221 223 224 224 226 227 229

Abstract

Academic integrity presents a perennial and long-standing challenge to postsecondary education. Outsourcing academic activity through contract cheating undermines academic credentials and potentially puts people at risk through extended professional incompetence. Postsecondary institutions must take the threat of academic dishonesty seriously, but to do so, faculty are often presented with the stark choice of playing a game of cops and robbers by increasing surveillance in the form of online proctoring. The rise of contract cheating, outsourcing of student work, and dissatisfaction with online proctoring have heightened focus on the teaching and learning environment and how changing the nature of student assessments can change student behavior. This chapter explores the concept of authentic assessments and argues that authentic assessments can play an important role in creating an academic culture of integrity. It provides guidance for thinking about why authentic assessments are needed now more than ever, along with providing practical steps for developing more authentic assessments. The chapter concludes by discussing some of the limitations that J. Openo (*) Medicine Hat College, Medicine Hat, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_90

217

218

J. Openo

must also be considered when developing more complex, and potentially more time-consuming, alternative assessments, including the quest for scale and the increased use of part-time faculty. Keywords

Academic integrity · Authentic assessment · Instructional design · Signaling theory

Academic Integrity and the Affordances and Limitations of Authentic Assessment On March 11, 2018, CBC News reported that a significant number of engineering students at the University of Regina were suspected of cheating during a law and ethics course (Leo, 2018). The associate dean of engineering at the time is quoted as saying, "I trust that the irony of cheating in a law and ethics class is not lost on anyone” (para. 5). The article concluded by noting the Faculty of Engineering had a history of academic dishonesty; in addition to the reported student misconduct, two of the Faculty of Engineering’s professors had also been caught plagiarizing their Masters students’ work. It was an ugly example of monkey see, monkey do that publicly showcased how academic dishonesty can undermine faith in academic programs, institutions, and postsecondary education in general. Four days later, on March 15, 2018, a 175-foot-long (53.34 meters) section of a pedestrian bridge at Florida International University collapsed while under construction. The collapse resulted in six deaths, ten injuries, and eight vehicles being crushed. The engineering design error that directly led to the collapse was identified by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) as a miscalculation of resistance, and The New York Times concluded that the probable cause was the design by the bridge engineers, but that “every company, institution, and agency involved in the project was partly to blame for the bridge collapse” (Mazzei, 2019, para. 19). Severe cracking in the concrete should have worried engineers, and the chairman of the NTSB said with exasperation afterwards, “The bridge was talking to them. It wasn’t just talking – it was screaming that there was something definitely wrong with this bridge. Yet no one was listening” (Mazzei, 2019, para. 3). Other than their chronological proximity and the shared discipline of engineering, no real relationship exists between the engineering students suspected of cheating in an ethics course at the University of Regina and the pedestrian bridge collapse at FIU. Still, when I read about those two incidents in 2018, I could not help but wonder if anyone involved in the FIU project had cheated when they were in engineering school. Based on the sheer volume of academic integrity violations, the answer is probably yes, and the current volume of academic integrity violations are the screaming cracks in the concrete for postsecondary institutions. They are screaming that something is seriously wrong, and solutions must be found because it is quite possible that lives are at stake.

15

Academic Integrity and the Affordances and Limitations of Authentic Assessment

219

These two unrelated incidents draw attention to another nonobvious connection – the connection between academic integrity and authentic assessment. The University of Regina students were tempted to cheat on a high-stakes exam with low turnaround time – or the type of assessment that most encourages cheating (De Maio & Dixon, 2022). Perhaps if, in their law and ethics class, students had been asked to diagnose what went wrong in the planning and construction process and assign blame in a case like FIU’s pedestrian bridge, they might not have been encouraged to break into their professor’s office, hack his computer, and steal the exam. Perhaps, if their law and ethics course engaged learners in a relevant, real-world teaching and learning activity, the would-be engineers would have been less likely to cheat because they were engaged in building a meaningful connection between the academic curriculum and a costly engineering catastrophe that took innocent lives. There is a strong connection between authentic assessment and academic integrity; many studies illustrate the impact of assessment design in reducing incidents of academic misconduct (De Maio & Dixon, 2022). There may also be a relationship between unethical behavior exhibited in the classroom and the real world, where “extended incompetence could seriously jeopardize human safety” (Katkins, 2018, p.269), especially in areas such as healthcare and engineering. In light of FIU’s pedestrian bridge collapse, it is appropriate to bring attention to the Bridge Project of the European Network for Academic Integrity because it seeks to create a bridge between integrity in the academic sphere with the integrity skills necessary in the world of business. This intersection between integrity behavior in an academic context with real-world situations represents the promise and aspiration of authentic assessments. Authentic assessments create learning environments that neutralize cheating, to some extent, by engaging students in meaningful academic work grounded in real-world situations. More and more international organizations, postsecondary institutions, teaching and learning centers, libraries, and faculty are noticing the cracks in the concrete and are working to respond to minimize harm. Authentic assessments, for many, are part of the solution, and this chapter outlines the long-standing problem of academic integrity, its consequences, and how moving towards more authentic assessments can address the cracks in the concrete and play and important part in creating a culture of integrity. It also considers the limitations of authentic assessment in a postsecondary environment that values scale and relies heavily upon part-time faculty, the instructors who are least likely to know the whys and hows of assessment (Scott & Danley-Scott, 2015).

From Cops to Coaches: The Shifting Approach of Academic Integrity Academic integrity is the moral code of academia and can be simply defined as the use, generation, and communication of information in an ethical, honest, and responsible manner (Brown, et al., 2018, p. 14). The International Center for Academic Integrity (2021) further defines this “code” of academic integrity as a

220

J. Openo

commitment to the six fundamental values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility and courage. Enforcing this code, however, has been a long-standing challenge. Several studies in the pre-Internet age make it safe to suggest that regardless of the country, 40-75% of students commit an academic violation during the course of their studies (Bertram Gallant, 2008; Whitley, 1998). Commercial contract cheating, which is notoriously difficult to detect, occurs when students outsource academic work through purchase or file-sharing and submit it as their own, and it may be contributing to a rise in academic integrity violations (Curtis et al., 2021). A recent study in Australia suggests that approximately 24% of students engage in some form of ghostwriting during their academic careers, with about 15% being willing to admit it, which is three to four times higher than the number reported in other Australian studies (Curtis et al., 2021), suggesting that contract cheating may be many more times more prevalent than the best studies suggest. In short, no matter how or when you count it, academic integrity violations have been and remain a pressing problem. Academic dishonesty has been rampant for over 50 years (Whitley, 1998), and because academic dishonesty predates the Internet Age, we must resist the temptation to see academic integrity as a technological problem with a technological solution. Instead of advances in technology that support new forms of cheating, the biggest change in academic integrity has been a shift in thinking about who is primarily responsible for creating a culture of academic integrity and curbing academic integrity violations. If we consider it a paradigm shift, in the cops-androbbers paradigm, students were expected to act with integrity or suffer the consequences. Now, the criminal-police approach is being supplanted or complemented by a teaching and learning approach (Bertram Gallant, 2008), and a good way to understand this shift is by first considering the criminal-police dynamic, and then the rationale and implications of the teaching and learning approach. Academic integrity violations cause harm because they undermine the signaling value of academic credentials and should be taken seriously. Signaling theory “argues that because employers lack awareness and certainty about the skills and productivity of potential employees, they use crude signals like credential level to screen workers” (Colyar et al., 2022). Postsecondary credentials produce a powerful and highly visible signal to employers that a person in possession of a credential possesses certain knowledge, values, and abilities. Caplan (2018) suggests students who obtain credentials by committing academic integrity violations trick employers, and this deception undermines the signal value of postsecondary credentials. In describing the threat and danger of academic integrity violations, Caplan (2018) also describes well the criminal-police relationship: Signaling explains why cheating pays – and why schools are wise to combat it. In the signaling model, employers reward workers for the skills they think those workers possess. Cheating tricks employers into thinking you’re a better worker than you really are. The trick pays because unless everyone cheats all the time, students with better records are, on average, better workers. Why discourage cheating? Because detecting and punishing cheaters preserve the signaling value of your school’s diploma. When more of your students cheat their way to graduation, firms that hire your students are less likely to get the smart, hardworking team

15

Academic Integrity and the Affordances and Limitations of Authentic Assessment

221

players they’re paying for. Every time your school expels a cheater, you protect the good name of your graduates – past, present and future. (p. 29)

Postsecondary credentials signal that individuals are ready to occupy employment roles because they have successfully demonstrated acquisition of certain learning outcomes or mastered a set of competencies. Those who have acquired these credentials by nefarious means undermine the credential, and when this group of cheaters reaches a critical mass, the signal value erodes and may actually begin to communicate the opposite message – that the credential cannot be trusted. Postsecondary institutions may have reached this critical mass. Thus, the best course of action is to find, expel, and punish cheaters. This approach explains why many postsecondary institutions and their syllabi include an academic integrity statement saying that cheating and/or plagiarism will be severely punished with zeros, Fs, and/or expulsion from the academic program or the school. Whatever benefits the criminal-police approach might accrue to the signaling value of the credential, detecting and punishing students who have been involved in academic misconduct disturbs the student-teacher relationship in a way that is emotionally exhausting for faculty (Robinson & Openo, 2021). Furthermore, expelling a significant number of students would be financially counterproductive to the postsecondary business model, and a high rate of expulsions that negatively impacts graduation and/or retention could have “serious accountability consequences” (FassHolmes, 2017, p. 662). Based on the consistently high number of estimated violations, it is easy to see that catching and expelling all the students who cheat is not a sustainable business strategy. Consequently, a paradigm shift is in the process of taking place that assigns greater responsibility for academic integrity to the conditions of the teaching and learning environment. Bertram Gallant’s (2008) teaching and learning strategy emphasizes that academic integrity approaches cannot be dominated by rule compliance or focus solely on the integrity of individual students. The teaching and learning approach to academic integrity must attend “to the integrity of the environment as a whole” (Bertram Gallant, 2008, p. 88). The teaching and learning approach to academic integrity thereby relocates responsibility for academic integrity from student behavior to the instructional design of courses, faculty teaching practices, and program quality assurance processes. This shift positions instructional design, pedagogy, and student assessment as responsible components for creating a learning environment with integrity at its core (Bertram Gallant, 2008). Within the teaching and learning transaction, particular attention needs to be paid to student assessment and how assessment design can influence student behavior.

Changing the Nature of the Game This obvious fact must be acknowledged – without high-stakes exams, there would be nothing for students to cheat on. If students did not have to write research papers, they would not be in a position to plagiarize or outsource their work. This is simply a way of stating that academic integrity and assessment go hand-in-hand because

222

J. Openo

students must cheat on something, and as long as there are grades and as long as marks matter, students will likely be put into situations where some of them will view cheating as a viable option for attaining their goals. It is also important to acknowledge that there are systemic factors at play. Bretag et al. (2020) describe postsecondary institutions as an “ecosystem under stress” where several complex and overlapping factors, “including a reduction in public funding, increased marketisation and competition, massification, internationalization, disruptive technologies, fragile job markets and a focus on credentialism is affecting the integrity of higher education” (p. 677). This “perfect storm” makes addressing academic integrity violations difficult because they occur within a system of nested influences. Changing the nature of assessment can impact some change, but it may not be able to impact structural change. Still, student assessment is a good place to start because without proper attention to instructional design and assessment practice, other activities that discourage academic misconduct and encourage academic integrity will likely fail (Bertram Gallant, 2008). Much has been written on the differences between assessment, grading, and evaluation, as well as the various forms of formative and summative assessment (see Conrad & Openo, 2018); these discussions are vitally important but will not be revisited here. For the purposes of this chapter, assessment is being used to mean those activities that students complete so that faculty can measure their learning progress (Lang, 2020). Because of the systemic factors, it is an oversimplification to say that changing the nature of assessments can change student behavior, but this oversimplification holds powerful truth, explaining why assessment design has been widely promoted as critical for minimizing cheating (Bretag et al., 2020). Assessment has been described as the heart of the student experience (Rust et al., 2005) because of its central importance in the teaching and learning exchange. Students do what is rewarded (Vaughn et al., 2013), and Lang (2020) puts it quite simply when he states, “activities that contribute to students’ grades usually have the powerful effect of focusing their attention on the course material” (p. 197), or incentivizing academic dishonesty. There is a clear connection between assessment design and cheating (De Maio & Dixon, 2022). Pulvers and Diekoff (1999) were some of the first to note that external variables and instructional design play a significant role in fostering or neutralizing academic dishonesty. Large lecture classes that use multiple choice exams that students perceive to be too hard encourage students towards cheating, whereas students in a learning environment that is personalized and engaging are less likely to cheat or rationalize doing so. The authors describe the learning environment as the “psychological milieu of the classroom” (p. 490), and the learning environment has been shown to affect student satisfaction and the achievement of learning outcomes in both in-person and online learning environments, which is why many educators stress the building of community and social presence in any learning modality (Lang, 2020; see also the vast body of work on Community of Inquiry). Those concerned about academic integrity must similarly pay attention to this milieu because dissatisfaction with teaching and learning has a significant influence on cheating behavior (Bretag et al., 2018).

15

Academic Integrity and the Affordances and Limitations of Authentic Assessment

223

In addition to these considerations, there is a growing number of voices calling for more authentic assessments not just because they can play a role in dissuading or preventing academic misconduct. New assessment types are also needed because technology and automation are changing the nature of work. The Internet and artificial intelligence have not only made new forms of cheating easier, but they have also reduced the value of certain forms of assessment that do not teach truly human skills. Reich (2020) argues that “all assessments are imperfectly designed” (p. 177), which means, amongst other things, that one can never develop the perfect, “cheat proof” assessment. But it also means educators and instructional designers should pay close attention to how their assessments are imperfect. In both face-to-face and online educational settings, more and more people are turning towards online proctoring and/or auto-grading, but these provide a “false sense of security” (Bretag et al., 2020, p. 685). Beyond the false sense of security, increasing surveillance is not good pedagogy. Exams, especially, are a standardized assessment that emphasizes memorization and recall, and while this form of assessment holds some value (see Lang’s Small Teaching), “these are exactly the kinds of task we no longer need humans to do” (Reich, 2020, p. 171). As Reich states, “we need students to develop complex communication skills and take on unstructured problems,” such as problem finding and problem framing. Increasingly, institutions will need to move towards authentic assessment not just because they are harder to cheat on, but because they are more directly connected to learning outcomes required in the contemporary labor market. Authentic assessments can better assess the graduate attributes sought by employers at the same time they promote academic integrity because students perceive authentic assessments to be highly relevant to their employability and learning goals (Sotiridau et al., 2020).

Authentic Assessments: What They Are and Why We Need them Authenticity has long been recognized as a feature of good assessment design (Bretag et al., 2020), but there is no clear consensus of what constitutes authenticity (Ellis et al., 2020). The definition proposed by Goff et al. (2015) provides a strong foundation for conceiving authenticity by stressing three essential dimensions that offer flexibility of interpretation and implementation. Authentic assessment tasks require students to use skills, knowledge, values and attitudes they have learned in situations that simulate the performance context of the intended discipline or profession as closely as possible. In aligning assessment with outcomes, the degree to which assessment tasks simulate ‘real-world’ problems and situations associated with their disciplines or professions measures its authenticity. [emphasis added] (p. 13)

Authentic assessments are comprised of tasks completed in situations that as closely as possible simulate real-world activities. Authenticity must be seen as an ideal that is often practically impossible to reach in many practice settings. The degree to which they resemble real-world situations is the measure of authenticity,

224

J. Openo

meaning that even if it is impossible to create an authentic assessment that perfectly matches professional conditions (the ideal of pure authenticity), there may still be room to make an assessment more authentic by connecting assessments to real-world skills, procedures, or processes.

Task Authentic assessments are grounded in relevant, real-world tasks. Real-world relevance capitalizes on a key component of Malcolm Knowles’s adult learning principles – namely that adult learners want to be engaged in participatory learning activities that provide direct evidence that learning outcomes are achieved and can be applied (Simonson, et al., 2012). The authentic task is, at its simplest, what students are asked to do. The task could be an oral examination (see Sotiridou et al., 2020), or developing a podcast or a marketing plan for a business or nonprofit. Whatever the task, authentic tasks are ill-defined and open-ended, meaning that they can be solved through multiple approaches that allow for a diversity of outcomes, mirroring what students will encounter later in life (Reeves et al., 2002). Authentic tasks are often collaborative, but they can be individually based, depending on the nature of the task. Whether team-based or individual, authentic tasks should provide the opportunity for students to reflect; Dewey suggests that people often possess certain habits of mind that occasionally need to be interrupted and adapted as necessary (Miettinen, 2000). Reflection always sounds good as an exercise, but it is one of the more challenging elements of authentic assessments because not all students are naturally reflective (Conrad & Openo, 2018). Providing direct instruction on how to reflect can provide substantial benefit. An example of a complex task in a business course would be for students to develop and present a business case that includes a rationale for a new product or a new service. To develop the business case, students will need to develop a budget, a marketing plan, and a project implementation plan, etc. These subtasks are part of the assignment, and while there are guides and templates available online, there is no one right way to complete the assignment. Students are invited to be creative, and this would be difficult (but not impossible) to outsource. The ill-defined nature of a task can be a bit frustrating for students who want to know exactly what they need to do. Showing student exemplars can be very effective if current students can perceive the creativity involved in the exemplar and not simply mimic what previous students have done.

Situation The five-dimension framework for authentic assessment (Gulikers, et al. 2004) provides useful guidance for planning the situation in which the authentic task is accomplished. The authentic task is completed in situations that should also resemble real-world conditions, including the physical context (Where is the task done?),

15

Academic Integrity and the Affordances and Limitations of Authentic Assessment

225

the social context (What are the relationships involved in the completion of a task?), and the criteria and standards (How will the work be evaluated, and by whom will it be evaluated?) (Table 1). When students deliver their business case, they could present it in a boardroom to a group of business, education, or civic leaders. The student groups could be designed to be self-managed teams, virtual teams, functional teams, or cross-functional teams, depending on the nature of the social context. The instructor could also take on the role of sponsor, mentor, or manager to make the situation more authentic. The opportunity to collaborate is a big piece of authentic assessments because the current workplace is geographically distant, team-based, and technologically mediated. In many work tasks, collaboration is integral to the task rather than achievable by an individual learner. This often requires building a cognitively complex and time-consuming task that could not be achieved individually. Collaboration can also promote academic integrity, especially when students are required to document the process of how they developed the final product. A good practice is to ask students to provide a record of all the tangible and intangible contributions they made to the project and/or make their workspaces visible to the instructor so that there is a trail that contains student contributions and evidence of the process, involving key Table 1 A worked example of the five-dimension framework for authentic assessment Task Design a solarpowered garden Present design to industry and community stakeholders for feedback

Physical/digit al context Online synchronous and asynchronous tools, such as Google docs, or Slack to track progress and development Presentation to take place in a boardroom setting to local architects

Social context Functional, virtual, selfmanaged teams. Students must designate leadership and delegate subtasks Biweekly meetings with the instructor to monitor progress.

Final product An appealing visual representation of the project, accompanied by a 10–12 page report describing how the design meets the assignment specifications (budget, timeline, interactivity)

Criteria and standards Beauty of overall design Protection from sun, rain, snow, wind to accommodate use in 4 seasons Sized to accommodate at least 10 people sitting, with power for devices Lighting and variable heating Utility area for controls and battery storage

Note: This worked example comes from a real project completed by undergraduate engineering students. It was used both for planning and to determine the degree of authenticity involved in the project. In this particular case, the degree of authenticity was high

226

J. Openo

decisions points (these could be part of the criteria and standards of the assignment). The collaborative context may also include an opportunity for team reflection that encourages students to consider what they did well, what they could do to improve their assignment, and explain what they might have done differently and why. The situation can also be used to localize a course. Localization seeks to make assessment tasks unique to a particular course (Beukes-Amiss et al., 2022) or a particular location. In an engineering course, a task may be to develop a solar structure that fits within the dimensions of a particular part of campus. Business students, if developing a marketing plan, could work with local nonprofit organizations or companies. Lang (2020) describes a simple and effective way to localize assessment by encouraging students to identify some aspect of the course that fascinated them, define an audience that should pay greater attention to this topic, and then complete the project by bringing their interest to the attention of their defined audience. Localizing the assignment makes it difficult (but not impossible) to outsource.

Degree Authentic assessments simulate real-world tasks and situations as closely as possible. As noted, all assessments are imperfect (Reich, 2020), and the five-dimension framework can be useful not only for planning more authentic assessments, but also for identifying the limitations and imperfections of any particular assessment. Assessment shapes the quality of learning and the quality of teaching because students do what is rewarded, but grades are, in and of themselves, inauthentic. The best authentic assessment tasks take place over a sustained period of time, but the constraints of a 10- or 15-week semester limits the amount of time that learners can dedicate to a task. Many instructional designers recommend chunking assignments, giving feedback, and allowing students the opportunity to resubmit their work based on peer and/or instructor feedback. This recommended and highly effective teaching practice must also confront, however, the reality that postsecondary institutions rely heavily on part-time faculty labor, who tend to receive lower pay and often work multiple commitments (Openo, 2021). In very real ways, good pedagogical practice often runs into the limits of human capacity and the constraints of the educational environment. Consequently, it is best to see authentic assessments on a continuum of authenticity, from simple to complex, from assessments that have a low degree of authenticity to those that have a high degree of authenticity (Fig. 1). Authentic assessments resemble real-world professional contexts as closely as possible, meaning that the task and/or the situation may not perfectly replicate professional activity. Within these limitations, however, there is a broad spectrum of creative possibilities, and the authentic task must connect, in some way, to a skill that students must be able to demonstrate in professional practice. The social, interactive nature of meaning and knowledge construction is a suitable teaching approach for many areas, but especially for the growing focus on essential employability skills such as

15

Academic Integrity and the Affordances and Limitations of Authentic Assessment

227

Fig. 1 Authentic assessment continuum Note: Authentic assessment tasks can be collaborative or individual, simple or complex. Whatever form they take, however, they should be comprised of a task that connects with a skill that would be completed in a professional context. All assessments are imperfect, and all assessments reside on a spectrum of authenticity, from a low degree of authenticity (at the left) to assessment tasks with a higher degree of authenticity (on the right). Content design by Jason Openo; graphic design by Andrea Woods

communication, decision-making, gathering and managing information, interpersonal skills of teamwork and conflict resolution, and intrapersonal skills, such as managing the use of time and taking responsibility for one’s own actions, decisions, and consequences (Ministry of Advanced Education, 2020). All assessments are imperfect, and no single authentic assessment will be able to help students develop all these skills, but a consideration of workplace skills can bring clarity as to how closely a particular assessment method promotes authenticity.

Affordances and Limitations of Authentic Assessment Authentic assessments serve the interests of adult students by grounding learning in real-world activities. Authentic assessments are especially important for distance educators because “most distance learners live and learn in the world of work” (Campbell & Schwier, 2014, p. 361). Even authentic tasks with a low degree of authenticity, such as online discussions, can be connected to learners’ circumstances, frames of reference, and values, thereby encouraging participants to bring their authentic selves to the learning environment. When entering the world of work, after all, they will be asked to express their rationale and/or evidence-informed opinions. Open book examinations also have a low degree of authenticity because

228

J. Openo

open book exams rarely take place in the world of work, but here too, they can be meaningfully connected to professional practice by requiring learners to search, retrieve, analyze, and interpret information. Authentic assessment design can change the way students behave by reorienting them to the learning task. Authentic assessments afford the opportunity to change the psychological milieu of the learning environment, making it more personalized and task-oriented, thereby neutralizing (to some extent) the inclination to cheat. Localizing assessment tasks by grounding them in activities with local businesses, locations, or audiences can further neutralize academic integrity because these forms of assessment will be increasingly difficult to outsource. Authentic assessments are not a panacea, however, and there are several structural challenges in implementing them and moving towards great authenticity. The first limitation occurs in large, content-heavy introductory courses. The “tyranny of content” (Wieman, 2017) often forces out consideration of other aspects of pedagogy, including assessment. As Petersen et al. (2020) point out, “conscientious instructors want to incorporate the most effective pedagogical approaches into their teaching, but this is often not a simple matter” (p. 2). The increasing size of textbooks, the persistence of disciplinary norms, and the interconnected nature of program curriculum may also make it difficult to move away from standard assessment approaches. Another limit to moving towards authentic assessment is professional development. Assessment of student learning has repeatedly been high on the professional development needs inventory (Openo, 2021), and assessment practices have also proven to be stubbornly resistant to change (Conrad & Openo, 2018). The rising numbers of part-time faculty make professional development and the move towards student-centered assessment methods challenging because part-time faculty often lack autonomy over their courses, including assessment methods, and are not compensated in a way that promotes the use of student-centered assessments (Openo, 2021). For the purposes of this chapter, one of the larger limitations in advocating for more authentic assessments may be that, even if instructors adapted their assessments, students who are likely to cheat would still look for opportunities to do so (Bretag et al., 2020). If students will cheat regardless of the assessment task, instructors might justifiably ask, “What’s the point?” Authentic assessments can be used to dissuade or neutralize academic integrity, but advocating for authentic assessments also transcends concerns about academic integrity. Assessments must adapt to an increasingly sophisticated work environment. In their seminal work, Frey and Osborne (2017) identified three sets of tasks that cannot be easily automated, including: • Unstructured and complex tasks • Tasks requiring creative intelligence • Tasks related to social intelligence, such as understanding people’s reactions in social contexts or assisting and caring for others Authentic assessments ground student learning in real-world contexts; this is at the heart of the authentic assessment’s focus on complex, ill-defined tasks that occur

15

Academic Integrity and the Affordances and Limitations of Authentic Assessment

229

in social situations requiring creative and social intelligence. Considering technology’s impact on the future of work, Bass (2018) writes that, We are at a moment of convergence portending a second, more mature, wave of work that transcends ‘technosolutionism’ – one that requires an integrative vision committed to student success and deep learning and looks to the larger ‘social compact,’ and even more broadly to a more profound cause and urgency around the future of human capacity. (p. 35)

Authentic assessments are part of this integrative vision that promotes deep learning and promotion of human capacity. In a similar vein, Aoun (2018) suggests “we need a new model of learning that enables learners to understand the highly technological world around them,” but also nurtures the uniquely human capacities for creativity and flexibility (p. 53). If we want to assess learners on the kinds of performance that are most worthwhile for them to learn, instructors and postsecondary institutions will have to depend heavily on assessments that are evaluated individually (in contrast to randomized, autograded test banks supervised with remote surveillance), and this represents a challenge to large-scale learning environments. Authentic assessments can be best be seen as part of the efforts to reform this postsecondary ecosystem under stress. Authentic assessments are both a reaction to, and a form of creative resistance within, this ecosystem under pressure. As contract cheating, online proctoring, and academic integrity violations threaten the foundation of the moral code of academia and the signaling value of credentials, many have turned to authentic assessments, especially during the pandemic. This is a positive development; authentic assessments can contribute much to creating a culture of integrity and evolving postsecondary institutions to focus on developing the truly human skills of strategy, creativity, and compassion. Even at their best, however, they remain a partial solution for an environment facing increasing demand, stagnant public funding, and increasing numbers of part-time faculty working in suboptimal working conditions. Authentic assessments alone will have limited ability to achieve practitioners’ aspirations for educational reform. There are cracks, and like the FIU bridge collapse, they are demanding attention. Every political and postsecondary leader, educational developer, and faculty member will need to be involved in the repair.

References Bertram Gallant, T. (2008). Academic integrity in the twenty-first century: A teaching and learning imperative. ASHE Higher Education Report, 33(5), 1–143. Beukes-Amiss, M., Brown, T. H., Moore, S., Makoe, M., Skidmore, J., & Veletsianos, G. (2022). Making digital assessment count: Designing for engagement, integrity, and authenticity. Commonwealth of Learning. Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P. M., Saddiqui, S., Rozenberg, P., & van Haeringen, K. (2018). Contract cheating: A survey of Australian university students.” Studies in Higher Education, 44(11), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1462788.

230

J. Openo

Bretag, T., Harper, R., Rundle, K., Newton, P. M., Ellis, C., Saddiqui, S., & van Haeringen, K. (2020). Contract cheating in Australian higher education: A comparison of non-university higher education providers and universities. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(1), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1614146 Brown, T., Bourke-Tayler, H., Isbel, S., Gustafsson, L., McKinstry, C., Logan, A., & Etherington, J. (2018). Exploring similarities and differences among self-reported academic integrity of Australian occupational therapy domestic and international students. Nurse Education Today, 70, 13–19. Campbell, K., & Schwier, R. A. (2014). Major movements in instructional design. In O. ZawackiRichter & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda (pp. 345–380). Athabasca University Press. Caplan, B. (2018). The case against education: Why the education system is waste of time and money. Princeton University Press. Colyar, J., Brumwell, S., & Deakin, J. (2022). Exploring Postsecondary Credentials and Labour Market Alignment in Ontario. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Conrad, D., & Openo, J. (2018). Assessment strategies for online learning: engagement and authenticity. Athabasca University Press. https://www.aupress.ca/app/uploads/120279_99Z_ Conrad_Openo_2018-Assessment_Strategies_for_Online_Learning.pdf Curtis, G. J., McNeill, M., Slade, C., Tremayne, K., Harper, R., Rundle, K., & Greenaway, R. (2021). Moving beyond self-reports to estimate the prevalence of commercial contract cheating: an Australian study. Studies in Higher Education, 47(9), 1844–1856. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03075079.2021.1972093 De Maio, C., & Dixon, K. (2022). Promoting academic integrity in institutions of higher learning: What 30 years of research (1990-2020) in Australasia has taught us. Journal of College and Character, 23(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/2194587X.2021.2017972 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? Evident from contract cheating. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(3), 454–469. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07294360.2019.1680956 Fass-Holmes, B. (2017). International students reported for academic integrity violations: Demographics, retention, and graduation. Journal of International Students, 7(3), 644–669. https:// doi.org/10.32674/jis.v7i3.292 Goff, L., Potter, M. K., Pierre, E., Carey, T., Gullage, A., Kustra, E., & Van Gastel, G. (2015). Learning outcomes assessment: A practitioner’s handbook. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. http://www.heqco.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/heqco.LOAhandbook_Eng_ 2015.pdf Gulikers, J. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67–86. International Center for Academic Integrity. (2021). The fundamental values of academic integrity. 3rd Ed.). https://academicintegrity.org/images/pdfs/20019_ICAI-Fundamental-Values_R12.pdf Katkins, L. (2018). Contract cheating advertisements: What they tell us about international students’ attitudes towards academic integrity. Ethics and Education, 13(2), 268–284. https://doi. org/10.1080/17449642.2017.1412178 Lang, J. M. (2020). Distracted: why students can't focus and what you can do about it. Basic Books Hachette Book Group. Leo, G. (2018, March 11). U of Regina suspects ‘significant’ number of students cheated in law and ethics class. CBCNews. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/university-regina-engi neering-cheating-1.4567955 Mazzei, P. (2019, October 22). Flawed design, lax oversight led to ‘astounding’ Miami bridge collapse. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/bridge-collapseflorida-international-university-NTSB.html Miettinen, R. (2000). The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey's theory of reflective thought and action. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(1), 54–72. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/026013700293458 Ministry of Advanced Education. (2020). Skills for jobs task force. Government of Alberta.

15

Academic Integrity and the Affordances and Limitations of Authentic Assessment

231

Openo, J. (2021). Multiple realities: Professional development for online contingent faculty in Canadian strategy and practice [Doctoral dissertation, Athabasca University]. http://hdl.handle. net/10791/360 Petersen, C. I., Baepler, P., Beitz, A., Ching, P., Gorman, K. S., Neudauer, C. L., Rozaitis, W., Walker, J. D., & Wingert, D. (2020). The tyranny of content: “Content coverage” as a barrier to evidence-based teaching approaches and ways to overcome it. CBE Life Sciences Education, 19(17), 1–10. https://www.lifescied.org/doi/epdf/10.1187/cbe.19-04-0079 Pulvers, K., & Diekoff, G. M. (1999). The relationship between academic dishonesty and college classroom environment. Research in Higher Education, 40(4), 487–498. https://doi.org/10. 1023/A:1018792210076 Reeves, T., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. In Quality Conversations, Proceedings of the 25th HERDSA Annual Conference, Perth, Western Australia, 7–10 July 2002 (pp. 562–567). Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworks/3900/ Reich, J. (2020). Failure to disrupt: Why technology alone can't transform education. Harvard University Press. Robinson, R., & Openo, J. (2021). The emotional labour of academic integrity: How does it feel? Canadian Perspectives on Academic Integrity. https://doi.org/10.11575/cpai.v4i1.71350 Rust, C., O’Donovan, B., & Price, M. (2005). A social constructivist assessment process model: How the research literature shows us this could be best practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(3), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500063819 Scott, G., & Danley-Scott, J. (2015). Two loops that need closing: Contingent faculty perceptions of outcomes assessment. The Journal of General Education: A Curricular Commons of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 64(1), 30–55. Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of Distance Education. Pearson. Sotiriadou, P., Logan, D., Daly, A., & Guest, R. (2020). The role of authentic assessment to preserve academic integrity and promote skill development and employability. Studies in Higher Education, 45(11), 2132–2148. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1582015 Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Athabasca University Press. Whitley, B. E. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Research in Higher Education, 39(2), 235–274. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018724900565 Wieman, C. (2017). Improving how universities teach science: Lessons from the Science Education Initiative. Harvard University Press.

Coordinating Ethical Assessment at the Program Level

16

Susan L. Bens

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Defines Academic Integrity and Academic Misconduct? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Is Ethical Assessment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Defines a Program? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Constitutes the Program Level? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program-Level Coordination for Academic Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Framework for Program-Level Coordination of Ethical Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Change the Situation: Coordinate Conditions for Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Change the Students: Coordinate for Ability for Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Change the Assessment: Coordinate the Value of Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Complexities of Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

234 234 235 235 236 236 237 238 240 241 243 244 245 246 246

Abstract

A coordinated approach to assessment and academic integrity among educators in a program or in a subject area has the potential to support ethical action in teaching and learning. Academic integrity research has most often looked at action either at the individual instructor level (e.g., teaching and detection practices) or at the institutional level (e.g., policymaking and awarenessbuilding). In this chapter, the case for collective action at the program level is made, three coordinated approaches to assessment are described, and the limits, benefits, and complexity of each are acknowledged.

S. L. Bens (*) Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching and Learning, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_91

233

234

S. L. Bens

Keywords

Program-level coordination · Ethical assessment · Assessment · Assessment practices

Introduction Academic integrity and its breach – academic misconduct – are multifaceted issues. The fairness and trustworthiness of assessment of and for learning in higher education matter because higher education institutions are counted upon to certify the knowledge and skills of those who graduate from their programs. Because there is not a single cause-and-effect relationship for academic misconduct, research and practice in this area are multifaceted and need to be attuned to contextual variables and dependencies. Matters of academic integrity are increasingly discussed as a learning issue (e.g., Eaton, 2021; Lang, 2013), and the research and practice in this area has expanded to include pedagogical (Twomey et al., 2009) and more systemsbased approaches (Bertram Gallant, 2008). The purpose of this chapter is to present a research- and practice-informed framework for how the coordination of assessment at the program level can promote and enable more academic integrity. Coordination is presented as an ethical action unto itself given the accountability higher education institutions hold for valid certification of what graduates know and can do. Intentional approaches at the program level can help students practice and internalize the core values for academic integrity of their disciplinary communities. To do so is consistent with the trend where education is prioritized over penalties in institutional academic integrity strategies (Kenny & Eaton, 2022) and where academic integrity skills are scaffolded into program curricula (Clark et al., 2020). Further, coordinated action and communication can reduce some of the mixed messaging that students experience about what is acceptable and what is not (Bens, 2022). The chapter begins with key definitions to assist in understanding what is meant by program-level coordination for ethical assessment. Then, a framework describing three distinct approaches to coordination is presented, along with a discussion of the practical limits and potential benefits of each. The chapter ends with an acknowledgment of the complexity of change and instructional leadership in higher education and a call for action at the program level.

Key Definitions Academic integrity research has most often looked at action either at the individual instructor level (e.g., teaching and detection practices) or at the institutional level (e.g., policymaking and awareness-building). Increasingly, researchers and practitioners see students not as independent from their learning environments but as having both personal agency and as participating in a context and system of teaching and learning. Thus, placing the blame for academic misconduct solely on the

16

Coordinating Ethical Assessment at the Program Level

235

shoulders of students is no longer appropriate given advancement in our understandings (Bertram Gallant, 2008; Eaton, 2021). Kenny and Eaton (2022) asserted that “Moving forward, local-level norms, cultures, values, behaviours and political structures must become a critical component in catalysing, supporting, and sustaining change in academic integrity” (p. 579). Coordination at the program level for ethical assessment can advance the local-level norms most directly. Because action at this level is complex and, if it occurs, is less reported in peer-reviewed literature, definitions of key terms are required to situate the framework presented in this chapter.

What Defines Academic Integrity and Academic Misconduct? Academic integrity has a broader definition than academic misconduct. The European Network for Academic Integrity (ENAI) glossary of terms (Tauginienė et al., 2018) defines academic misconduct in reference to the larger notion of academic integrity. Academic integrity is defined as “compliance with ethical and professional principles, standards, practices and consistent systems of values, that serves as guidance for making decisions and taking actions in education, research and scholarship” (pp. 6–7). Academic misconduct is defined as “any action or attempted action that undermines academic integrity and may result in an unfair advantage or disadvantage for any member of the academic community or wider society” (p. 7). These ENAI definitions appropriately extend beyond specific teaching and learning contexts and include multiple stakeholders. For the purpose of this chapter, the definitions are more narrowly conceived for matters of assessment specific to the ways students produce evidence of their learning. Academic integrity remains the broader concept and is both the values and the actions that mean an assessment can be regarded as valid and reliable evidence of student learning. With respect to values, academic integrity is defined as a commitment to honesty, trust, fairness, courage, respect, and responsibility (ICAI, 2021). It is these values that inform ethical decision-making. In terms of the actions, the assessment must have occurred under defined conditions (e.g., as per acceptable assistance) and must be presented truthfully (e.g., as supported by correct use of citation conventions). Where academic integrity includes values and actions, academic misconduct is limited to actions that occur outside of acceptable defined conditions for assessment or that cause a misrepresentation of the truthfulness of the assessment. Acts of academic misconduct can exist on a continuum of severity that is open to interpretation given situational factors, the skills and intentions of those involved, and the purpose of assessment.

What Is Ethical Assessment? Assessment is not neutral and does not exist in isolation. Ethical assessment occurs in a well-functioning system where principles that exist in policies and practices at multiple levels make it more likely that

236

S. L. Bens

• Participants know the principles that govern their actions related to assessment. • Participants see that their interests are taken into account, free of arbitrary imbalances, burdens, or benefits. • Participants regard it as their mutual benefit to enact the principles because they enable a trustworthy system for certifying learning. (Rest et al., 1986) Participants in such a well-functioning system include all educators and learners, but extend also to staff, policymakers, policy implementers, leaders, and stakeholders beyond the higher education institution itself. Drawing on fundamental values named by ICAI, in addition to honesty, ethical assessment allows for trust (including transparency), fairness (including consistency and equity), respect and responsibility (especially for the range of roles and accountabilities in teaching and learning environments), and courage to align actions to ethical assessment practice.

What Defines a Program? Faculty and other educators will be affiliated, if not formally positioned, as teachers within programs making programs both organizational and educational in nature. A program generally is an intentional structure of learning experiences (e.g., courses and placements) that when completed, in the required sequence and to the required level of achievement, means a student can be certified by the higher education institution as having completed the learning or possessing the competencies. Students are, in general, enrolled in programs and receive a credential like a certificate, diploma, or degree when programs are completed satisfactorily. It is this credentialing that employers and the public are relying on to signal and screen for a range of competencies and even ethical dispositions in graduates (▶ Chap. 15, “Academic Integrity and the Affordances and Limitations of Authentic Assessment”).

What Constitutes the Program Level? Taking a multilevel approach to understanding organizations (Hannah & Lester, 2009) enables a recognition of the interdependencies and capacity for change at the levels of the individual, the group, and the systems. An established model for considering multiple stakeholders in higher education, the 4 M Framework (Simmons, 2020) (Fig. 1), is helpful for discerning and acknowledging nested organizational levels in higher education. It is commonly used in the scholarship of teaching and learning to distinguish individual (micro), group (meso), institutional (macro), and societal (mega) levels of influence in an educational environment. The meso- or program level may be an organizational unit like a department or in non-departmentalized structures may be configured as specializations or streams, or in broader structures as a school, college, or faculty. Importantly, the program level is typically a level of operation where direction or pressure is rarely successfully applied. But, a compelling case for change at the

16

Coordinating Ethical Assessment at the Program Level

237

Fig. 1 Nested levels of action for academic integrity

group level and centered on some common concern may be effective so that faculty accustomed to autonomy opt for a new group practice achieved through coordination. Coordination at the meso level of the higher education organization is likely to involve distributed leadership (Buller, 2015; Harris & Spilane, 2008). In higher education, distributed leadership refers to the prevalence of multiple leaders with and without formal designations. Rather than hierarchical decision-making, more lateral decision-making processes occur, creating flexibility to respond to new issues and to take up new opportunities. The focus of program-level coordination is on interactions and practices that can allow for ethical assessment and academic integrity.

Program-Level Coordination for Academic Integrity Program-level coordination for ethical assessment is the collaborative work process that can be done among educators who teach within a program or grouping (like a department or a subject area like Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math [STEM]) and who can be reasonably thought of as sharing responsibility for the program or some common elements in more than one program. Although coordinating efforts for promoting academic integrity within programs have received little study, there has been research in particular disciplines, fields of study, or programs. Studies of this kind have acknowledged the contextual nature of academic integrity to various extents. A recent book edited by Eaton and Christensen Hughes (2022) included a section on program-specific learning environments and

238

S. L. Bens

professional programs. Chapter authors in that section highlighted the specific application of learning to act with academic integrity and its extension to professional roles and ethical conduct beyond postsecondary education. Miron (2022) made recommendations for acculturating students in work-integrated learning to values of academic integrity in nursing practice; Peters et al. (2022) emphasized the importance for preservice teachers to internalize academic integrity as their values and practices are transferred onto future generations; Watson Hamilton (2022) highlighted the differences in academic attribution norms and those in legal practice that require navigation; and de Montigny (2022) called for more to be done to promote professionalism and academic integrity in engineering education as a response to concerns raised by programs and regulators. It may be that teaching about academic integrity is more typical in programs that lead to specific professions with associated codes of ethics (Clark et al., 2020). Supportive of efforts at the program level, Bretag et al. (2019) encouraged awareness of the distinct nature of academic cultures and practices and student cohorts and asserted that disciplinary patterns exist and “give rise to different challenges” (p. 688). Calling for research in this area, Rogerson et al. (2022) suggested that attention is needed regarding “how academic misconduct appears or is evident in different assessment types preferred by various disciplines or subject areas” (p. 221). Related to norms for assessment that vary by discipline, Kenny and Eaton (2022) identified a “meso-level gap” (referring to the 4 M Framework) where “less emphasis has been placed on the importance of influencing change through faculties, departments and working groups” (p. 579). Naming this gap is important for promoting real change as it alerts higher education leaders and educators to a lesser used opportunity to facilitate change.

Framework for Program-Level Coordination of Ethical Assessment Three distinct approaches for program-level coordination of ethical assessment are presented in Table 1 for ease of side-by-side comparison and then explained in more detail under three headings. Assessment is foregrounded as the lever for change and each approach is associated with beliefs (including conceptions of teaching), practical limits, as well as beneficial extensions. It is important to acknowledge that there is variation within and between disciplines in how educators in higher education understand teaching and learning and thereby see their roles. Taking a sociocultural perspective that “university teaching is individually constructed and socially influenced” and that “social context governs some of the available scope for action” (Roxå & Mårtensson, 2009, p. 548), creating the conditions where assessment is even discussed may be a change act itself. Assessment choices are likely to reflect deeply held beliefs about teaching, and Table 1 highlights what these may be in each approach to coordination. For each approach, further explanation is offered about the essence of the approach, the beliefs that align to it, process features, and the limits and benefits.

16

Coordinating Ethical Assessment at the Program Level

239

Table 1 Framework for coordination of ethical assessment at the program level Coordination approach Locus of change Goal of coordination

Conditions for assessment Change the situation

Ability for assessment Change the student

 Manage workload  Equip learners  Avoid the unproductive  Develop core skills

concurrence of assessment in a program or group of courses Beliefs about  Reduce overload the causes of ➔ reduce desperation  Academic misconduct academic is often the result of misconduct desperation and chosen by some students as a coping mechanism (Rettinger & Kramer, 2009; Schmelkin et al., 2008)

commonly needed for assessment in a program or a group of courses  Build skills ➔ reduce errors  Academic misconduct is often the result of knowledge and skills gap that means some students make unintentional or uninformed mistakes (Devlin & Gray, 2007)

Conceptions of teaching (Ross, 2017)

 Teaching as managing

 Teaching as targeting

a process for directed activity and production  Therefore, educators can and should optimize conditions for assessment

learning needs, providing resources, supporting growth  Therefore, educators can and should identify needs and equip students for assessment

Process for coordination

 Agree on need  Share information  Develop common

   

schedule

 Agree on mechanisms for handling emergent changes  Implement and evaluate/monitor for impact

Agree on need Share information Identify common errors Connect source of errors to core disciplinary skills  Determine learning outcomes for educational approach(es)  Co-design or advise designers  Implement and evaluate/monitor for impact

Value of assessment Change the nature of assessment  Motivate learning  Design assessment for relevance and practice and feedback on competencies  Design for relevance ➔ increase learner motivation  Academic misconduct is often the result of disconnection from learning and assessment that means some students care less and will engage in academic misconduct (Murdock & Anderman, 2006)  Teaching as facilitating transferrable understanding and competence  Therefore, educators can and should foster student commitment through the assessment methods  Agree on need  Share information  Generate examples of more contextualized and authentic assessment methods  Select for best fit  Communicate plans  Implement and evaluate/monitor for impact

240

S. L. Bens

Change the Situation: Coordinate Conditions for Assessment The goal of coordination in this approach is to relieve unproductive or harmful assessment overload faced by students and thereby change the conditions that can lead some students to engage in behaviors that are considered academic misconduct. Essence of the Approach. The focus is on pacing the timing and possibly the load of assessments to avoid or reduce coinciding stressors students may experience. The reason to do this is that some students will risk academic misconduct as a means of coping or as an act of desperation when under pressure. On this basis, program-level coordination means seeking to reduce coincidental pressures on students and to support student well-being. Roles of Aligned Beliefs. If educators believe that academic misconduct results from a risk–benefit analysis of various expectations and pressures, then relieving time pressure will be seen as an opportunity to change one factor in the calculation. Educators will see this type of coordination as a responsibility they hold to manage the assessment situation in a way that is supportive of academic integrity by their students. Features of Process. All coordination processes in Table 1 will require those participating to agree on the need for coordination and to be willing to share relevant information. Educators will share a conception of teaching, at least with respect to the goal of changing the conditions of assessment, that teaching is a managed process for directed activity and production of assessments of learning. When they set out to make a more manageable pace and set of requirements for the academic workload of students, they are seeking to avoid unproductive concurrence of events or circumstances. Coordination processes will require negotiation and adjustment. A technical problem of overload is handled with a technical response (Young et al., 2018). Those involved will need to define the threshold for acceptable and unacceptable concurrence (e.g., only one midterm of 20% weighting or more in a single week in this program). In this process, instructional leaders and members of coordinating groups are agreeing to tightly couple (Weick, 1976) their assessment events administratively, meaning a change in an aspect of assessment in one course will trigger a change in another. Practical Limits. A fundamental requirement of program-level coordination using any approach is the ability to identify a group of educators who can develop and agree to a common practice. This group may exist within a single academic unit or department or be educators with a common concern that brings them together (e.g., copying of first-year lab assignments bringing together STEM educators). One practical limit for programs with few common core courses or more varied registration patterns by students is that they may be limited in the number of courses where coordination could make a difference and those courses may be more apparent in senior years of study. Likely a more significant limitation to this approach is that the pressures that students are under are not limited to those generated by their coursework. Other responsibilities and commitments (e.g., living arrangements, family and community, employment, volunteer roles, interpersonal relationships, and grade pressures) may

16

Coordinating Ethical Assessment at the Program Level

241

weigh on some students, as may health issues. Layers of stressors may mean the desperation and/or coping incentives for academic misconduct are still in play despite program-level coordination to relieve overload. Poor time management has been an explanation for academic misconduct (Schmelkin et al., 2008), and “Organizational strategies that are capable of suppressing dishonesty, are not necessarily equivalent to fostering an ethical position of integrity” (Young et al., 2018, p. 14). Beneficial Extensions. A focus on timing of assessment is a relatively narrow practice. In its most basic form, this approach requires educators to schedule exams and major assignment due dates so that they do not overlap or coincide. The benefit of the coordinating effort, despite its limitations, may be simply that assessment practice gets discussed. Other aspects may arise, such as discovering too many assessments of the same type and could lead to an agreement to vary the formats as another way to relieve overload by assessment type. For example, instead of three courses each with an end-of-term research paper, educators could decide that they can assess the same learning outcomes, one with a recorded presentation, one with an annotated bibliography, and one with a research paper.

Change the Students: Coordinate for Ability for Assessment The goal of coordination is to educate students on specific shared expectations and provide them with opportunities to practice and develop the skills necessary for meeting the expectations. Essence of the Approach. The focus is on improving students’ ability for completing the assessments that are commonly used in the program. The belief is that some students lack understanding and skills, and, as a result, some of these students make unintentional or naïve mistakes that constitute academic misconduct in a particular disciplinary community or field. For example, a journalism program may be concerned about student plagiarism as a matter of professional conduct beyond the mechanics of paraphrasing and citation. Or a chemical engineering program may use weekly lab reports and be concerned about students developing habits of using fraudulent data when results from experiments are inconclusive. Roles of Aligned Beliefs. If educators believe that some students’ lack of understanding and skills results in unintentional or naïve mistakes and, importantly, that educators have a responsibility to equip students for meeting expectations, then coordinating to improve student ability will make sense. These educators will not be satisfied with statements like “students should have already learned this,” but will double-check that students are skilled in the required way. Although many academic misconduct policies may claim ignorance is not an acceptable defense, ethically, these educators ask how students can reasonably be held to standards that they have not learned exist or have not yet learned how to meet. Features of Process. To undertake coordination of this kind, educators may conceptualize teaching as the intentional targeting of learning needs, provision of resources, and support for growth and development of skills that extend beyond the academic setting. They will want to identify needs and design awareness and skill-

242

S. L. Bens

building experiences and support for assessment that builds commitment and capacity. Seeing students as having an adaptive challenge requires a more holistic approach (Young et al., 2018). The process will require boundary spanning (Coldren & Spilane, 2007). That is, faculty will overcome structures and norms that limit discussion of teaching and will share issues and needs, agree on gaps that explain common errors, and identify the core skills that equip students in their courses and program. Then, coordination will include at least some collaboration on design and implementation of the educational interventions and reinforcement across the curriculum. Instructional design assistance may be engaged to bring the top priorities into focus and ensure a design that allows practice and feedback with more troublesome aspects. As advocated by Clark et al. (2020), matters of academic integrity should be “carefully planned and scaffolded within a program to ensure that instruction occurs in a timely and manageable way” (p. 13). Practical Limits. As with all matters of academic integrity, there are no guarantees. Students may still make mistakes or opt for academic misconduct despite solid skills and understandings. Some educators may be reluctant to share about the academic misconduct that they encounter. Time, knowledge of policies, support to uphold policies, and an overall sense of fear have been reported as barriers to faculty reporting on academic misconduct (Hamilton & Wolsky, 2022). An individual might be concerned about reporting on a common error they tolerate in their teaching or revealing that they turn a blind eye to the misconduct (Coren, 2011). More fulsome reporting and detailed analysis of what is needed is important lest the educational intervention become general by design. For instance, online tutorials have been noted as useful for building awareness, but as lacking evidence of other kinds of impact on academic misconduct (Stoesz & Yudintseva, 2018) possibly because they do not allow for practice with specific kinds of skills that are more embedded or contextualized in program or discipline. Beneficial Extensions. As with the first coordination approach, there is a benefit to building a culture where colleagues freely exchange experiences with teaching and learning. Matters of teaching can be regarded as private professional activity and an area for academic autonomy and freedom (see Finn, 2020 and McFarlane 2021 for a dialogue about individual freedom to choose teaching methods). Discussing foundational ethical expectations in the discipline and the skills and values required can also reveal aspects of the program curriculum that are hidden from view (Mackin et al., 2019). In a study of student explanations for plagiarism, Strangfeld (2019) found that many explanations were based on “systemic inequities and cultural capital” (p. 11) and concluded that students’ lack of familiarity with norms of academic study, including norms in a disciplinary community, can mean students are labeled as dishonest or lazy or penalized ultimately for being new to the systems. Educators who engage in a coordinated approach to building skills for assessment and attending to the more hidden aspects can be said to be making a more equitable and thereby ethical assessment environment. As ethical actors themselves, these educators develop and practice the moral discipline required for a culture of integrity where students and instructors comply with institutional policies (Christensen Hughes & Bertram Gallant, 2016).

16

Coordinating Ethical Assessment at the Program Level

243

Change the Assessment: Coordinate the Value of Assessment The goal of coordination is to improve motivation for learning among students across a program by improving the value they see in what is to be learned and the assessment methods in use. Essence of the Approach. The focus in this approach is to coordinate to better design assessments to improve students’ motivation. Ambrose et al. (2010) integrated the research on factors in student motivation for learning and provided strategies for establishing value as those that connect to students’ interests and provide real-world tasks and applications of learning. This approach can be effective at the level of the individual instructor, but is more powerful scaffolded across a program, especially as it builds toward program-level outcomes or competencies. Student learning is best supported by courses and activities that are designed cohesively so that learning experiences “build on and reinforce one another” (Suskie, 2009, p. 4). Roles of Aligned Beliefs. The belief aligned to this approach is that students choose academic misconduct (or lapse into it) because they do not value the assessment of their learning, or the learning overall, as presented. Disinterest or a lack of care is based on students not seeing a meaningful connection in what they are being asked to do or produce to their current or future lives. Educators coordinating effort on this basis will conceive of teaching as centered on establishing value for their learners. They will see higher education as extending beyond academic and research skills (such as those required in the work lives of professors). Educators will embrace rather than resist the notion that students attend higher education to improve their life opportunities, including those related to fulfilling employment and community membership and contribution. Features of Process. To undertake coordination of this kind, a shared commitment to authentic or as-authentic-as-possible assessment is needed (see ▶ Chap. 15, “Academic Integrity and the Affordances and Limitations of Authentic Assessment,” for reasons for and approaches to authentic assessment). Authenticity occurs where educators are “allowing students to do significant work within the domain of a particular discipline in a way that goes beyond brief forays into applied problem solving . . . [and] more deeply encase learning experiences within authentic disciplinary contexts” (Eyler, 2018, p. 154). While this is certainly possible in survey or introductory courses taken in isolation, scaffolded and co-related authentic assessment within a program can be more powerful. Gathering and updating information on student interests and selecting assessment options and methods that offer more alignment is streamlined and strengthened by collaboration. The coordination will require some form of instructional leadership beyond facilitated discussion that can develop instructors’ professional practices in ways that improve student learning (Milward & Timperley, 2010). Going beyond the technical and adaptive solutions most focused on avoidance of academic misconduct in the earlier described approaches, this approach is aimed at internalizing students’ commitment to academic integrity. Practical Limits. Some courses are prerequisites to a course and do not have the application or obvious potential for authentic assessment. Not all prerequisite

244

S. L. Bens

courses are taught within the department or academic unit, and asking those teaching at the introductory level to connect to such a diverse set of disciplines may not be realistic. However, there may be shared and overarching competencies that can be linked regardless of discipline. Using the example of an introductory statistics course taught to students in a range of programs, for most fields the ability to interpret statistical analyses is an important professional skill and an introductory course is the beginning of student competence development in this important area. Even if the change can bring advantages, an educator may be concerned about the learning required and likelihood of missteps the first time through with a new approach. Educators understandably want to both be and appear competent to their students and to each other. Given the responsibilities and pressures faced by faculty, change of this kind may be seen to distract from other priorities (e.g., research) or risk unintended consequences with colleagues. Beneficial Extensions. Intentional approaches at the program level can help students practice and internalize the core values of their disciplinary communities for academic integrity. Discussing and gathering information about more authentic forms of assessment and other approaches that increase the value students place on the learning may mean faculty become more likely to “see themselves as ethical models and mentors, people who are endeavoring to “create a moral community” and show genuine respect and concern for peers and students.” (Christensen Hughes & Bertram Gallant, 2016, p. 1069). It has been well established in the literature that more authentic and competency-based forms of assessment improve educational outcomes. A program that begins on the path toward more consideration of assessment may become ready for further advancements of this kind.

Complexities of Change Each of the three approaches described in the framework above requires coordination among a defined group of faculty and other educators who are willing to work toward a common goal. The defined group will be comprised of those who teach and can be reasonably thought of as sharing responsibility for a program or some common elements across programs. By virtue of this commonality, there may also be both tacit and implicit ways of doing and deciding on things and accepted areas of autonomy. But not every program or academic unit housing a program will be structured in the same way, nor will it be similar in terms of the ways things are done. To be more explicit, this refers to shared assumptions, accepted approaches to problem-solving, common understanding of roles and responsibilities characteristic of the organizational, departmental, or disciplinary culture. Declaring that change is needed can be interpreted as a critique or indictment of what individual educators have been doing, sometimes for years (Buller, 2015). To shift from a rule-compliance approach for academic misconduct to an institutionalized approach for academic integrity where systems are aligned to support ethical action (Bertram Gallant, 2008), program-level coordination is necessary.

16

Coordinating Ethical Assessment at the Program Level

245

Systems approaches are also consistent with recommended actions for establishing climates of integrity for institutions to “establish on-campus partnerships and collaborations to help faculty create positive pedagogical environments and promote integrity in the classroom” (ICAI, 2021, p. 11). Institutionalization is achieved when academic integrity is “integrated into organizational routines, processes, and structures but also when it emerges as a stable norm that guides teaching and research conduct and acts as a value that binds the community” (Bertram Gallant & Drinan, 2008, p. 33). By advocating for programlevel coordination, vested interests in academic integrity come to life in teaching and learning contexts and can become those established routines, processes, structures, and stable norms present within the institutions. However, there is still a vulnerability to the distributed model of program-level action as the approaches can regress or be abandoned when group membership or vision changes. For example, it would be easy to slip back to independent schedules for assessment and allow educational programs to go untended and for authentic assessments to become stale. Innovations may be tenuous without anchors that commit the new practice as part of organization culture (Bertram Gallant & Drinan, 2008). Institutional-level leadership may be able to anchor that sustainability and continued attention by asking for evidence of collective action rather than insisting on a certain type. To move from no or little coordination on these aspects to some form of coordination means a change process is being undertaken. Although higher education can be said to be about creating, discovering, and disseminating new understandings, organizationally, colleges and universities are also known for being resistant to change in many arenas. The organizational learning required to adopt new practices is done by the individuals inside the organization and includes learning new things as well unlearning past practice (Argyris & Schon, 1978). How educators understand their role in academic integrity and what that means in terms of their own adherence to ethical standards may be critical to effective coordination (Gottardello & Karabag, 2022). Leaders, formal and informal, at the meso- or program level may focus on establishing conditions and individual readiness of colleagues for the coordination approach envisioned and then on maintaining and reinforcing the social networks a coordinated approach to assessment creates (Hannah & Lester, 2009). Educators working together to deliver a program or set of courses with some common concern can be said to be acting for ethical assessment when they coordinate approaches known to support academic integrity for their students. Regardless of inherent complexities, collective action that relieves pressure, builds skills, and improves motivation for learning is likely to support academic integrity among students in higher education to a greater extent than individual action, alone.

Summary This chapter presented reasons to take a program level approach to coordination of assessment as way to improve and support academic integrity that appears to be underutilized in practice. Different and new types of academic misconduct concerns

246

S. L. Bens

may lead programs toward a particular approach. Three approaches were included in a framework that highlighted group and process considerations. The framework and explanations in this chapter can help leaders recognize the opportunities and challenges as they embark on change initiatives related to assessment and academic integrity.

Cross-References ▶ Academic Integrity and Accommodations: The Intersections of Ethics and Flexibility ▶ Academic Integrity and the Affordances and Limitations of Authentic Assessment ▶ Academic Integrity Through Ethical Teaching and Assessment: Overview and Current Trends ▶ Aligning Theoretical and Practical Considerations for Academic Integrity Education: A Canadian Perspective ▶ An Equitable Approach to Academic Integrity Through Alternative Assessment ▶ Educational Ethical Leadership: Characteristics and Styles ▶ Inclusion Within a Holistic Approach to Academic Integrity: Improving Policy, Pedagogy, and Wider Practice for All Students ▶ Integrating Academic Integrity: An Educational Approach ▶ Leveraging Institutional Integrity for the Betterment of Education ▶ Modeling Scientific Writing as Scientific Problem-Solving ▶ Supporting Students with Academic Integrity and Ethical Learning: Introduction ▶ Teaching Academic Integrity as Good Historical Practice

References Ambrose, S., Bridges, M., Dipietro, M., Lovett, M., & Norman, M. (2010). How learning works: 7 research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison Wesley. Bens, S. (2022). Helping students solve the ambiguous expectations of academic integrity. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada. Ethics and integrity in educational contexts (Vol. 1, pp. 377–392). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-832551_19 Bertram Gallant, T. (2008). Academic integrity in the twenty-first century: A teaching and learning imperative. Wiley. Bertram Gallant, T., & Drinan, P. (2008). Toward a model of academic integrity institutionalization: Informing practice in postsecondary education. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 38(2), 25–43. Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., van Haeringen, K., Saddique, S., & Rozenberg, P. (2019). 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 Buller, J. (2015). Change leadership in higher education. Jossey-Bass.

16

Coordinating Ethical Assessment at the Program Level

247

Christensen Hughes, J., & Bertram Gallant, T. (2016). Infusing ethics and ethical decision making into the curriculum. In Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 1055–1073). Clark, A., Goodfellow, J., & Shoufani, S. (2020). Examining academic integrity using course-level learning outcomes. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2020.2.8508 Coldren, A., & Spilane, J. (2007). Making connections to teaching practice: The role of boundary practices in instructional leadership. Educational Policy, 21(2), 369–393. Coren, A. (2011). Turning a blind eye: Faculty who ignore student cheating. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9(4), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-011-9147-y de Montigny, D. (2022). Managing academic integrity in Canadian engineering schools. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada. Ethics and integrity in educational contexts (Vol. 1, pp. 291–306). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-832551_15 Devlin, M., & Gray, K. (2007). In their own words: A qualitative study of the reasons Australian university students plagiarize. Higher Education Research and Development, 26(2), 181–198. Eaton, S. E. (2021). Plagiarism in higher education: Tackling tough topics in academic integrity. Libraries Unlimited. Eaton, S. E., & Christensen Hughes, J. (Eds.). (2022). Academic integrity in Canada. Ethics and integrity in educational contexts (Vol. 1). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1 Eyler, J. (2018). How humans learn: The science and stories behind effective college teaching. West Virginia University Press. Finn, A. (2020). Academic freedom and the choice of teaching methods. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(1), 116–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1672149 Gottardello, D., & Karabag, S. F. (2022). Ideal and actual roles of university professors in academic integrity management: A comparative study. Studies in Higher Education, 47(3), 526–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1767051 Hamilton, M., & Wolsky, K. (2022). The barriers to faculty reporting incidences of academic misconduct at community college. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada. Ethics and integrity in educational contexts (Vol. 1, pp. 467–486). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1_24 Hannah, S. T., & Lester, P. B. (2009). A multilevel approach to building and leading learning organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.11.003 Harris, A., & Spilane, J. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass. Management in Education, 22(1), 31–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020607085623 International Center for Academic Integrity. (2021). The fundamental values of academic integrity (3rd ed.). https://academicintegrity.org/images/pdfs/20019_ICAI-Fundamental-Values_R12.pdf Kenny, N., & Eaton, S. E. (2022). Academic integrity through a SoTL lens and 4M framework: An institutional self study. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada. Ethics and integrity in educational contexts (Vol. 1, pp. 573–592). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1_30 Lang, J. (2013). Cheating lessons: Learning from academic dishonesty. Harvard University Press. MacFarlane, B. (2021). Why choice of teaching method is essential to academic freedom: A dialogue with Finn. Teaching in Higher Education, 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021. 2007473 Mackin, R., Baptiste, S., Niec, A., & Kam, A. J. (2019). The hidden curriculum: A good thing? Cureus, 11(12), e6305. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.6305. PMID: 31938597; PMCID: PMC6944161. Milward, P., & Timperley, H. (2010). Organizational learning facilitated by instructional leadership, tight coupling and boundary spanning practices. Journal of Educational Change, 11(1), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9120-3 Miron, J. (2022). Academic integrity in work-integrated learning (WIL) settings. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada. Ethics and integrity in educational contexts (Vol. 1, pp. 233–247). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1_12 Murdock, T. B., & Anderman, E. M. (2006). Motivational perspectives on student cheating: Toward an integrated model of academic dishonesty. Educational Psychologist, 41(3), 129–145.

248

S. L. Bens

Peters, M., Fontaine, S., & Frenette, E. (2022). Teaching the teachers: To what extent do pre-service teachers cheat on exams and plagiarize in their written work? In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada. Ethics and integrity in educational contexts (Vol. 1, pp. 307–331). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1_16 Rest, J., Bebeau, M., & Volker, J. (1986). An overview of the psychology of morality. In J. R. Rest (Ed.), Moral development: Advances in research and theory (pp. 1–27). Praeger. Rettinger, D. A., & Kramer, Y. (2009). Situational and personal causes of student cheating. Research in Higher Education, 50(3), 293–313. Rogerson, A. M., Bertram Gallant, T., Cullen, C., & Ives, R. T. (2022). Celebrating 30 years of research on academic integrity: A review of the most influential pieces. In D. A. Rettinger & T. Bertram Gallant (Eds.), Cheating academic integrity: Lessons from 30 years of research (pp. 201–231). Jossey-Bass. Ross, M. (2017). Conceptions of teaching: An illustrated review. The Clinical Teacher, 14(1), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12622 Roxå, T., & Mårtensson, K. (2009). Significant conversations and significant networks – Exploring the backstage of the teaching arena. Studies in Higher Education, 34(5), 547–559. Schmelkin, L. P., Gilbert, K., Spencer, K. J., Pincus, H. S., & Silva, R. (2008). A multidimensional scaling of college students perceptions of academic dishonesty. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 587–607. Simmons, N. (2020). The 4M framework as analytic lens for SOTL’s impact: A study of seven scholars. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 8(1), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.20343/ TEACHLEARNINQU.8.1.6 Stoesz, B. M., & Yudintseva, A. (2018). Effectiveness of tutorials for promoting educational integrity: A synthesis paper. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(6). https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0030-0 Strangfeld, J. A. (2019). I just don’t want to be judged: Cultural capital’s impact on student plagiarism. SAGE Open, 9(1), 215824401882238. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018822382 Suskie, L. (2009). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Tauginienė, L., Gaižauskaitė, I., Glendinning, I., Kravjar, J., Ojsteršek, M., Ribeiro, L., Odiņeca, T., Marino, F., Cosentino, M., Sivasubramaniam, S., & Foltýnek, T. (2018, October). Glossary for academic integrity. ENAI report 3G [online]: Revised version. https://academicintegrity.eu/wp/ wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Glossary_revised_final.pdf Twomey, T., White, H., & Sagendorf, K. (2009). Pedagogy, not policing: Positive approaches to academic integrity at the university. Syracuse. Watson Hamilton, J. W. (2022). The distinctive nature of academic integrity in graduate legal education. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada. Ethics and integrity in educational contexts (Vol. 1, pp. 333–350). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-030-83255-1_17 Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19. Young, R. L., Miller, G. N. S., & Barnhardt, C. L. (2018). From policies to principles: The effects of campus climate on academic integrity, a mixed methods study. Journal of Academic Ethics, 16, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9297-7

Academic Integrity and Accommodations: The Intersections of Ethics and Flexibility

17

Meghan E. Norris, Tara A. Karasewich, and Heidi K. Kenkel

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Designing for Flexibility and Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why Students Violate Academic Integrity and Equity in Academic Integrity Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Understanding Course Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Designing for Integrity and Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Considerations for Essential Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

250 252 252 253 254 254 257 267

Abstract

Instructors face new challenges, and opportunities, in balancing critically important needs for increased flexibility and academic integrity. Rates of students with disability have increased significantly (e.g., Canadian University Survey Consortium, 2013 first-year university student survey: master report. https://cusc-ccreu.ca/ wordpress/?page_id¼32&lang¼en, 2013; 2022 first-year students survey: Master report. https://cusc-ccreu.ca/wordpress/?page_id¼32&lang¼en, 2022), and especially since the beginning of COVID-19, there have been signs that rates of violations of academic integrity have increased (e.g., Eaton, The intersection of contract academic work and contract cheating: policy brief. Online submission, 2020). A tension exists where instructors must design assessments and courses that are flexible and inclusive for students with diverse needs while ensuring that they are resistant to violations of academic integrity. This chapter reviews accessible course design principles in tandem with academic integrity considerations. Common academic accommodations are also described along with methods for facilitating academic integrity specific to those accommodations. M. E. Norris (*) · T. A. Karasewich · H. K. Kenkel Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_92

249

250

M. E. Norris et al.

Keywords

Academic integrity · Accessibility · Course design · Flexible design · Instructional design

Introduction Higher education matters. For example, the median earnings of those working full time with a bachelor’s degree (but no advanced degree) were 67% higher than those working full time with a high school diploma (Ma et al., 2016). The same study demonstrated that higher education has important non-monetary benefits as well. In terms of health, for example, 45% of high school graduates aged 25–34 years reported exercising at least once a week vigorously, whereas 69% of those with at least a bachelor’s degree reported the same. Further, children whose parents had higher levels of education were more likely to engage in a variety of educational activities with their families, those with at least a bachelor’s degree were substantially more likely to volunteer, and voting rates were twice as high for people aged 25–44 years who held at least a bachelor’s degree compared to those with high school diplomas. Thus, higher education is associated with many significant positive outcomes. To reduce barriers to the many positive outcomes associated with higher education, it must be made accessible. Indeed, in Canada, it is mandatory to support persons with disability, as enforced through a variety of channels, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Provincial Human Rights Commissions, the Accessible Canada Act, and through provincial education acts. Perhaps most succinctly, quoting from the Ontario Human Rights Commissions’ (n.d.) Guidelines on Accessible Education policy: The aim of accommodation is the inclusion and full participation of students with disabilities in educational life. Education providers must make efforts to build or adapt educational services to accommodate students with disabilities in a way that promotes their full participation. Barriers must be prevented or removed so that students with disabilities are provided with equal opportunities to access and benefit from their environment and face the same duties and requirements as everyone else, with dignity and without impediment.

Despite multifaceted legislative approaches to supporting persons with disability, the education sector broadly is doing a poor job of ensuring that all students have equitable access to educational opportunities. For example, according to Inclusive Education Canada (2018), 53.2% of parents surveyed reported that their children were not receiving proper academic accommodations, and 68.2% reported that only half or less of their children’s needs were being met by their schools. In working to understand barriers to accessibility in education, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (2017), in collaboration with the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies, identified four main barriers for persons with disability: lack of disability accommodation and support, lack of services and funding, ineffective

17

Academic Integrity and Accommodations: The Intersections of Ethics. . .

251

dispute resolution, and lack of special education and disability supports on First Nations reserves. Focusing on accessibility at the microlevel of a classroom in a post-secondary institution, there have been significant changes with respect to accessibility needs, and instructors may not be well prepared to address these needs. For example, the sheer rate of students with student-identified disabilities has increased significantly in the last decade. Based on data from the Canadian University Survey Consortium (2013, 2022), approximately 9% of first year students identified as having a disability in 2013, whereas the rate was approximately 31% in 2022. Further, in addition to the rate of students with disability increasing, the nature of disabilities has changed over time. As reported by Harrison et al. (2018), community colleges in Ontario had a 110% increase in mental health disabilities requiring accommodation between 2009 and 2015, a 25% increase in learning disabilities, and a 71% increase in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Deloitte Canada, 2017). In the context of course design and delivery, these data represent significant changes in both the number of students requiring support and the nature of supports needed, over a relatively short time span. Thus, adequately equipping frontline instructors with tools to support students with disability is one route to building accessible educational settings. Happening concurrently with increased awareness regarding accessibility in higher education seems to be a re-awakening of concerns related to academic integrity. Awareness and concerns regarding academic integrity have come to the forefront of discussions in higher education, especially since the 1990s (Eaton & Christensen Hughes, 2022). These concerns have been amplified by shifts to online learning, with many reporting increased rates of academic integrity violations (e.g., Lopez & Solano, 2021; Newton & Essex, 2022). Unfortunately, accessibility, accommodation, and academic integrity may be falsely perceived as being at odds. The changing landscape of higher education thus creates important challenges for instructors and administrators: How and when can flexibility be increased to support student needs while also maintaining academic integrity? This chapter takes the perspective that accessibility and integrity are not at odds and instead should be tightly aligned – after all, ensuring accessibility and demonstrating academic integrity are two instances of ethical, professional academic practice. In other words, accessibility and integrity are two expressions of ethics within academia. This said, aligning accessibility and integrity is effortful, can be challenging, and requires careful thought and consideration. With this perspective in mind, this chapter seeks to provide instructors and administrators with some basic insights into the reasons why students may violate academic integrity, connecting these reasons with course and assessment design considerations. Specifically, we seek to provide examples of how to increase accessibility through flexibility while simultaneously maximizing academic integrity. Importantly, although this chapter provides suggestions for facilitating both accessibility and academic integrity, we acknowledge these suggestions are by nature insufficient because individual needs for accommodations and course-specific requirements vary significantly. We hope that our chapter provides a helpful starting place.

252

M. E. Norris et al.

Designing for Flexibility and Integrity Both legally and ethically, there is a clear need for flexibility in course design to meet increased student needs for accessibility. Universal Design (UD) is one method for increasing flexibility and accessibility within courses. UD “is the design and composition of an environment so that it can be accessed, understood and used to the greatest extent possible by all people regardless of their age, size, ability or disability” (National Disability Authority, n.d.). Indeed, there are a variety of models that integrate UD considerations with an aim of increasing accessibility (e.g., Higbee, 2009; Meyer & Rose, 2000; Scott et al., 2003; Thoma et al., 2009). Although these models vary in their methods of implementation, they share a core commitment to designing for inclusion rather than merely responding to requests for increased accessibility. Flexibility in post-secondary is possible. This was perhaps best demonstrated in the spring of 2020 when many institutions quickly pivoted to online course deliveries, often with more flexible course policies, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As we collectively move to a “new normal” in the years following the onset of the pandemic, policies and practices may become less flexible for students, despite calls for continued flexible deliveries. Indeed, specific to British Columbia, Canada, some have argued that the failure to offer more flexible courses while COVID-19 is active could constitute a failure to provide legal accommodation (e.g., Benson, 2021). Through this chapter, we seek to implement an intentional “pause” for instructors and administrators to explicitly consider how flexibility in course design intersects with academic integrity. Sometimes, increasing flexibility necessarily increases opportunities for students to engage in “cheating behaviors.” For example, allowing someone an extra week to complete an essay may provide an unfair advantage to them compared to their classmates. However, it may instead lift up a student who is disadvantaged, by providing the flexibility needed for them to demonstrate their mastery of a course requirement. In the sections that follow, we explore common reasons why students violate academic integrity and provide suggestions for how to promote accessibility while also reducing the pressures that may facilitate violations of academic integrity.

Why Students Violate Academic Integrity and Equity in Academic Integrity Procedures Before exploring methods that promote both accessibility and academic integrity, it is helpful to briefly consider why students may violate academic integrity. The reasons for the “why” matter. Designing to facilitate academic integrity requires understanding barriers to academic integrity. There are many documented and varied reasons why students may violate academic integrity (see Miles et al., 2022, for a review), including:

17

Academic Integrity and Accommodations: The Intersections of Ethics. . .

253

• Lack of understanding (i.e., accidental violations). • Cultural differences in academic behaviors. • Motivations related to peers (e.g., wanting to help a friend, perceptions that others engage in these behaviors). • Lack of honor codes. • Perceptions of low risks/consequences for violations of academic integrity. • Ease of access to technology that facilitates violations (e.g., contract cheating). • Lack of engagement/relationship with instructor. • Large class sizes. • Many assessments/requirements due at one time. • Academic and social pressures to succeed. As can be seen above, there are many factors other than intent to cheat that can result in students making poor decisions regarding academic behaviors, and these factors may affect certain student demographics more than others. Importantly, further demonstrating that considerations of academic integrity require care-filled considerations of equity, some have argued that academic integrity policies and processes themselves must be made to be more inclusive. For example, Davis (2022) found that procedures associated with academic integrity can induce anxiety and be difficult to understand and are not equitable, as some students require much more support to navigate these procedures than others. We will return to factors that inhibit academic integrity, and systematic inequities within academic integrity procedures, later in this chapter within the context of lesson and course design considerations.

Understanding Course Needs Courses do not exist in a vacuum, and instructors and administrators must understand the broader contexts in which their courses exist. For example, in the province of Ontario, Canada, every degree is expected to meet degree-level expectations (DLEs) of the Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance (2010). In addition to having to meet DLEs within a given educational jurisdiction, programs may also have program-level outcomes (PLOs), which are outcomes associated with successful completion of a degree plan. Courses thus often operate under (at least) these two levels of expectations for students’ learning, and their course outcomes should align with these broader outcomes. In addition to degree- and program-level expectations, individual courses can have specific learning outcomes and essential requirements. Course-level learning outcomes (CLOs) are high-level descriptions of what students can expect to learn in a course, and these may be recorded in an institution’s academic calendar. Related to CLOs, but sometimes distinct, are the essential requirements of a course. Essential requirements encompass aspects of a course that must be completed to pass and earn credit. Specifically, according to Rose (2010), “essential requirements of a course or program are likely to include (but are not necessarily limited to), the knowledge and

254

M. E. Norris et al.

skills that must be acquired or demonstrated in order for a student to successfully meet the learning objectives of that course or program” (p. 5). Breaking this down further, Oakley et al. (2012) state that essential requirements can be defined as (1) “skills that must be necessarily demonstrated in order to meet the objectives of a course; and (2) skills that must be demonstrated in a prescribed manner” (p. 5). In a music course, for example, playing a particular musical composition on the clarinet may be an essential requirement for successful completion. As another example, attending a laboratory session to learn how to effectively and safely mix chemicals to create a new solution may be an essential requirement of a chemistry course. Before offering a course, instructors should consider its learning outcomes and essential requirements in addition to DLOs and PLOs, to ensure that they design the course to facilitate learning and assessment of required content and skills while giving thoughtful, intentional consideration to the implementation of accommodations. Further, being aware and explicit of essential requirements before a course is offered allows the essential requirements to be clearly communicated and enables students to select courses that are appropriate for them.

Designing for Integrity and Accessibility Although not an easy task, it is possible to design courses in ways that maximize both accessibility and integrity. Increasing flexibility through course design reduces barriers for all students, promoting a culture of accessibility. Increasing academic integrity through course design promotes professionally appropriate behaviors within the academic sector. Maximizing both accessibility and integrity at the level of course design thus facilitates an ethical culture. As noted above, work has been done to identify reasons why students may violate academic integrity at the institution and course levels. With these causes of violations in mind, Table 1 provides course-level design ideas to both address causes of violations to academic integrity and also increase flexibility. These recommendations are pitched at the “course” and “course policy” level and can be proactively addressed within a course syllabus. Importantly, many of our recommendations address some of the causes of cheating and are intended to help reduce inequities inherent in many academic procedures (see Davis, 2022).

Design Considerations for Essential Requirements Instructors have the challenging tasks of designing for and assessing learning. Maximizing accessibility and integrity during this design process requires thoughtful consideration, which may not always be straightforward. In Table 1, we provided insights into course-level considerations to promote accessibility while also facilitating integrity. However, many accommodation needs are quite nuanced, requiring support at the level of a single assignment. Table 2 provides ideas for how instructors can design assessments and learning experiences that facilitate both accessibility and

17

Academic Integrity and Accommodations: The Intersections of Ethics. . .

255

Table 1 Course-level design for flexibility and academic integrity Pledges of academic honesty

Description of practice Early in the term and/or upon submission of an assessment, require students to sign a printed contract stating that they have followed academic integrity policies while completing the assignment (e.g., “I affirm that the work I am submitting is my own. . .”)

Clear guidelines regarding academic integrity

The instructor clearly communicates the educational institution’s policies on academic integrity (as well as their own) to students early in the term. This should include providing relevant written policies (e.g., via the syllabus), reminders of relevant course and assignment-specific policies on the first day and/or before each assessment, anonymous/ hypothetical examples of violations, direct feedback on their use of sources, and additional resources (e.g., online training modules, fact sheets, contact information for the institution’s writing center)

Classroom culture

The instructor models academic integrity within and outside of the classroom (e.g., including citations

Academic integrity considerations Although a pledge for academic honesty is not a legal document and will not necessarily act as a deterrent to cheating, it provides students with a clear statement of expectations. This may be especially helpful if courses are impacted by new technology, such as artificial intelligence tools, which are becoming widely accessible. Course expectations surrounding use of these tools can vary, and being explicit can remove ambiguity around what is, and is not, permissible within a specific course Requiring students to sign an academic honesty pledge may signal lack of trust. Explaining the why of academic integrity may facilitate understanding of the relevance of this task to class and professional standards Providing clear guidelines will help all students in the course maintain academic integrity, but it is especially important for students who may not have encountered such policies in their prior education. Some students may have even been encouraged to use certain practices that would not be allowed at their current educational institution (e.g., proper citation not expected, allowed to work with peers on independent projects). These students may need additional guidance to learn what is expected of them in a particular course or institution Students new to the educational institution (e.g., exchange or transfer students) or program (e.g., taking a course from another major as an elective) may need additional guidance as they may have encountered different rules at other institutions/programs Students may be more likely to engage in academic dishonesty if they perceive that their instructor (continued)

256

M. E. Norris et al.

Table 1 (continued)

Universal grace periods

Universal drop policies

Captioning and transcripts

Description of practice

Academic integrity considerations

in the corners of lecture slides, discussing the importance of academic honesty and its broader implications). The instructor also takes violations of academic integrity seriously and has a consistent approach to handling them All students in the course are given a certain amount of time (e.g., 3 days) past the deadline of an assignment to submit it without penalty. This may help students allocate their time when they are facing competing demands, reducing pressures to cheat. It is important to note, however, that pushing due dates further into the future may make students who already struggle with time management more prone to procrastination (Svartdal et al., 2020) In a course with multiple assessments of the same type or function (e.g., weekly quizzes, an essay and exam that assess proficiency of the same material), a pre-determined number of assessments with the lowest marks (e.g., two of ten quizzes, either the essay or the exam) will be dropped from all students’ final grades. This may help students strategically allocate their time when they are facing competing demands (including health-related concerns), reducing pressures to cheat

does not care about academic integrity or see their actions as hypocritical Teaching assistants should be trained in the importance of academic integrity and how they should navigate suspected violations

Lectures and other content that is recorded or streamed should include captions at the bottom of the screen, translating spoken words and sounds into text for students who have difficulty processing auditory information (e.g., hearing impairment, English as an additional

Students’ grades and any feedback on an assignment should not be released before the end of the grace period, to ensure that students are not sharing their results and feedback with peers who could still improve their own submissions

A drop policy may not be suited to all assessments or courses. It is important to consider which aspects of an assessment are essential when deciding whether it could be realistically dropped – If a student does not complete that assessment, would they have demonstrated all essential knowledge and skills through the assessments that remain? If not, you may consider including an assessment toward the end of the course that allows for assessment of multiple essential components to create flexibility where possible for students who must miss assignments. Creating flexibility may reduce pressure on students to cheat to meet the demands of a one-time assessment Providing captions/transcripts after a lecture may limit some students’ ability to engage during class. Thus, although automated captioning is imperfect, enabling it for synchronous content is one way to provide opportunities for engagement (continued)

17

Academic Integrity and Accommodations: The Intersections of Ethics. . .

257

Table 1 (continued)

Alt text

Description of practice

Academic integrity considerations

language). Typed transcripts may also be provided to students after the lecture (e.g., posted to the course LMS). This provides another way of students accessing the content and may alleviate instructors concerns about copyright infringement (e.g., being recorded without consent) Images that are provided to students in an online format (e.g., lecture slides posted to the course LMS, assignment instructions that include a diagram) should include alt text that describes their essential components in a written format, to ensure that students who are unable to view the images directly (e.g., visual impairment, slow internet connection) will not miss course content

Students should be made aware that any course transcripts, like all other class material, is the intellectual property of the instructor/institution and thus should not be shared outside of the class

Alt text is meant to substitute images, not add to them. Alt text should not include information that is not conveyed by the original image, as additional information is unnecessary and may be unavailable to other students

integrity for academic accommodations that are commonly requested within higher education. There are many reasons that a specific accommodation may be requested, and these reasons may not be accessible to instructors in order to maintain student privacy. Being unaware of common reasons for a specific accommodation, however, can make it difficult for instructors to implement creative and relevant assignment changes to increase accessibility. Thus, Table 2 describes some circumstances in which students may benefit from a specific type of accommodation. Please note that this information is intended to provide insight for instructors at a very general level. A student’s personal need for accommodation should never be assumed.

Summary Our contention is that promoting accessibility and academic integrity are two sides of the same coin: They are both expressions of ethical behaviors within academia. Maximizing accessibility and integrity is not only important for students within a course – many parties that have vested interest in a trustworthy post-secondary sector that promotes inclusive values. That said, maximizing accessibility while maintaining academic integrity can be challenging and requires careful consideration. We have provided examples of practices that instructors can use to increase accessibility while also mitigating violations of academic integrity at both the course and assessment levels.

258

M. E. Norris et al.

Table 2 Designing essential learning requirements for accessibility and integrity

Accommodation Assignment extensions Student is permitted to submit their assignment past the due date

Alternative to class participation Student is given the opportunity to participate without speaking aloud in class (e.g., through written responses)

Barriers that may be addresseda Unforeseen events (e.g., death of a loved one, illness, injury, trauma) Sudden worsening of symptoms (e.g., Crohn’s disease, anxiety disorders) Difficulty forming long-term plans (e.g., ADHD, external obligations)

Difficulty formulating verbal responses (e.g., language impairment, English as an additional language) Difficulty focusing during stressful social situations (e.g., anxiety disorders)

Considerations for providing accommodation For assessments submitted online, some learning management systems (LMS) allow instructors to apply extensions to multiple students at once, increasing efficiency in implementing accommodations. Instructors should understand their institutions’ system capabilities The instructor may be able to provide a universal grace period to all students If extensions cannot be granted due to the nature of the assessment, it may be possible to reweight the grade to another assignment(s) that assesses the same required skills and knowledge The instructor could collect students’ private written responses during class discussions. If engaging with others is an essential requirement, students may be able to participate through chat software restricted to members of the course (e.g., Microsoft teams, zoom). Written responses could also be collected after class discussions,

Academic integrity considerations Certain assignments may not allow for extensions (e.g., assignments with multiple parts that must be completed in sequence, group, or peer review assignments that would require other students to collaborate/respond in a timely manner) Depending on the level of feedback provided to students, instructors may not be able to provide extensions past the date upon which grades are released to the class. If this is the case, this should be communicated to students early in the course so they can plan accordingly

Depending on the requirements of the class (e.g., to grade participation) and the context of the discussion (e.g., to create the same level of professional accountability as spoken contributions), instructors may need to require students to sign their names to their written contributions

(continued)

17

Academic Integrity and Accommodations: The Intersections of Ethics. . .

259

Table 2 (continued)

Accommodation

Alternative to group work Student is given the opportunity to complete group work in a different format (e.g., independently or asynchronously) or to complete an equivalent individual assignment

Barriers that may be addresseda

Unforeseen events (e.g., death of a loved one, illness, injury, trauma) Difficulty committing to regular meetings (e.g., chronic condition that has irregular flare-ups, external obligations) Difficulty focusing during stressful social situations (e.g., anxiety disorders)

Considerations for providing accommodation either via physical comment cards or through an online submission folder. These comments could then be shared with the class by the instructor or designated discussion leaders anonymously during class Some group projects can be easily (and meaningfully) completed asynchronously in ways that still facilitate group engagement (e.g., important decisions made over e-mail or chat programs, project completed in an online shared file through Google documents, Microsoft teams, Canva, etc.) Students with this accommodation may be able to contribute to the group project by completing one section of it independently. To provide support in these cases, the instructor could require members to divide up the work and set internal due dates for different sections as an initial stage of project

Academic integrity considerations

The ability to synchronously collaborate on a project with peers may be an essential course requirement. If this is the case, instructors must justify why a group project in this format is an essential requirement When students must complete a group project in any format, the instructor could provide support (to all students) by setting/encouraging them to set clear expectations for fair work, connecting them to campus resources for learning interpersonal skills, and outlining what steps they should take to resolve conflicts When modifying a group project into an individual assignment or offering a separate assignment, it is important that (continued)

260

M. E. Norris et al.

Table 2 (continued)

Accommodation

Alternative to oral presentations Student is given the opportunity to complete an oral presentation in an alternative format (e.g., submitting an audio recording, presenting to the instructor only) or to complete an non-oral equivalent assignment

Barriers that may be addresseda

Difficulty or inability to communicate verbally (e.g., deafness, mutism, head injury, anxiety disorders) Difficulty focusing during stressful social situations (e.g., anxiety disorders)

Considerations for providing accommodation

If it is the presence of an audience that is a barrier to the student’s participation, they may be able to give a presentation to a smaller audience (e.g., the instructor or a small group of their peers) or submit a recording of the presentation (e.g., using the “record narration” function in Microsoft PowerPoint) If the student is unable to give a presentation orally, they may be able to present with an interpreter (e.g., while signing) or have someone present on their behalf (e.g., reading from a pre-written script) or submit the script of their presentation (e.g., using slide notes in Microsoft PowerPoint) In the case of group presentations, students may be able to participate in the presentation, without speaking, through contributions such as adding a video that is

Academic integrity considerations instructors ensure that the amount of work, and evaluation of standards, is consistent and fair across students The ability to orally present information to an audience may be an essential course requirement. If this is the case, instructors must justify why a presentation must be given orally and to an audience of a certain size When an oral presentation is part of a group project, the instructor should make it clear when students are able to divide the work into separate contributions (e.g., writing the script, creating graphics, giving the oral presentation) and how those contributions will be evaluated When modifying requirements for presentations, it is important that instructors ensure that the amount of work, and evaluation of standards, is consistent and fair across students

(continued)

17

Academic Integrity and Accommodations: The Intersections of Ethics. . .

261

Table 2 (continued)

Accommodation

Exam deferral Student writes an exam at a later date

Barriers that may be addresseda

Unforeseen events (e.g., death of a loved one, illness, injury, trauma) Suddenly worsening symptoms (e.g., Crohn’s disease, anxiety disorders)

Considerations for providing accommodation

Academic integrity considerations

embedded into a presentation (including video that uses imagery and text-to-audio technologies), by developing specific and unique aspects of a script, and/or by contributing to the development of graphics, tables, activities, and visual content that is part of the presentation Allowing students to write a deferred exam may require scheduling a time and room on another day (perhaps the weekend to avoid conflicting with their other classes) For online assessments, if the same exam (e.g., with randomized questions) will be used for deferred exams, the instructor should be able to change the date and time of an exam for individual students within their LMS. Instructors should understand their institutions’ system capabilities. Instructors should consider whether using the same exam later provides an unfair advantage in the context of the assessment For online

If the same exam questions will be given to students who write a deferred exam, the deferral date should occur after the original exam date, to minimize the number of students who may learn in advance what was covered. The deferral date should also occur before grades are released from the original exam date, to minimize the extent to which students can use feedback given to their peers to improve their own responses A deferred exam that has different questions should be used to ensure academic integrity, especially if no proctoring is in place, but the instructor should ensure that the questions are of the (continued)

262

M. E. Norris et al.

Table 2 (continued)

Accommodation

Barriers that may be addresseda

Considerations for providing accommodation assessments, if a different exam will be used for deferrals, some LMS will require a deferred exam to be set up as a “bonus” item in the gradebook, to avoid causing errors in the weighting of the course assessments. Instructors should understand their institutions’ system capabilities

Extra time Student receives more time than classmates to complete tests, quizzes, and exams (e.g., 1.25, 1.5, or 2x the regular time given)

Difficulty reading, processing information, or formulating responses (e.g., dyslexia, English as an additional language) Difficulty with focusing (e.g., ADHD, chronic pain) Symptom and health management (e.g., anxiety disorders, diabetes) Time required to use other supports

Providing individual students with extra time may require completion in a separate room with additional proctors For online assessments, some LMSs allow instructors to apply extra time for students to all assessments at once, instead of one at a time. This can be helpful when applying this accommodation across multiple assessments. Instructors should understand the system requirements for their specific institution The instructor may be able to provide

Academic integrity considerations same level of difficulty as those in the original exam Although not legally binding, having students sign a declaration of academic integrity that clearly outlines boundaries for academic behaviors may be helpful. Students should be made aware of this requirement in advance so that they do not accidentally engage in behaviors that would be considered violations of integrity The ability to perform the assessed task in a specific, limited period may be an essential course requirement. If this is the case, instructors must justify why time is an essential requirement If completing an assessment within a specified time is not an essential requirement, design assessments where extra time is not incentivized (e.g., implement page limits, design questions that have a solution where extra time does not provide a benefit). Proctoring can eliminate risk of students using resources that are not (continued)

17

Academic Integrity and Accommodations: The Intersections of Ethics. . .

263

Table 2 (continued)

Accommodation

Split exams Assessments are split into multiple parts which students write separately

Barriers that may be addresseda

Difficulty focusing, sitting, or writing for extended periods of time (e.g., ADHD, chronic pain, injury) Extra time accommodation (see above) would make the length of the exam too long for one sitting

Considerations for providing accommodation universal extended time to all students (e.g., reducing the number of items assessed while keeping the time limit the same; adding half hour to the end time while keeping the number of items the same) If extra time cannot be provided due to essential requirements, no/ low-stakes practice tests could be offered to students to help them become familiar with timed assessments well ahead of the scheduled assessments Allowing a student to write the exam in two parts may require scheduling them to write in a separate room and hiring additional proctors For online assessments, some LMS will require a split exam to be created as two separate exams, which are linked to “bonus” items in the gradebook, to avoid causing errors in the weighting of the course assessments. Instructors should understand their institutions’ system capabilities

Academic integrity considerations permissible to aid assessment completion If proctoring is not in use, consider designing assessments that require application of course content so that answers cannot readily be looked up and so that benefits of “ghostwriters” are reduced

Similar to a deferred exam, if the same exam that will be given to other students in the class will be split into two parts for students with this accommodation, the first part of the exam should be given either at the same time or after the original exam date to minimize the number of students who may learn in advance what was covered. The second part of the exam should be given as soon as it is feasible to do so (e.g., the next day) The instructor should (continued)

264

M. E. Norris et al.

Table 2 (continued)

Accommodation

Separate room Student writes tests and exams in a separate room from the rest of the class, which may have specific requirements for capacity (e.g., private, up to five students) or features (e.g., dim lighting, an ergonomic chair)

Barriers that may be addresseda

Difficulty focusing or higher sensitivity to certain sensory experiences (e.g., ADHD, autism) Space required to use other supports Need to move, verbalize, eat, or do other things that may be disruptive to other students (e.g., chronic pain, diabetes, ADHD, autism)

Considerations for providing accommodation

Depending on the institution’s room capacity, booking a separate room(s) for students may require scheduling students to write an exam on a different day from other students in the class For online exams that are proctored or monitored in some way for atypical activity, the proctoring service should be made aware when students’ have permission to move around, verbalize, eat, or perform some other unusual activity

Academic integrity considerations split the exam into two parts that will take approximately equal time to complete Although not legally binding, having students sign a declaration of academic integrity that clearly outlines boundaries for academic behaviors may be helpful. Students should be made aware of this in advance so that they do not accidentally engage in behaviors that would be considered violations of integrity If possible, students writing in a separate room(s) should start the exam at the same time as students writing in the main test room Students writing in a separate room(s) should be given the same or equivalent opportunity to ask questions about the exam to a knowledgeable person (e.g., the instructor, a teaching assistant). This could be accomplished by giving the proctors in their room a way to quickly contact the instructor (e.g., a cell phone number to text, an instant messaging program), (continued)

17

Academic Integrity and Accommodations: The Intersections of Ethics. . .

265

Table 2 (continued)

Accommodation

Barriers that may be addresseda

Computer for assessments Student writes an online version of a test or exam on a computer instead of the physical copy or types out their responses in a word processor that is printed and handed in with the test booklet

Difficulty handwriting (e.g., chronic pain, injury) Need for adaptive/ assistive technology (e.g., screen readers or ability to increase font for visual impairment; spellcheck or word prediction software for language impairment, English as an additional language)

Memory aids Students with this accommodation may use a sheet that has retrieval cues (e.g.,

Difficulty retrieving information from long-term memory (e.g., head injury,

Considerations for providing accommodation

Individual students who require a computer for in-person exams will likely need to write in a separate room from students writing on paper and may (depending on the institution’s room and technology capacity) need to write on a different day For online exams, the instructor should ensure that the course LMS provides the necessary functions required to use adaptive/assistive technology. Instructors should understand the system requirements for their specific institution Students who will need memory aids should be given clear guidelines and support in creating

Academic integrity considerations having one of the class teaching assistants act as their proctor, and setting a specific time for the instructor to visit the other room Students should leave any electronics, books, and notes with a proctor/TA for safe storage, to prevent accessing information that is not permitted for the exam For closed-book exams, the computer that a student uses to write the exam should not have access to the internet. Any adaptive/ assistive technology that they require should be downloaded to the computer prior to the exam

A memory aid should be created by the student who requires it to ensure that it contains cues that are (continued)

266

M. E. Norris et al.

Table 2 (continued)

Accommodation

Barriers that may be addresseda

Considerations for providing accommodation

drawings, initials), which has been approved by the instructor, to aid in the recall process during assessments

medication side effects, depression)

them Students should be encouraged to submit memory aids for review well in advance of an exam. This allows for time for edits if required and ensures enough time for the instructor to get the aid to the exam proctors Approved memory aids should be provided by the instructor/proctor at the start of the exam

Scrap paper Student can use blank paper to brainstorm or draft their responses during assessments

Difficulty processing information, planning, or formulating responses (e.g., ADHD, dyslexia, English as an additional language) Difficulty with using information in working memory (e.g., ADHD, head injury, language impairment)

Blank sheets should be provided to each student by the instructor/proctor at the start of the exam All scrap paper used by students during the exam should be collected by the instructor/proctor at the end and properly disposed of (e.g., shredded)

Academic integrity considerations useful to them A memory aid should not contain direct answers to assessment questions and should not replace studying. Instead, the student should use drawings, diagrams, or text to cue their memory of information already learned. In most cases, these cues will not be easily interpretable by other students The instructor should approve of all memory aids in advance of the assessment Students should not supply their own scrap paper during an exam unless the instructor/proctor has checked to ensure that it is blank Whatever students write on scrap paper should not be considered part of their response to the exam questions Any scrap paper containing confidential exam content should be turned in with the exam

Note: aThe barriers included in this table are not an exhaustive list. Instructors should not assume that a student who requires a specific accommodation is experiencing one of the circumstances listed here; we have provided examples only to demonstrate the variety of barriers that students may face Some material was adapted from Queen’s University’s Student Wellness Services website (accessed in November 2022): https://www.queensu.ca/studentwellness/accessibility-services/academicaccommodations-online-exams

17

Academic Integrity and Accommodations: The Intersections of Ethics. . .

267

Importantly, there is a need for instructors and institutions to systematically evaluate the impacts of these practices in the context of specific courses and institutions. Student needs vary with time, and technology changes rapidly. Highlighting this, the release of ChatGPT will have a significant impact on practices within higher education. Thus, “best practices” in one context may not support student needs in a different context. Admittedly, evaluating impact and updating recommendations for continually changing needs is a significant amount of work that is not directly tied to most instructors’ subject matter expertise. Along with others, we argue that instructors need ongoing support from administrators and accessibility support counsellors to develop and sustain effective accommodation practices within the classroom (e.g., Burge, 2023; Roberts et al., 2014). Importantly, administrators should be aware of the time and resource investment required by instructors to consider and implement strategies that are appropriate for their needs in their disciplinary and departmental contexts. Teaching is a team sport – students, faculty, staff, and administrators must be open to communicating, align their values, and be committed to providing appropriate resources to support high-quality accessibility in higher education.

References Benson, K. (2021, June 28). In favour of universal design: The argument for continued hybrid online/in-person courses in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic with a focus on students with disabilities. Person courses in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic with a focus on students with disabilities. Burge, P. (2023, January 9). How to make post-secondary study more accessible? Collaboration between instructors and disability counsellors. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/ how-to-make-post-secondary-study-more-accessible-collaboration-between-instructors-and-dis ability-counsellors-192488 Canadian Human Rights Commission. (2017). Left out: Challenges faced by persons with disabilities in Canada’s schools. https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/en/resources/publications/left-outchallenges-faced-persons-disabilities-canadas-schools Canadian University Survey Consortium. (2013). 2013 first-year university student survey: Master report. https://cusc-ccreu.ca/wordpress/?page_id¼32&lang¼en Canadian University Survey Consortium. (2022). 2022 first-year students survey: Master report. https://cusc-ccreu.ca/wordpress/?page_id¼32&lang¼en Davis, M. (2022). Examining and improving inclusive practice in institutional academic integrity policies, procedures, teaching and support. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 18, 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-022-00108-x Deloitte Canada. (2017). Enabling sustained student success support for students at risk in Ontario’s colleges. Retrieved from https://www.collegesontario.org/en/resources/enablingsustained-student-success. Accessed 27 Jan 2022. Eaton, S. E. (2020). The intersection of contract academic work and contract cheating: Policy brief. Online Submission. Eaton, S. E., & Christensen Hughes, J. (2022). Academic integrity in Canada: Historical perspectives and current trends. In Academic integrity in Canada (pp. 3–24). Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1_1 Harrison, A. G., Holmes, A., & Harrison, K. (2018). Medically confirmed functional impairment as proof of accommodation need in postsecondary education: Are Ontario’s campuses the

268

M. E. Norris et al.

bellwether of an inequitable decision-making paradigm? Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 187, 48–60. Higbee, J. L. (2009). Implementing universal instructional design in postsecondary courses and curricula. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 6(8), 65–78. Inclusive Education Canada. (2018). Ontario’s education system is failing students with disabilities. https://inclusiveeducation.ca/2018/02/07/ontarios-education-system-is-failing-students-withdisabilities/. Accessed 27 Jan 2022. Lopez, K. M., & Solano, D. M. (2021). Ethics of cheating: Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on academic honesty. In International ethics in chemistry: Developing common values across cultures (pp. 63–77). American Chemical Society. Ma, J., Pender, M., & Welch, M. (2016). Education pays 2016: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society (Trends in higher education series). College Board. Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2000). Universal design for individual differences. Educational Leadership, 58(3), 39–43. Miles, P. J., Campbell, M., & Ruxton, G. D. (2022). Why students cheat and how understanding this can help reduce the frequency of academic misconduct in higher education: A literature review. The Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 20(2), A150–A159. National Disability Authority (n.d.). What is universal design. Centre for Excellence in Universal Design. https://universaldesign.ie/what-is-universal-design/. Accessed 27 Jan 2022. Newton, P., & Essex, K. (2022). How common is cheating in online exams and did it increase during the COVID-19 pandemic? A systematic review. Research Square. https://doi.org/10. 21203/rs.3.rs-2187710/v1 Oakley, B., Parsons, J., & Wideman, M. (2012). Identifying essential requirements: A guide for university disability service professionals. Inter-University Disabilities Issues Association. Ontario Human Rights Commission. (n.d.). Guidelines on accessible education » Appropriate accommodation. https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/guidelines-accessible-education/appropriateaccommodation. Accessed 27 Jan 2022. Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance. (2010). Quality assurance framework. https:// oucqa.ca/resources-publications/quality-assurance-framework/ Queen’s Student Wellness Services. (2022). Academic Accommodations. https://www.queensu.ca/ studentwellness/accessibility-services/academic-accommodations-online-exams Roberts, B., Mohler, C. E., Levy-Pinto, D., Nieder, C., Duffett, E. M., & Sukhai, M. A. (2014). Defining a new culture: Creative examination of essential requirements in academic disciplines and graduate programs. https://www.cags.ca/documents/publications/3rdparty/Discussion% 20paper%20Essential%20Requirements%20FINAL%202014-09-22.pdf Rose, M. (2010). Accommodating graduate students with disabilities. Council of Ontario Universities academic colleagues working paper, 1–13. Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Foley, T. E. (2003). Universal design for instruction: A framework for anticipating and responding to disability and other diverse learning needs in the college classroom. Equity & Excellence in Education, 36(1), 40–49. Svartdal, F., Dahl, T. I., Gamst-Klaussen, T., Koppenborg, M., & Klingsieck, K. B. (2020). How study environments foster academic procrastination: Overview and recommendations. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 540910. Thoma, C. A., Bartholomew, C. C., & Scott, L. A. (2009). Universal design for transition: A roadmap for planning and instruction. Brookes Pub.

Guidelines for Creating Online MCQ-Based Exams to Evaluate Higher Order Learning and Reduce Academic Misconduct

18

Philip M. Newton

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multiple-Choice Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Guidance for Writing Higher Order MCQs in a Way Which Reduces Academic Misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Setting Up the Exam Itself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

270 274 275 278 280 281 281 281

Abstract

Online exams, based on multiple-choice questions (MCQs), offer many positive features as an assessment format: flexibility, inclusivity, reduced cost, broad curriculum coverage, and more. However, this format is also highly vulnerable to academic misconduct and has a reputation for only being able to assess “lower order” learning. This chapter details pragmatic guidance which can be used by educators to write MCQs for the assessment of higher order learning. These MCQs require students to apply existing knowledge to actively solve problems rather than recalling facts. The writing of these MCQs requires educators to identify assumed knowledge that students need to answer the question: a “cognitive bridge” between the question content and the answer. Using this MCQ format should then make it harder for students to cheat, particularly when combined with practical tips for the design and management of the examination itself. Finally, the chapter proposes the use of exams based on higher order MCQs as a viable alternative to other “higher order” assessment formats such as essays P. M. Newton (*) Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Singleton Park Campus, Swansea, Wales, UK e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_93

269

270

P. M. Newton

and written coursework, whose basic validity is fundamentally compromised by plagiarism and the widespread availability of essay mills and artificial intelligence-based content generation systems. Keywords

Bloom’s taxonomy · Exam security · Valid assessment · Test banks · MCQ construction

Introduction This chapter offers pragmatic guidance for the effective use of examinations based upon multiple-choice questions (MCQs), to assess higher order learning, in a way that reduces opportunities for academic misconduct. MCQs are not the only tool we can use to achieve these ends, but there is considerable evidence that they can be a valuable part of a portfolio of assessments, particularly where those assessments are online. The global education sector shifted rapidly online during the lockdowns associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, and this was associated with a large increase in the already high rates of cheating in online exams (Newton & Essex, 2022). Thus, there is an urgent need to deploy strategies to reduce cheating in online exams. There also appears to be widespread cheating in other forms of “higher order” assessments, in particular essays and other forms of written coursework. These are enormously vulnerable to misconduct through plagiarism (Newton, 2016; Foltýnek et al., 2019), essay mills and contract cheating (Newton, 2018; Bretag et al., 2019), and the emergent threat of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, in particular large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, which can generate academic writing to a high standard (Sharples, 2022). The extent of these challenges, along with the considerable workload associated with marking written coursework and investigating alleged plagiarism, has created a pressing need for the use of alternative assessment formats when assessing advanced, higher order learning. It is this challenge that the chapter primarily seeks to address. This chapter is grounded in the pragmatist paradigm. Pragmatism prioritizes research methods and questions whose answers are practically useful (Newton et al., 2020a). The basic philosophical position of this guidance is a pragmatic one; the research evidence on MCQs for higher order learning, and to reduce academic misconduct, will be reviewed to produce useful guidance for teaching staff in higher education. There are additional pragmatic considerations for the contents of this chapter. University staff have been at increasing risk of poor mental health and burnout in recent years, in part due to high workload (Morrish, 2019; Urbina-Garcia, 2020). This trajectory was accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic (Miguel et al., 2021; Whisenhunt et al., 2022). The higher education sector continues to grow in many countries, and with it often comes heavier workloads for university staff. Increasing

18

Guidelines for Creating Online MCQ-Based Exams to Evaluate Higher. . .

271

student numbers, and the associated increased burden of marking additional student assignments, is cited as a key contributing factor to poor mental health among university staff (Darabi et al., 2017; Morrish, 2019). Many higher education providers set strict requirements for the amount of time allowed for staff to mark assessments and then use compliance with these requirements as a measure of staff performance (Morrish, 2019). The most labour-intensive assignments to mark are essays and other forms of written coursework. The basic validity of these forms of assessments is highly questionable; almost any form of written coursework can be, and is, outsourced (Newton, 2018; Ellis et al., 2020) or subject to some form of plagiarizing or paraphrasing. There is then an additional, considerable, workload associated with investigating cases of plagiarism, collusion, and contract cheating that are associated with written coursework (de Jager & Brown, 2010); these challenges can then make staff reluctant to act when they suspect a case of misconduct, so exacerbating the problem. Thus, we need better assessments, assessing higher order learning in a way which is less prone to misconduct but also less labour-intensive. Higher Order Learning What is “higher order learning”? It seems reasonable to conclude that most of us would recognize a difference between an MCQ that tests recall of factual knowledge and one where the test-taker has to solve a problem or in some other way apply knowledge. But how can this difference be objectively captured? Many studies on the subject use Bloom’s taxonomy as a framework for capturing levels of learning. The original taxonomy was published in 1956 (Bloom & Krathwohl, 1956), with a revision published in 2001 (Krathwohl, 2002). The 1956 publication spanned 216 pages and made many proposals for ways in which learning could be described and organized according to the understanding of the time. Today, these 216 pages are commonly represented only as a figure showing a hierarchy of 5–7 groups of “action verbs” with which to write learning outcomes (Table 1). The verbs at the base of the hierarchy (e.g., list, name, and recall) are used to write learning outcomes that supposedly represent lower order learning (referred to as “Knowledge” or “Comprehension”), whereas verbs at the top of the hierarchy (e.g., evaluate and justify) are used to write learning outcomes that supposedly represent higher order learning (referred to as “Synthesis” or “Evaluation”). Learning outcomes are a statement about what a learner should be able to do once the learning is completed and should be aligned with the taught content and the assessment (Biggs, 1996). Thus, a lower order Learning Outcome for this chapter might be to “list the features of effective multiple-choice questions,” whereas a higher order learning outcome might be to “compose higher order multiple choice questions,” or to “evaluate higher order multiple choice questions.” Traditionally, the assessment of higher order learning has been associated with written coursework, in particular essays. It is common to use Bloom’s taxonomy to define lower/higher order learning, for example, by asking staff or students to map a particular question to a particular level of Bloom’s taxonomy, or by selecting the appropriate action verbs when writing outcomes

272

P. M. Newton

Table 1 Hierarchical master list of verbs used to write learning outcomes mapped to Bloom’s taxonomy

Adapted from Newton et al. (2020b) and distributed by the author under CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blooms_Taxonomy_from_New ton_et_al_2020.png

and assessments (Palmer & Devitt, 2007; Kim et al., 2012; Billings et al., 2020; Mate & Weidenhofer, 2021). Some studies report that academic staff find it challenging to accurately assign assessment items to their intended tier of Bloom’s taxonomy (Dempster and Kirby, 2018; Karpen & Welch, 2016). If one accepts that a student progresses along these sorts of hierarchies as they develop expertise, it seems logical that, in any given cohort of students, the number who are able to correctly answer a particular question will be lower for questions that are towards the top of any hierarchy. This does seem to be the case (e.g., Mate & Weidenhofer, 2021), although this can be then used in a somewhat circular justification; questions that are harder to answer must be higher order. Academic Integrity This topic does not need a lengthy introduction here, in a handbook on the topic. However, it is important to situate the chapter in the context of academic integrity. Academic integrity is often described in militaristic terms as an “arms race” (Thomas & Scott, 2016), wherein faculty and students are engaged in a battle to develop new ways to cheat and news ways to detect cheating. Effective assessment design, in particular, authentic assessment, has been proposed as a strategy in the arms race. Indeed, the author has personally proposed it, in the first edition of this handbook, as a strategy to counter the threat of contract cheating (Newton & Lang, 2016). The threat of contract cheating shows no signs of going away (Newton, 2018), but it is clear that simplistic approaches to assessment design are unlikely to

18

Guidelines for Creating Online MCQ-Based Exams to Evaluate Higher. . .

273

be an effective strategy in the race, since the market forces that drive contract cheating are strong, and thus even many “authentic” assessment designs can be, and are, outsourced (Ellis et al., 2020). In an arms race, there are victims. In the case of academic integrity, these victims can be student learning, engagement, motivation, and mental health. Students who are new to university have a poor understanding of the basic principles of referencing and academic integrity, including the serious penalties that can be imposed upon them for violations of academic integrity (Newton, 2016). The rapid spread of online assessment during the COVID-19 pandemic was accompanied by an escalation in concerns about academic misconduct, and these concerns appear to be borne out by the evidence (Newton & Essex, 2022). Efforts to address these concerns included an increase in the use of surveillance via online invigilation/proctoring systems. It is reported that this further escalation of the arms race caused a further increase in test anxiety (Conijn et al., 2022), and students reported a net negative experience of remote proctoring generally, citing concerns about privacy, security, and fairness (Marano et al., 2023), with horror stories in the media about students urinating in bottles or even on themselves rather than move their body in a way that might see them unfairly accused of cheating (Cheek, 2020). It seems reasonable to assume that a student sitting at home under the watchful gaze of a robot eye, afraid to go to the toilet or of making a sound that might trigger an automated allegation of cheating, is unlikely to feel positively about their assessment experience. The purpose of assessment is not to catch cheats. Assessment is a measure of learning, a way of signing off competence and excellence, particularly for professional programs. To serve these functions, an assignment has to be valid and reliable, as well as secure against threats to academic integrity. There is also abundant evidence that frequent use of assessments, in particular quizzes and formative tests that promote cognitive effort, can actually promote and support learning through harnessing the power of the “testing effect.” This approach, known as retrieval practice, is a simple, cheap, and very effective teaching and studying strategy (Rowland, 2014), although it is underused and poorly understood by students (Karpicke et al., 2009; Piza et al., 2019). The evidence on best practice for the creation of MCQs for assessment shows substantial overlap with the evidence on best practice for the creation of MCQs that promote learning (Butler, 2018). Academic Integrity of Online Exams A number of authors have written about academic misconduct in online exams, although it has received less attention than other forms of misconduct such as plagiarism (Garg & Goel, 2022). A common theme is that students report it is easy and common to cheat in online exams, a situation made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic (Newton & Essex, 2022) and which seems likely to be further challenged by the emergence of AI tools such as ChatGPT. A common recommendation to reduce academic misconduct in these exams is to use MCQs that assess higher order learning (Nguyen et al., 2020; Whisenhunt et al., 2022; Varble, 2014).

274

P. M. Newton

Thus, the approach taken here is prevention rather than detection. Not to escalate the arms race but to try and make it redundant by deploying strategies that make academic misconduct harder to commit in the first place, while at the same time promoting learning and the assessment of higher order outcomes.

Multiple-Choice Questions The basic components and structure of an MCQ are shown in Fig. 1. The MCQ is designed to assess lower order learning: recall of a fact about a theory with no need for understanding or application of knowledge about that fact. The MCQ is of the “single best answer” format, wherein participants pick only one answer option, and the use of the word “best” allows for some flexibility and interpretation regarding absolute right and wrong. Most MCQs have only three or four distractors, although there is evidence that two may be sufficient (Rodriguez, 2005), in part because students will rarely choose some of the distractors (so-called “non-functioning distractors”) and so they can be removed (e.g., Tarrant et al., 2006), although educators often lack the training required to compose effective distractors (see below). MCQs have been criticized for a number of reasons, for example, that they assess only low-level learning, encourage guessing, and present an artificial situation where “life only has 5 options” (e.g., Veloski et al., 1999). This sort of criticism may well be valid if the MCQ lacks any context and is thus testing lower order learning such as recall of a fact (Schuwirth & Van Der Vleuten, 2004), although it is important to be clear that lower order learning is essential for the development of higher order learning (Willingham, 2006). One cannot critically appraise a topic about which one does not understand the basic facts, but there is a need for assessments of lower order learning, and traditional MCQs are well suited to that task.

Fig. 1 The components of a traditional MCQ which assesses lower order learning in the single-best answer format. The reader is cautioned that people are significantly, and substantially, more likely to rate an MCQ as higher order if they cannot personally answer it correctly (and vice versa) (Stringer et al., 2021). Thus, if the reader is given an example of a lower order question from a discipline that it distant to their own, then they may interpret it as higher order even when a student of that discipline may view it as lower order

18

Guidelines for Creating Online MCQ-Based Exams to Evaluate Higher. . .

275

Guidance for Writing Higher Order MCQs in a Way Which Reduces Academic Misconduct The use of MCQs to assess higher order learning is routinely undertaken in a number of professional programs, such as law, and the health professions, such as medicine. In these disciplines, higher order MCQs are reported to be more challenging, to better discriminate between higher-performing and lower-performing students (Kim et al., 2012; Bibler Zaidi et al., 2016), and to perform as well as open-ended questions. How does one create an MCQ to assess “higher order learning”? This section provides detailed guidance for the creation of these MCQs. This guidance was synthesized from an abundance of published studies showing that MCQs can be used to assess higher order learning (Aiken, 1982; Haladyna, 1997; Palmer & Devitt, 2007; Burns, 2010; MacFarlane & Boulet, 2017; Scully, 2017; Billings et al., 2020) along with the abundant literature describing and validating guidance for the construction of effective MCQs more generally (i.e., not just higher order) (Haladyna & Downing, 1989; Haladyna & Rodriguez, 2013; Di Giusto et al., 2019). The guidance is then expanded upon in practical detail. A simple summary of this guidance is that students should be challenged to use their prior knowledge to solve problems, exerting judgment and the application of knowledge. One of the main activities when writing these questions is to identify the assumed knowledge that a student would need to answer the question. What Is the Learning Outcome? This is often the starting point for any teaching and assessment, with a need to ensure that these three things (learning outcome, teaching, and assessment) are all aligned (Biggs, 1996). The “level” of the learning outcome (i.e., lower or higher) is normally defined by identifying the action verb (Newton et al., 2020); identifying an appropriate higher order verb can then be a useful starting point for rewriting a question into a higher order format. Flip a Lower Order Question This can also be a useful starting point; write an MCQ which clearly tests factual recall or similar, and then flip it so that the scenario (see below) describes the correct answer (Scully, 2017). Or identify an existing lower order question and use that as the basis for applying the remainder of the guidance. Assumed Knowledge The student should have some prior knowledge in order to answer the question, without which the question cannot be answered. This assumed knowledge acts as a “cognitive bridge” between the question and the answer. Without that assumed knowledge, it becomes harder for students to look up the answer online. This idea goes back to the original Bloom’s taxonomy, which repeatedly states the importance of “the ability to recognise unstated assumptions” when demonstrating learning at the higher end of the taxonomy, in particular, “analysis” (Bloom & Krathwohl, 1956). This prior knowledge must be relevant to interpreting both the question and the answer options. One way to identify assumed knowledge is to identify a sequence of steps needed to solve a problem, or a sequence of items of increasing complexity, and take out those in the middle (Burns, 2010).

276

P. M. Newton

Table 2 An example of an MCQ, written using the guidelines here. The question tests the same foundational knowledge as in Fig. 1 but in an applied way. There are two sets of assumed knowledge: the first is that cognitive load theory is based upon the principle of reducing the load placed on working memory, and the second is the technical terms for the common language presentations of different educational theories. The answer options are all active and written mostly in plain everyday language. The correct answer is in italics Problem stem

Question Options

Wiley is trying to adopt an evidence-based approach to the teaching of climate change. The course will last 3 months, and the students currently know very little about the topic. Wiley is aware that working memory is a rate-limiting step for learning and so wants to use an evidence-based method which is based upon theories that reduce the load placed on working memory Which of the following practical approaches would best fit with the theory which Wiley desires to use Use frequent practice tests throughout the course Make content for all learning styles (e.g., visual, auditory, and kinesthetic) Group students according to educational ability and revisit as student progress Put important concepts at the beginning and end of the course Reduce educational scaffolding as students gain expertise Revisit and expand specific concepts at prolonged intervals Students write their own learning outcomes for each learning activity Prerecord lectures and use class time for student-led activities

Solving Not Answering The question should pose a problem to be solved rather than a question to be answered. This problem then situates the question itself within some broader, applied context and is critical for distinguishing between lower and higher order MCQs (Schuwirth & Van Der Vleuten, 2004). The problem needs to be an integrated, essential part of the overall question. One way to test whether the problem is truly integrated is to consider only the question statement (Table 2) and see whether it could be answered using that statement alone or whether the problem scenario is needed as well. Common Language Using everyday language and avoiding technical terms in the MCQ can make the question more authentic and also makes it more challenging to answer the question by searching online or using AI systems, since technical terms will return much more specific search results. This can be further developed by the deliberate use of “chaff”: terms and language that will return large numbers of unrelated search results. For very many disciplines, it is almost impossible to completely avoid technical terms, but it may be helpful to think of these first and to try and work them into the assumed knowledge rather than the question itself, or to restrict them to either the problem or the answer options, but not both. Active Answers Having the answer options as actions, or describing actions, makes it harder to answer than simple factual statements. Active answers could be to “identify the best next step” or describe an action. Another form of active answer is to perform a mathematical calculation. Using calculations as answer options has an additional benefit that multiple different forms of the starting data can be generated with different students having slightly different versions. All of them

18

Guidelines for Creating Online MCQ-Based Exams to Evaluate Higher. . .

277

will still do the same calculation, but it becomes harder for students to copy or share answers (Hoseana et al., 2022) and to use answers generated by AI systems such as ChatGPT (Newton, 2023) when students start with different data. Plausible Answer Options (i.e., Distractors) All the answer options need to be plausible, or, at least, not obviously incorrect, a joke, or a trick. This is established best practice for the creation of MCQs but takes on an additional dimension when assessing higher order learning and trying to reduce misconduct. The act of selecting the single best answer option from a range of plausible options is part of the active cognitive process required to demonstrate higher order learning. It also makes it harder to simply look up answers online, since multiple plausible answer options should show up in the same Google search whereas nonsensical answers would not. Sharing answers also becomes trickier where it is more likely that some students will have picked a plausible but ultimately incorrect answer. Use Annotated Images The use of data, images, and diagrams has been identified as a property of higher order MCQs (Kar et al., 2015), and this can also be a protective feature of academic integrity. The source of images can be easily determined through an online search, and this can be used to look up the answers to questions in online exams (Veale, 2022). However, this may be addressed through use of a custom annotation and so is less likely to show up in a search. There is an abundance of open-access type images that can be freely used (e.g., from Wikimedia Commons), and these have the added advantage of being likely to show up in multiple sources in an image search. Increase the Number of Answer Options Most MCQs have between three and five answer options (Rodriguez, 2005). When considering academic integrity, however, additional answer options can make a question more challenging, since it makes it harder for a student to work through them systematically searching online. Sorting through larger numbers of options can also be cognitively more demanding, as long as they are all plausible (see above). Avoid “All of the Above” or “None of the Above” Including these as an answer option makes it easier for students to guess the answer (Rush et al., 2016) and the impact of this will be exacerbated by increasing the number of answer options as recommended above. For example, if the answer list includes eight options (including “all of the above”) and the student can identify the two of them as correct, then “all of the above” is clearly the correct answer option, even without knowing anything about the remaining five options. Test It! Try and cheat yourself. This can be a useful quality control step. Once a question is drafted, paste it into Google or one of the LLM AI Chatbots, such as ChatGPT, and see whether the correct answer comes up, although recognizing that this may compromise the future security of the question. Table 2 shows an example of one of these MCQs from the field of education.

278

P. M. Newton

Setting Up the Exam Itself Many studies have identified those features of online exams which can be important for the security and integrity of the assessments (Varble, 2014; Corrigan-Gibbs et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2016; Sullivan, 2016; Munoz & Mackay, 2019; Karizaki, 2021; Sabrina et al., 2022; Whisenhunt et al., 2022). These are summarized here in the context of online MCQ-based exams. Open Book Versus Closed Book One important consideration to make is whether to make an MCQ exam open book or close book. The distinction between these two is fairly straight forward. Closed book exams do not allow the students to access any other forms of information. Whereas open book is defined by some relaxation of this rule, for example, by allowing students to bring in notes, textbooks, or even to go online and consult with others. The use of open-book exams has been proposed as a method for reducing academic misconduct (Olt, 2002; Varble, 2014; MacFarlane & Boulet, 2017; Nguyen et al., 2020), and it seems intuitively to make an assessment more authentic. The real, modern world is an open book, and we have access to near limitless information at our fingertips. However, this does increase opportunities for misconduct, and there is evidence that students may fail to adequately prepare for open exams, although this may be in part due to a positive aspect – they find open book exams to be less stressful (Rakes, 2008), but where it is combined with an absence of time limits, students may simply use it as the main aim and end goal of the learning: a list of those things that they need to know (e.g., Brothen & Wambach, 2004). The starting intention with the guidance described here was that it could be used to write MCQs for exams that are open book. The expectation was that students will use external sources to try and solve the problems posed in the questions. The exam could also then be deliberately collaborative or restricted to individual test-takers, summative or formative, proctored or unproctored. However, the emergence of LLM-based AI Chatbots such as ChatGPT and Bard seems likely to make this extremely challenging. At the time of writing, the latest version of ChatGPT, based on GPT-4, appears to be able to achieve high or passing scores on many MCQ-based exams, even those leading to professional qualifications (OpenAI, 2023). This is a significant advance even from the previous version, where performance was modest (Newton, 2023). Thus, access to these tools seems likely to significantly undermine the integrity of an open-book online exam. There are a number of additional factors that also affect the integrity of online MCQ exams and are mostly designed for closed book exams, although they should increase the integrity of any type of online MCQ-based assessment. Credentialing the Test-Taker Remote proctoring is an obvious way to ensure credentialing of a test taker. This normally includes monitoring the test taker using a webcam or some other device, in combination with a lockdown browser or some other way of preventing the test taker from accessing sites and materials that are unauthorized. Remote proctoring is associated with a number of challenges. These

18

Guidelines for Creating Online MCQ-Based Exams to Evaluate Higher. . .

279

were recently reviewed (Marano et al., 2023), and a simple summary is the students really do not like remote proctoring. They are concerned about privacy, the security of their data, and the fairness of the system, for example, being flagged as cheats when they have not cheated, perhaps due to a behavior that is more common in individuals with certain health conditions. Nevertheless, there is a clear need to ensure that the person taking the test is the right person. Remote proctoring can assist with this by simply using the system to identify the person taking the test and ensuring that there is no one else in the room with them. This can be combined with other credentialing systems of the type normally used when accessing secure services such as banking. This has been studied in the context of online examinations in a study which found that image-based systems were more user friendly and effective than text-based systems (Ullah et al., 2019). Question Banks The basic premise of a question bank in this case is that each student will sit for a slightly different exam. For example, if the exam has 40 questions, then these may be drawn from a bank of 100. This makes it much harder for students to share exam content. This does appear to be an effective approach, and the more diversity there is in the questions, the harder it is for students to share questions (Elkhatat, 2022). However, this approach also has some limitations: the additional workload necessary to write additional questions and then to maintain the bank; the challenge of ensuring that all students receive an exam that is sufficiently similar in terms of the level, balance of difficulty, and coverage of the curriculum; and the related challenge of reassuring students that this is the case. Students will almost certainly compare grades and performance with their peers, and those who have received a lower grade than they expected may well conclude that it was because their exam was “harder” than that of their peers. Experience suggests that no amount of reassurance can mitigate this! Delay the Delivery of Feedback Until the Exam Has Been Completed by All Students This makes it harder for students to share information about the correct answers. This does need to be balanced with the formative, developmental value of feedback, which may be useful when given immediately after the student has answered the question, although for high-achieving students, the evidence is that delaying the feedback may actually be more beneficial than giving it immediately (Shute, 2008). New(ish) Items for Every Exam Ideally, exam items should only be used once. Students can, and do, copy/download questions during the exam itself, and these can then be shared or sold, ending up on public sites which can then be found through a web search undertaken by students if an item is reused in a future exam. Items need not be completely scrapped after first use; simple paraphrasing is an effective way for educators to recycle questions in a way that protects their integrity (Golden & Kohlbeck, 2020). Time Limits Setting time limits is an intuitive and common recommendation for reducing academic misconduct in online exams, although it does not seem to be

280

P. M. Newton

particularly effective (Pleasants et al., 2022) and is associated with increased student stress (Novick et al., 2022). Restricting time solely for the purpose of deterring cheating would seem likely to impact the validity of the exam. Clearly it would be impractical to set a limitless time for an online exam, and so a reasonable question then is “how much time.” A long established principle is to allow about 1 min per question for traditional MCQs, although the data suggest that students take less time than this (Brothen, 2012), and it would seem reasonable that students will take longer to answer the sorts of questions described here, especially if the exam is deliberately open book. Determining the correct amount of time for an online exam seems likely to be something that is left to individual educators to exercise a pragmatic judgment. Question Presentation Some fairly simple measures can be put in place to limit the ability of students to collude or share content from exams. These include presenting the questions in a random order, with only one question accessible at a time and no ability to go back to previous questions. Most learning management systems can facilitate these characteristics, although it will again be a pragmatic judgment about how to use them; the “no backtracking” feature was cited as a source of additional exam stress during the switch to online exams in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (Novick et al., 2022). Training and Workshops Many of the papers cited here described the creation of MCQs that can be used to assess higher order learning. Many of those same papers emphasize that the writing of such items is not trivial. It requires training, and even then, it is still a lot of work. There are many examples in the literature of high stakes MCQ-based assessments that contain numerous “Item Writing Flaws,” which undermine the quality, and thus the validity, of the assessment (e.g., Tarrant et al., 2006; Rush et al., 2016). Even a brief faculty training activity can significantly improve the quality of question items (Dellinges & Curtis, 2017). There is a broader consideration; the creation of these questions is founded on core principles of assessment theory; an effective assessment is one that is valid, reliable, authentic, inclusive, and costeffective, and yet “assessment literacy” (i.e., an understanding and application of these concepts) is an embryonic field in higher education (Pastore, 2022). External examiners are a cornerstone of quality assurance processes in many countries and yet are also, apparently, “assessment illiterate” (Medland, 2019). The use of short “Instructional Skills Workshops” appears to be an effective method of delivering hands-on training in many areas of learning and teaching and could be a useful vehicle for supporting staff to develop the skills of MCQ item writing (Foxe et al., 2017).

Future Directions Online education is here to stay, and so is online assessment. It remains to be seen whether the lockdown-learning caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic has caused meaningful, long-lasting innovation in online learning, but there are certainly a number of lessons emerging. This has then been followed by significant concern

18

Guidelines for Creating Online MCQ-Based Exams to Evaluate Higher. . .

281

regarding the emergent AI-based systems, which, at the time of writing, are generating much media attention regarding their apparent ability to pass exams, including those based on MCQs. Future assessment methods will have to ensure that they address these challenges as well as the opportunities that AI poses. Most important is the need for rigorously collected data about solutions to these challenges, so that we can base our assessment decision on evidence rather than anecdotes.

Summary It is well established that MCQs can be used to assess higher order learning by incorporating the use of a problem stem which the student then solves by applying their current knowledge. This chapter summarizes guidance for the creation of such questions, with an emphasis on those features which should also make the questions resilient to deliberate misconduct in online exams. This format offers a viable alternative to other higher order assessment formats, such as essays, and so should ensure that the many benefits of online assessment can be maintained in the face of threats to their validity from plagiarism, contract cheating, and coursework written by AI.

Cross-References ▶ Academic Integrity and the Affordances and Limitations of Authentic Assessment ▶ Coordinating Ethical Assessment at the Program Level ▶ Grading Standards in Higher Education: Trends, Context, and Prognosis

References Aiken, L. R. (1982). Writing multiple-choice items to measure higher-order educational objectives. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 803–806. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 001316448204200312 Bibler Zaidi, N. L., Grob, K. L., Yang, J., Santeen, S. A., Monrad, S. U., Miller, J. M., & Purkiss, J. A. (2016). Theory, process, and validation evidence for a staff-driven medical education exam quality improvement process. Medical Science Educator, 26, 331–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40670-016-0275-2 Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871 Billings, M., DeRuchie, K., Haist, S. A., Hussie, K., Merrell, J., Paniagua, M. A., Swygert, K. A., & Tyson, J. (2020). Constructing written test questions for the health sciences. National Board of Medical Examiners. Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. The classification of educational goals, handbook I: Cognitive domain. Longmans Green. Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., & Rozenberg, P. (2019). Contract cheating: A survey of Australian university students. Studies in Higher Education, 44, 1837–1856. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1462788

282

P. M. Newton

Brothen, T. (2012). Time limits on tests: Updating the 1-minute rule. Teaching of Psychology, 39, 288–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312456630 Brothen, T., & Wambach, C. (2004). The value of time limits on internet quizzes. Teaching of Psychology, 31, 62–64. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3101_12 Burns, E. R. (2010). “Anatomizing” reversed: Use of examination questions that foster use of higher order learning skills by students. Anatomical Sciences Education, 3, 330–334. https://doi. org/10.1002/ase.187 Butler, A. C. (2018). Multiple-choice testing in education: Are the best practices for assessment also good for learning? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7, 323–331. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.07.002 Cheek, L. (2020). Proctoring problems: Bar students urinate in bottles and buckets over fears online exams will be terminated – Legal Cheek. In Leg. Cheek – Leg. News Insid. Insight Careers Advice. https://www.legalcheek.com/2020/08/proctoring-problems-bar-students-urinate-in-bot tles-and-buckets-over-fears-online-exams-will-be-terminated/. Accessed 12 Oct 2022. Conijn, R., Kleingeld, A., Matzat, U., & Snijders, C. (2022). The fear of big brother: The potential negative side-effects of proctored exams. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. https://doi. org/10.1111/jcal.12651 Corrigan-Gibbs, H., Gupta, N., Northcutt, C., Cutrell, E., & Thies, W. (2015). Deterring cheating in online environments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 22(6), 1–28. https:// doi.org/10.1145/2810239 Darabi, M., Macaskill, A., & Reidy, L. (2017). A qualitative study of the UK academic role: Positive features, negative aspects and associated stressors in a mainly teaching-focused university. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41, 566–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0309877X.2016.1159287 de Jager, K., & Brown, C. (2010). The tangled web: Investigating academics’ views of plagiarism at the University of Cape Town. Studies in Higher Education, 35, 513–528. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03075070903222641 Dellinges, M. A., & Curtis, D. A. (2017). Will a short training session improve multiple-choice item-writing quality by dental school faculty? A pilot study. Journal of Dental Education, 81, 948–955. https://doi.org/10.21815/JDE.017.047 Dempster, E. R., & Kirby, N. F. (2018). Inter-rater agreement in assigning cognitive demand to Life Sciences examination questions. Perspectives in Education, 36(1), 94–110. Di Giusto, F., Müller Werder, C., Reichmuth, A., Adams-Hausheer, D., & Christian, J. (2019). Multiple-choice questions: Teaching guide for higher and professional education. https://doi. org/10.21256/zhaw-19339 Elkhatat, A. M. (2022). Practical randomly selected question exam design to address replicated and sequential questions in online examinations. International Journal of Educational Integrity, 18, 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-022-00103-2 Ellis, C., van Haeringen, K., Harper, R., Bretag, T., Zucker, I., & McBride, 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 Foltýnek, T., Meuschke, N., & Gipp, B. (2019). Academic plagiarism detection: A systematic literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 52(6), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/3345317 Foxe, J. P., Frake-Mistak, M., & Popovic, C. (2017). The instructional skills workshop: A missed opportunity in the UK? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(2), 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1257949 Garg, M., & Goel, A. (2022). A systematic literature review on online assessment security: Current challenges and integrity strategies. Computers & Security, 113, 102544. Golden, J., & Kohlbeck, M. (2020). Addressing cheating when using test bank questions in online classes. Journal of Accounting Education, 52, 100671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2020. 100671 Haladyna, T. M. (1997). Writing test items to evaluate higher order thinking. Allyn and Bacon. Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (1989). A taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules. Applied Measurement in Education, 2(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame0201_3

18

Guidelines for Creating Online MCQ-Based Exams to Evaluate Higher. . .

283

Haladyna, T. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2013). Developing and validating test items (1st ed.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Hoseana, J., Stepanus, O., & Octora, E. (2022). A format for a plagiarism-proof online examination for calculus and linear algebra using Microsoft Excel. International Journal of Math Education in Science and Technology, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2022.2070084 Kar, S. S., Lakshminarayanan, S., & Mahalakshmy, T. (2015). Basic principles of constructing multiple choice questions. Indian Journal of Community and Family Medicine, 1(2), 65–69. https://doi.org/10.4103/2395-2113.251640 Karizaki, V. M. (2021). Different approaches for reducing cheating in online assessments. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, 52(4), 650–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir. 2021.07.005 Karpen, S. C., & Welch, A. C. (2016). Assessing the inter-rater reliability and accuracy of pharmacy faculty’s Bloom’s Taxonomy classifications. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 8(6), 885–888. Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practise retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17(4), 471–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210802647009 Kim, M.-K., Patel, R. A., Uchizono, J. A., & Beck, L. (2012). Incorporation of Bloom’s taxonomy into multiple-choice examination questions for a pharmacotherapeutics course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(6), 114. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe766114 Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 12–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 MacFarlane, L.-A., & Boulet, G. (2017). Multiple-choice tests can support deep learning! Proceedings of the Atlantic Universities’ Teaching Showcase, 21, 61–66. Retrieved from https://ojs. library.dal.ca/auts/article/view/8430 Marano, E., Newton, P. M., Birch, Z., Croombs, M. Gilbert, C., & Draper, M. J. (2023). What is the student experience of remote proctoring? A pragmatic scoping review. Retrieved from https:// osf.io/jrgw9/ Mate, K. E., & Weidenhofer, J. (2021). Are online examinations a viable alternative to paper-based examinations for assessment of human physiology? Proceedings of the Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education, 78–83. Retrieved from https://openjournals.library. sydney.edu.au/index.php/IISME/article/view/15493 Medland, E. (2019). ‘I’m an assessment illiterate’: Towards a shared discourse of assessment literacy for external examiners. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(4), 565–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1523363 Miguel, C., Castro, L., Marques dos Santos, J. P., Serrão, C., & Duarte, I. (2021). Impact of COVID19 on medicine lecturers’ mental health and emergency remote teaching challenges. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(13), 6792. https://doi.org/10. 3390/ijerph18136792 Morrish, L. (2019). Pressure vessels: The epidemic of poor mental health among higher education staff. Higher Education Policy Institute, 20. Retrieved from https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2019/05/23/ pressure-vessels-the-epidemic-of-poor-mental-health-among-higher-education-staff/ Munoz, A., & Mackay, J. (2019). An online testing design choice typology towards cheating threat minimisation. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 16(3). https://doi.org/10. 53761/1.16.3.5 Newton, P. M. (2016). Academic integrity: A quantitative study of confidence and understanding in students at the start of their higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1024199 Newton, P. M. (2018). How common is commercial contract cheating in higher education and is it increasing? A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018. 00067 Newton, P. M. (2023). ChatGPT performance on MCQ-based exams. Retrieved from https:// edarxiv.org/sytu3/

284

P. M. Newton

Newton, P. M., Da Silva, A., & Berry, S. (2020a). The case for pragmatic evidence-based higher education: A useful way forward? Frontiers in Education, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc. 2020.583157 Newton, P. M., Da Silva, A., & Peters, L. G. (2020b). A pragmatic master list of action verbs for Bloom’s taxonomy. Frontiers in Education, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00107 Newton, P. M., & Essex, K. (2022). How common is cheating in online exams and did it increase during the COVID-19 pandemic? A systematic review. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs2187710/v1 Newton, P. M., & Lang, C. (2016). Custom essay writers, freelancers, and other paid third parties. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 249–271). Springer Singapore. 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 Novick, P. A., Lee, J., Wei, S., Mundorff, E. C., Santagelo, J. R., & Sonbuchner, T. M. (2022). Maximizing academic integrity while minimizing stress in the virtual classroom. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 23, e00292–e00221. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe. 00292-21 Olt, M. R. (2002). Ethics and distance education: Strategies for minimizing academic dishonesty in online assessment. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(3). OpenAI. (2023). GPT-4 Technical Report. Palmer, E. J., & Devitt, P. G. (2007). Assessment of higher order cognitive skills in undergraduate education: Modified essay or multiple choice questions? Research paper. BMC Medical Education, 7, 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-7-49 Pastore, S. (2022). Assessment literacy in the higher education context: A systematic review. Intersection, 4(1). Piza, F., Kesselheim, J. C., Perzhinsky, J., Drowos, J., Gillis, R., Moscovic, K., et al. (2019). Awareness and usage of evidence-based learning strategies among health professions students and faculty. Medical Teacher, 41(12), 1411–1418. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2019. 1645950 Pleasants, J., Pleasants, J. M., & Pleasants, B. P. (2022). Cheating on unproctored online exams: Prevalence, mitigation measures, and effects on exam performance. Online Learning, 26(1), 268–284. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i1.2620 Rakes, G. C. (2008). Open book testing in online learning environments. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7(1), 1–9. Retrieved from https://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/7.1.1.pdf Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). Three options are optimal for multiple-choice items: A meta-analysis of 80 years of research. Educational Measurement Issues and Practice, 24(2), 3–13. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2005.00006.x Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432–1463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559 Rush, B. R., Rankin, D. C., & White, B. J. (2016). The impact of item-writing flaws and item complexity on examination item difficulty and discrimination value. BMC Medical Education, 16, 250. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0773-3 Sabrina, F., Azad, S., Sohail, S., & Thakur, S. (2022). Ensuring academic integrity in online assessments: A literature review and recommendations. International Journal of Information and Educational Technology, 12(1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2022.12.1.1587 Schuwirth, L. W. T., & Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2004). Different written assessment methods: What can be said about their strengths and weaknesses? Medical Education, 38(9), 974–979. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01916.x Scully, D. (2017). Constructing multiple-choice items to measure higher-order thinking. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 22(22), 4. https://doi.org/10.7275/swgt-rj52 Sharples, M. (2022). Automated essay writing: An AIED opinion. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, 32, 1119–1126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-022-00300-7 Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795

18

Guidelines for Creating Online MCQ-Based Exams to Evaluate Higher. . .

285

Stringer, J. K., Santen, S. A., Lee, E., et al. (2021). Examining Bloom’s taxonomy in multiple choice questions: Students’ approach to questions. Medical Science Educator, 31, 1311–1317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01305-y Sullivan, D. P. (2016). An integrated approach to preempt cheating on asynchronous, objective, online assessments in graduate business classes. Online Learning, 20(3), 195–209. https://doi. org/10.24059/olj.v20i3.650 Tarrant, M., Knierim, A., Hayes, S. K., & Ware, J. (2006). The frequency of item writing flaws in multiple-choice questions used in high stakes nursing assessments. Nurse Education Today, 26(8), 662–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2006.07.006 Thomas, J., & Scott, J. (2016). UK perspectives of academic integrity. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 39–53). Springer Singapore. Ullah, A., Xiao, H., & Barker, T. (2019). A study into the usability and security implications of text and image based challenge questions in the context of online examination. Education and Information Technologies, 24, 13–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9758-7 Urbina-Garcia, A. (2020). What do we know about university academics’ mental health? A systematic literature review. Stress & Health, 36(5), 563–585. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2956 Varble, D. (2014). Reducing cheating opportunities in online test. Atlantic Marketing Journal, 3(3), 9. Available at: https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/amj/vol3/iss3/9 Veale, C. G. L. (2022). Considering the impact of image-based search engines for online chemistry assessments. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(3), 1497–1502. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs. jchemed.1c01075 Veloski, J. J., Rabinowitz, H. K., Robeson, M. R., & Young, P. R. (1999). Patients don’t present with five choices: An alternative to multiple-choice tests in assessing physicians’ competence. Academic Medicine, 74(5), 539–546. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199905000-00022 Whisenhunt, B. L., Cathey, C. L., Hudson, D. L., & Needy, L. M. (2022). Maximizing learning while minimizing cheating: New evidence and advice for online multiple-choice exams. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 8(2), 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1037/ stl0000242 Willingham, D. (2006). How knowledge helps. American Federation of Teachers, Spring. Available at https://www.aft.org/periodical/american-educator/spring-2006/how-knowledge-helps Xu, X., Kauer, S., & Tupy, S. (2016). Multiple-choice questions: Tips for optimizing assessment in-seat and online. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 2(2), 147–158. https:// doi.org/10.1037/stl0000062

Integrity Through Experience: Fostering a Culture of Academic Integrity Through an Experiential Learning Approach

19

Rebecca M. Brooks

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Experiential Learning Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Integrity Culture and Values in the Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Make Space for Prior Student Integrity Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recognize Practice, Process, and Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respect and Grow Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design and Delivery Strategies for Integrity Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Framing Integrity Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Direct Experience with Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Processing and Synthesizing Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

288 289 290 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 300 300 301

Abstract

Experiential learning is an intentional teaching and learning approach that engages students through meaningful active learning and critical reflection. As an umbrella term, experiential learning can include a vast diversity of experience types, ranging from intensive work-integrated learning terms to activities limited to one class session. A uniting factor in this approach is the goal of developing progressive competence in the transference of content and behaviors to future formal and informal learning situations, workplaces, and community organizations. Key among these are the knowledge, behaviors, and attitudes students need to successfully demonstrate academic integrity. There is limited literature that

R. M. Brooks (*) Centre for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_94

287

288

R. M. Brooks

explicitly links experiential learning with the development of student academic integrity. This chapter contributes to addressing this gap by connecting experiential approaches with academic integrity goals to foster a culture of academic integrity in postsecondary settings. The focus is on the instructor adopting the role of experiential facilitator and intentionally employing course design and delivery strategies to develop academic integrity through an experiential learning approach. This chapter also examines interconnected themes linking experiential learning and academic integrity, including the importance of prior experience, developing relationships, and an increasing focus on process and practice, with suggestions for how they can be incorporated. Keywords

Experiential learning · Academic integrity · Ethics · Teaching practices · Classroom culture · Active learning · Reflection · Authentic assessment

Introduction A growing body of literature advocates shifting to a teaching and learning approach to develop academic integrity in higher education settings. For instance, Bertram Gallant (2017) discussed adopting teaching and learning practices that are learneroriented, focus on mastery rather than performance, include meaningful assessments, make space for student choice and control over grading, and develop deeper metacognitive skills. Similarly, E. J. Morris (2016) recommended curriculum design that emphasizes meaningful, engaging, and valid formative activities and assignments, and Goldman et al. (2022) linked developing integrity to high-impact teaching practices through an equity and inclusion stance. A common thread in this call for a teaching and learning approach is for instructors to identify knowledge and skill gaps in student application of academic integrity. This is exemplified by studies such as Risquez et al. (2013), who noted that while students self-report that they understand how to define plagiarism and are ethically opposed to it, there is a substantial gap in students recognizing plagiarism in practice and assigning the same level of severity as would an academic. Such gaps can be addressed through pedagogical means, and experiential learning is one approach that not only employs the above practices but has the additional benefit of an overarching framework that could provide structure for instructors and learners. This chapter explores how an experiential learning approach can be used to directly teach and provide students with opportunities to develop their knowledge and skills in the application of academic integrity. Additionally, some common themes and intersections between the two relatively recent fields of experiential learning and academic integrity will be drawn out, providing instructors with considerations for future course design and delivery.

19

Integrity Through Experience: Fostering a Culture of Academic. . .

289

The Experiential Learning Approach Experiential learning is an intentional teaching and learning approach that emphasizes meaningful active learning, critical reflection, and authentic assessment. The widening umbrella of what constitutes experiential learning now includes a variety of off-campus experiences under the banners of work-integrated learning (e.g., co-op, practica, clinical placements, and internships) and community-engaged learning (e.g., Indigenous land-based learning, study abroad, and service learning), along with many types of course-based experiences in both physical and virtual environments (e.g., project-based learning, problem-based learning, game-based learning, laboratories, studios, and creative and artistic works). Consequently, these experiences range from multi-day or -week work, study, or adventure immersion programs to one-hour activities such as a role-play or case study. What these diverse activities generally share is a process that includes an experience strongly linked to the realworld application of discipline-specific theory, along with structured time reflecting on and applying new learning to future contexts. The lineage of what we now term experiential learning can be traced from John Dewey’s work centering experience as critical to the educative process, through Kurt Lewin’s human relations debriefing groups and David A. Kolb’s experiential learning theory (KELT), and to the current work of validating, critiquing, and expanding on these foundations (Seaman et al., 2017). This progression highlights the constructivist nature of experiential learning, which can be seen in the KELT model widely used in higher education and training. The KELT model positions experiential learning as the process by which knowledge is created by the learner’s progression through the four stages of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation (see Kolb, 1984). Yet, as experiential learning becomes more widely adopted across educational and training environments, KELT has come under considerable critique and attempts at revision (e.g., Matsuo & Nagata, 2020; Morris, 2019; Schenck & Cruickshank, 2015). An in-depth overview of the origins or variations of experiential learning approaches is not within the scope of this chapter, but it is important to note that neither the field of experiential education broadly nor the process and methods within that field have crystallized into a final state (Roberts, 2011). Therefore, experiential learning includes the evolving practices of instructors who continue to tailor various frameworks and models to their own contexts and iterate experientially to find solutions that work for the content, outcomes, and learners within their specific environments. A particular teaching-focused framework that can be easily adopted and adapted by instructors due to its pragmatic nature comes from Roberts (2016), who identified a learner-centered experiential cycle with four stages: framing, direct experience, processing, and synthesis. Framing is a crucial aspect of effective instruction that includes not only the set-up of the context of the experience and its relevance as seen by the instructor, but the opportunity for students to co-construct meaning within the outcomes of the course by identifying their own goals and prior knowledge to

290

R. M. Brooks

generate increased engagement (Schenck & Cruickshank, 2015). By starting with framing, rather than jumping into direct experience, instructors can address potential gaps in learner knowledge and engage student motivation. It also begins the process of developing relationships between the content and its future application as well as between the participants in the forthcoming experience. Direct experience is when a learner has a novel lived experience that unites discipline-specific content and realworld application. As mentioned above, this experience may range from a one-class case study discussion to multiple activities over a period of time in a workplace. The complexity and length of the direct experience may mean that that Roberts’ final stages of processing and synthesizing happen numerous times over the learning period (Luckner & Nadler, 1997), for example, through daily logs or journals, or multiple debrief sessions with peers or facilitators. Processing in this cycle includes opportunities for critical reflection, feedback, and dialogue where specific learnings are articulated, and personal meaning is made and internalized. Synthesis includes activities that are future-oriented, such as how the new learning can be transferred to other contexts, areas for experimentation, and identifying where and how the learner may change their actions, views, and responses. Formal and informal assessment opportunities can be interwoven throughout the entire cycle. Throughout the experiential cycle, it is important to build trust and create a space where learners can share personal reflections, acknowledge and process emotions, take risks and experiment (which may result in various kinds of failure), and demonstrate improved skills (Boydell, 1976; Matsuo & Nagata, 2020; Roberts, 2016). Taken together, we can conceptualize experiential learning as the process of making meaning through lived participation in an experience that is novel or contains unexpected elements for the learner. Experiential learning has been called “meaningful discovery,” and its primary aim is generally one that emphasizes students articulating their individual “discoveries” through reflection on and as learning (Boydell, 1976, p. 19). As one of a number of student-centered pedagogical approaches, experiential learning prioritizes student autonomy, choice, and application of content in ways that are personally relevant. The elements of quality experiential learning are drawn out through a facilitation approach that values respecting and growing relationships, making space for prior experiences, and recognizing practice, process, and product. It is these three values-based elements that will be explored next as they interact with the values and culture that shape academic integrity in higher education classrooms.

Academic Integrity Culture and Values in the Classroom It is commonly understood that institutions of higher education face severe challenges with academic integrity. A focus of recent academic integrity discussions emphasizes the need for a shift toward a positive rather than punitive stance in creating a culture of integrity, ideally at every level of an institution (Stephens, 2016). This cultural approach would articulate values, such as those proposed by the International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI, 2021): honesty, trust, fairness,

19

Integrity Through Experience: Fostering a Culture of Academic. . .

291

respect, responsibility, and courage. A values-based definition gives room to identify behaviors that embody those values rather than focus on an endless list of possible misconduct actions. Yet no individual, curriculum, or pedagogical approach is ethically or culturally neutral, and perceptions of value need to ensure space for and be inclusive of a “plurality of cultural systems” (Lindstrom, 2022, p. 127), including Indigenous values and perspectives, and those that reflect the diversity of academic communities. How do articulated values help shape culture? There are variable approaches to defining culture; however, it can be understood as the behaviors, beliefs, and values considered normal by a group that have come about as a result of shared learning (Schein & Schein, 2016). The two aspects of this definition – norms and shared learning – can be useful elements in planning to support academic integrity from an experiential learning lens as they can be incorporated into transparent conversations about collective expectations and the need for reflective moments to identify what has been learned both individually and as a group. Multiple authors have noted that a shared vision and strategy is needed to shape an institutional culture of academic integrity, which would be supported at all levels (i.e., students to administration) and in all structures from day-to-day actions to promotion practices (e.g., Morris, 2016; Risquez et al., 2013; Stephens, 2016). While recognizing the critical importance of the wider institutional environment and interconnected nature of the educational system, as well as supporting factors such as access to adequate time, resources, and professional development required to adopt new techniques or revise curriculum, instructional staff are the individuals who have the most interactions with students and the ability to shape day-to-day learning experiences in their class environments. This includes the opportunity to directly engage with student perceptions of academic integrity. In one study, management students studied their own institution’s academic integrity policies, with one project goal being their own recognition of how ethical norms are enacted by individuals (Lavine & Roussin, 2012), underscoring the responsibility inherent in daily, individual, actions to support integrity. Yu et al. (2018) suggested that instructors should emphasize academic integrity in their instructional strategies and assignments in ways that enhance students’ sense of self-control. This aligns with work by Miron et al. (2022), who studied nursing students in a work-integrated learning setting and identified that positive attitude toward academic integrity, acceptance of academic integrity, and perceived self-control of integrity actions had the greatest influence on students’ intention to behave with integrity in a clinical practice setting. These findings imply a need to identify specific actions instructors can take to give students greater feelings of, and actual practice with, self-control related to integrity in various learning contexts. This may represent a shift in pedagogical strategy for instructors in higher education who believe students have a preexisting understanding of academic integrity and how it is to be applied in their course (Zivcakova et al., 2012). In the classroom (whether physical or virtual), a shift in culture begins with the instructor taking the role of facilitator of experience, embedding knowledge and practice in relevant academic integrity skills and behaviors within the discipline-

292

R. M. Brooks

specific content, activities, and assessments of the course. As mentioned above, critical reflection on past experiences is essential, which is as true for instructors as it is for students. Modeling behaviors that prioritize honesty and responsibility (among other values) demonstrates reciprocal expectations between instructors and students. Learning through reflection, including unlearning through reflection (Matsuo, 2019), liberates learners from habits of mind that no longer meet needs or have the intended effect. This section reflects on the three themes mentioned above that intersect in the current literature and link academic integrity with experiential learning considerations.

Make Space for Prior Student Integrity Experiences Much of the framing of academic integrity issues focuses on specific and negative characteristics, such as cheating, plagiarism, collusion, and the various punitive approaches institutions have taken to attempt to stem the flow of continuous integrity breaches. A recent survey of Canadian students found that 54% self-reported personally witnessing cheating in the prior year and 28% would be more likely to cheat knowing other students in the class did so (Studiosity Canada and Angus Reid, 2022). Numbers such as these can set off institutional alarm bells around perceptions of lack of student integrity, while sidelining the reality of many students’ lived experiences. The same study found that 86% were motivated to achieve high marks, whereas 76% were working (in full-time, part-time, or casual employment), and 51% were stressed every day (23% constantly and 28% at least once daily). This data speaks to several considerations, including the place of compassionate responses within pedagogy (see Dickson & Summerville, 2018; Goldman et al., 2022) and recognizing that students come into each course with a rich diversity of past experiences and goals. By the time they arrive in postsecondary settings, it would not be a stretch to propose that all students will have had some interaction with academic integrity issues, either as participants, victims, or witnesses. Zivcakova et al. found that faculty believed students came into their courses already understanding academic misconduct, while also acknowledging that student knowledge may be “based on implicit learning and rumour that is often incorrect” (2012, p. 33). To confront this issue, instructors need to make space for these lived experiences in their approaches to integrating integrity by having students identify their relevant prior understanding (or misunderstanding) of integrity, their experiences (both positive and negative), and their own challenges in choosing integrity actions. Some of these challenges are highlighted in a study of student social media posts that identified reasons to cheat, such as financial obligations, nonacademic obligations, poor time management skills, unrealistic academic expectations, administrative penalties, absence of deterrents, and quality of teaching, with the authors concluding that the ultimate reason students were willing to outsource their work was fear of the consequences of failure (Amigud & Lancaster, 2019). Students who commit integrity breaches may be grappling with stress, disengagement, and fear of failure. Lindstrom contributed that “fear culture is certainly a factor amongst all

19

Integrity Through Experience: Fostering a Culture of Academic. . .

293

students, including Indigenous students, and one that institutions must consider as they mobilize strategies to strengthen academic integrity” (2022, p. 130). In a culture of fear and suspicion, it is tempting to look at misconduct as the disease, rather than a symptom of larger challenges. To change this culture, recognizing and valuing where students are at and enabling growth becomes a priority. Ghaye et al. (2008) explained how “deficit-based conversations . . . lead to deficit based-actions” (p. 362), and Goldman et al. (2022) noted that a growth, rather than deficit perspective, is needed when adopting high-impact practices in the classroom to promote academic integrity. This means shifting from a compliance model to an empowerment model, making space to recognize students as complex individuals with diverse perspectives, strengths, needs, and goals. Lindstrom identified how “[l]earning within a Western context is underlain with notions of dominance and power. . . . Indigenous learning takes a holistic approach by attending to the social, emotional, spiritual and mental aspects of the student in a culturally appropriate, collective context (McCarty & Lee, 2014)” (2022, p. 132). In prioritizing a values-based experiential approach to academic integrity, instructors must make space for students to contribute their own perspectives and build on past experiences alongside the instructor, with a focus on growth rather than deficits.

Recognize Practice, Process, and Product The second major theme is a different take on development, in this case focused on the products of learning. Pressures on students to produce gradable artifacts can overshadow how that product comes to be. In many cases, the “how” contains innumerable moments when students can choose integrity actions. They may also commit integrity breaches purposefully to prioritize other needs such as family or work obligations, or inadvertently due to lack of knowledge or skill gaps (Risquez et al., 2013). Clear communication outlining the process behind final products (whether individual or group-based) along with recognition of process milestones (through grades or formative feedback mechanisms) signals the importance of thoughtful practice as part of the learning experience. In written assignments, guidance given to students is often focused on the end product rather than on the academic practice of writing (Morris, 2016). In reviewing student plagiarism data from a project testing the use of Turnitin as a detection tool, Emerson et al. (2005) note that their most important finding identified how student misuse of secondary sources stems from a lack of reliable processes for adopting secondary source citations rather than misunderstanding conventions. Their conclusion is for educators to look for active teaching opportunities to directly model and improve student practice in the writing of academic assignments. Modeling is an important step that is sometimes overlooked within instructional practices as students are not often able to observe experts as they negotiate the act of creating a work. Opportunities to model the messiness of writing a paper, working through group challenges collegially, or openly discussing integrity issues can show students that they are not the only ones who struggle to bring an idea to life, and that there is

294

R. M. Brooks

value in the hidden work behind a finished product. The potential of a “process and practice” approach opens doors to educational responses to the surge in artificial intelligence and chatbot technology, a development that highlights the fragile nature of “product-only” assessments. A process orientation can also help alleviate student time management issues (Goldman et al., 2022) by chunking work into reasonable milestones through drafts, project plans, learning journals, or research logs (Morris, 2016). Rewarding process steps – even ones that are messy, go astray, or fail completely in the first attempt – can help to build student confidence when constructive feedback is provided. Emerson et al. (2005) noted that another major finding of their study was the impact their one-on-one tutor clinic had on improving plagiarism rates. Although the level of support provided by tutors may not be achievable in all contexts, the material finding was that timely feedback and two-way conversations during the writing process provided opportunities for students to identify and correct their writing mistakes with increasing confidence. Making space within the process to center integrity and provide developmental feedback supports the normalization of open communication about ethical issues and where and how those impact the creation of meaningful products.

Respect and Grow Relationships The third theme draws on the integral nature of relationships to the process of learning. The authors of one experiential teaching approach conceptualize learning itself “as based on relationships: between all parties in the room, the individual’s relationship with themselves, the environment, with the context of learning, and relationships with the content” (Schenck & Cruickshank, 2015, p. 82). Seen through a relational lens, acting with integrity is one way of demonstrating respect for these many relationships. Miron et al. (2022) concluded that relationships anchored in academic integrity within the academy strongly influence the quality of the teaching and learning experience. By acknowledging relationships as the foundational force within learning we can provide students with one answer to the “why?” of acting with integrity. Acting without integrity damages current and future relationships with others, with your own knowledge and confidence, and ultimately with the social and ecological systems of which we are each a part. Poitras Pratt and Gladue (2022) drew attention to integrity implying wholeness, and that colonial approaches to education as highly competitive and hierarchical have had the effect of degrading relationships at the expense of the common good. Currently, higher education prizes individual achievement. By contrast, “[i]n the Indigenous world, knowledge is about relationships” (Little Bear, 2009, p. 7). While these initial touchpoints simplify the complexity of Indigenous knowledge and discourse on this topic, the underlying importance of relationships in their broadest sense is a perspective that returns a human dimension to integrity issues that are often framed as discussions of property rights. In a society where property is transactional, intellectual property may be seen as one more commodity to be acquired by any means. Language commonly used for

19

Integrity Through Experience: Fostering a Culture of Academic. . .

295

certain types of integrity breaches, such as “contract cheating” and “stealing work” reinforces the notion of academic work as property, rather than acknowledging the humans behind ideas and the collective need for those ideas to spread in beneficial ways. K. H. Kolb et al. (2015) studied reasons students chose not to cheat and found two broad orientations: students who prioritized the potential harm to themselves and students who considered the impact of their actions on others. In this second category, students demonstrated beliefs about treating the work of others with care and respect not only from the perspective of intellectual property but also as a moral stance. Lindstrom made an argument in favor of this approach when saying “[a]s a Blackfoot scholar, I do not differentiate between academic integrity, social integrity or spiritual integrity,” identifying how the Western academy has fragmented integrity into separate spheres (2022, p. 126). Questions around the implication of this include whether students are able to retain a belief in their overall integrity by rationalizing decisions within the context of one sphere of their lives, as well as how this may impact integrity-based decisions outside academia. In a study of student decisions not to cheat, the authors noted how a first-year university course had attempted to design out many opportunities for cheating, leaving the students without the need to confront difficult choices, and that “constructing the ‘cheat proof’ classroom may— inadvertently—impede students’ ethical development” (Kolb et al., 2015, p. 18). When students narrow and silo their perceptions of integrity to being contained to a specific course, it may lead to rationalizing misconduct behaviors. This has implications broader than the academic sphere. A developing argument supports the notion that misconduct behaviors within education transfer into behaviors in the workplace (Sotiriadou et al., 2020), which includes work-integrated learning settings (Miron et al., 2022). By centering integrity as an action to grow relationships, with the corresponding harm emerging from lack of integrity, instructors can highlight socially relevant outcomes that extend beyond one course and may persuade students to consider the wider impacts of their decisions.

Design and Delivery Strategies for Integrity Experiences Building on a foundation of emphasizing the importance of relationships, making space for prior student experience, and intentional support for a process orientation, the current limited literature provides some insights into the ways experiential teaching techniques can target improved integrity practice. An overarching consideration is the approach taken by the instructor, and that moving from an instructional role as knowledge provider into one of facilitator (Boydell, 1976; Goldman et al., 2022) and curator of experience (Roberts, 2016) is recommended. Clear, transparent, and supportive communication (Miron et al., 2022) is important in both syllabi and daily interactions. Role modeling ethical practice is central to Indigenous pedagogical approaches (Lindstrom, 2022) and, along with mentoring, an attribute students look for in their instructors (Miron, 2022).

296

R. M. Brooks

How instructors respond to integrity breaches also impacts learning. Returning to the study by Risquez et al. (2013), significant learning gaps may exist between what students believe to be integrity actions and recognizing breaches of those actions. When deciding on a response to an integrity breach, context and specifics are important. Without dismissing the potential need for accountability conversations, integrity breaches nevertheless present an opportunity to reframe the issue as a teachable moment (Bertram Gallant, 2017; Stephens, 2016). Employing an experiential lens, the breach becomes the direct experience upon which the student is provided feedback, an opportunity to reflect, and decide upon and perform an improved action. Zivcakova et al. (2012) concluded that systems to support integrity should be flexible enough to provide opportunities to learn from mistakes while being clear and consistent, a principle that would extend to responses made by individual instructors. By normalizing mistakes that are developmentally appropriate for the student and context, rather than impersonal approaches to an inflexible standard, students develop trust in their instructor, better understand expectations (e.g., keeping accurate logs or records as a safety concern, negotiating clear roles with team members rather than using each other’s work), and develop increased competence and confidence by redoing work to put their learning into effect. An emphasis on curation, facilitation, and developmental feedback may inform new choices by instructors as to content, activities, and responses related to academic integrity. In addition to these considerations, the next sections return to Roberts’ (2016) experiential teaching framework to explore specific practices in designing and delivering framing, direct experience, processing, and synthesis to support direct student engagement with academic integrity.

Framing Integrity Experiences From an instructional perspective, the first stage of framing refers to the overt ways an experience is set up for the learner to maximize their ability to make connections (Roberts, 2016). This includes explicitly linking to course outcomes or goals, expectations of learner preparedness and prior knowledge, and identifying extensions of the course content in the world at large. Critically, it is also an opportunity to engage students by providing space for them to identify their own goals, explicitly access prior knowledge, and co-construct meaning with their peers and the instructor through dialogue (Schenck & Cruickshank, 2015). Traditionally, academic integrity or ethics are held at a distance from discipline-specific content. McGill (2008) noted that academic integrity in law schools is often confined to a separate course, but that natural links exist within other program courses. Instructors can review and consider which values or integrity skills are embedded or implied within the current course outcomes, goals, and expectations and how those can be transparently communicated to students in the syllabus and class discussions. For example, full participation in an activity may require students to demonstrate courage by stepping out of a comfort zone, honesty by sharing their perspectives and being open to the perspectives of others, and responsibility by collecting and recording data accurately.

19

Integrity Through Experience: Fostering a Culture of Academic. . .

297

Instructors can “design a learning environment for the student which encourages the student to develop their own academic integrity” (Hamilton & Richardson, 2007, p. 37). Likewise for specific practice with known or new conventions such as citing sources, including where and how conventions are negotiated differently across disciplines or in non-Western ways of knowing and recognizing knowledge sources. Time spent framing integrity within the disciplinary context of the course and in expectation of upcoming experiences has the potential to contribute to students’ development of academic literacies (Morris, 2016), including deepening understanding of integrity in action, research, and writing within their discipline, in communicating across disciplines, and future use in other contexts such as work.

Direct Experience with Integrity The next stage is to integrate integrity into the direct experience(s) in the course. By engaging directly with integrity issues, students have the opportunity to deepen their understanding of the relationships between the content and how integrity is applied to that content in practice. This can be done through facilitated conversations with the whole class or in smaller groups where ethical considerations are woven into the material. Instructors can provide practical examples of integrity issues to generate guided debates (Miron et al., 2022), polls and quizzes to have student prioritize types of ethical action (McGill, 2008), case studies that demonstrate links to other contexts (Hamilton & Richardson, 2007), and stories that include holistic and multiperspective elements (Mitchell, 2018). In their study of faculty member responses to facilitated integrity discussions, Zivcakova et al. (2012) noted that many faculty members were surprised by student honesty about integrity issues and how explicit conversation clarified persistent issues, such as how collaborative brainstorming differs from the eventual individual representation of ideas in written assignments. If experience is being built through scaffolding, with smaller assignments building on each other, some possible approaches include integrating integrity discussions or teaching moments at each milestone. Scaffolding also allows for technology tools to be used in creative ways to promote integrity by turning summative assessment procedures into formative learning moments, such as suggestions to use textmatching software to find and fix sourcing issues and refine writing prior to submission (Davis & Carroll, 2009; Emerson et al., 2005; Hamilton & Richardson, 2007), rather than applying penalties afterward. The latter idea adds additional practice with the writing process, including reviewing, revising, and editing. A systematic review of tutorials has shown that practical activities targeted to common plagiarism mistakes led to significantly increased test scores that assessed skills, knowledge, and attitudes about plagiarism (Stoesz & Yudintseva, 2018). Experiential learning research suggests keeping activities short and clear, with goals that are within the stretch range of student ability and include opportunities for timely, natural feedback (Schenck & Cruickshank, 2015). Wherever possible, experiences authentic to the field should be used. Where meaningful and relevant problem-based or project-based learning activities are being used, consider activities

298

R. M. Brooks

that present one problem with many solutions, and that will foster individual creativity, improved communication with team members, and require muddling through ethical issues (Hamilton & Richardson, 2007).

Processing and Synthesizing Integrity Taken together, the last experiential stages are the time when learners articulate and internalize meaning with consideration for transference into future practices. Processing involves active reflection (Roberts, 2016) to generate, deepen, and document learning (Ash & Clayton, 2009). Critical reflection can be seen when realizations move beyond the superficial or technical into areas such as challenging conclusions, confronting bias, and diversifying perspective (Ash & Clayton, 2009). From these reflections, synthesizing can take place as learners extend their newly discovered understanding to new contexts and further experimentation. Brookfield identified critical reflection as “a stance of permanent inquiry” (2017, pp. 79–80). Revisiting the idea of culture as normalized practices and shared learning, instructors have the opportunity to insert critically reflective moments into regular classroom practice through continuous inquiry and by capitalizing on teaching moments where academic integrity issues may be processed by the learners in tandem with disciplinespecific experiences. There is limited literature that describes elements of processing and synthesis in student-centered approaches to academic integrity, and further research on these topics would be welcome. Zivcakova et al. (2012) noted that faculty identified the short duration of the participatory presentations about academic integrity to be insufficient, and that two faculty members continued discussions in subsequent sessions, where students continued to process their initial thoughts and extended the conversation about integrity in the classroom into where and how academic misconduct may impact their future workplace success. Processing and synthesis of integrity experiences may be formally or informally assessed. Informal check-ins with the instructor or a mentor, peer debriefs, and journal prompts (in written, audio, video, or artistic forms) can all be used as time for learners to reflect on experiences and consider future actions. However, as grades are often used to indicate importance, providing weighted formal assessments can demonstrate value, reward students for practice, and encourage the timely completion of scaffolded learning assignments. Assessment of the direct activities, processing, or synthesis components can take place at various milestones, such as the completion of a step within a scaffolded project, or through assessing several elements within a final presentation, paper, or oral assessment. Additional considerations include providing choice of product or questions (Bertram Gallant, 2017) and opting for lower stakes formative assessments to build competence over time (Risquez et al., 2013). Authors within both academic integrity and experiential research call for authentic assessment (e.g., Bertram Gallant, 2017; Morris, 2016; ▶ Chap. 15, “Academic Integrity and the Affordances and Limitations of Authentic Assessment”; Roberts, 2016) to help the learner build bridges between theoretical knowledge and the ambiguity and complexity of real-life situations (Lavine & Roussin, 2012; Sotiriadou et al., 2020).

19

Integrity Through Experience: Fostering a Culture of Academic. . .

299

Miron et al. (2022) noted how within work-integrated learning settings, timely conferences with an expert allowed students to identify these complex ethical challenges before they were forgotten and learn immediate strategies to negotiate future practice. Live assessments, such as the interactive oral assessments (i.e., job interview and client interview) used with business students, promote academic integrity, student engagement, and employability (Sotiriadou et al., 2020). These authors also identified six essential characteristics for design of these types of authentic assessments: scaffolded and supported; scenario-based; aligned to program; aligned with learning outcomes; accessible and equitable; and professionally focused. Sotiriadou et al. (2020) also found that the vast majority of students agreed that it would be very difficult to engage in contract cheating on the assessment due to the interactive nature and noted the relevance of the assessment for their future as students expected to participate in more job or client interviews as part of their work. Addressing ambiguity, complexity, and perspective in a transparent and supportive environment is an important consideration for facilitators as the emotional element within reflection can be overlooked. Research indicates that reflecting deeply on emotional experiences can lead to discomfort or distress, and additional support for learners (and instructors) may be required (Ions & Sutcliffe, 2019) as teaching practices incorporate more holistic approaches and recognize the whole learner. Although barriers and challenges to implementing deeper reflective practices exist, research shows that learners value reflective models, finding them essential with the caveat that they can be overly complex (Ions & Sutcliffe, 2019). Given these findings, when starting new reflective activities to encourage processing of academic integrity, clear and useful questions that are context specific, or simple models such as Borton’s “What? So what? Now what?” (Boydell, 1976) could be used as first steps before students become more adept and increasingly complex reflective practices are introduced. Ions and Sutcliffe (2019) concluded that additional time to practice along with providing variety and choice in reflective models better supports learners. Goldman et al. (2022) referenced studies showing when students write about the relevance of course content to their lives they demonstrate an increased utility value, greater interest in the course material, and higher grades. As students process and make meaning from their current interactions with academic integrity in the course, extending the integrity conversation into the future can support transferring learning to new contexts. Synthesis assignments, assessments, and discussions should link back to early framing discussions to align with course learning outcomes or goals, as well as student and societal goals: Student employability both within and beyond the academy is a widespread conversation; Indigenous knowledge identifies that “goodness is an end goal” (Little Bear, 2009, p. 15). These and many other goals may coexist for students in their future plans. Conversations and considerations about integrity holistically can exist alongside current priorities of meeting learning outcomes and succeeding in the course. Opportunities to experiment with and extend learning in new contexts closes the learning cycle, positioning the learner at the next step up in their spiral of experience (Schenck & Cruickshank, 2015). Blunsdon et al. (2003) conducted research with social science students by examining theory testing through active experimentation.

300

R. M. Brooks

Entry-level undergraduate students reporting enjoying the experimental learning approach, believing it helped their learning and enabled them to understand and apply the generalities of what they had learned elsewhere. Ensuring students have opportunities to articulate what they have learned and how their learning can be continuously expanded and transferred to future contexts may be especially important when considering values-based approaches to students choosing to transfer their integrity actions into future behaviors.

Summary From a values-based perspective, academic integrity is not a singular action, but consistent choices and actions made over time when faced with alternative options. By framing the practice of integrity experientially, instructors can identify where and how to intentionally add framing, direct experience, processing, and synthesis to engage learners in the practical application of integrity within the context of the course. By doing so, a culture of integrity can become an explicit learning goal, and the class environment can foster normalizing the practice of integrity in a learner’s current and future life. Building on this method, Risquez et al. (2013) explicitly called for experiential learning as an approach to closing the gap between student perceptions of plagiarism and its practical applications. Bertram Gallant (2017) mentioned the use of an academic integrity seminar at her institution that deliberately leverages an experiential cycle to directly target student understanding of integrity standards. Research connecting direct integrity practice and experiential learning is limited, with small sample sizes and many elements not yet explored. More studies are needed to support the notion that an experiential learning approach can be effective for building integrity skills. Another consideration is how to provide professional development opportunities for instructors who may want to deepen their practices with both directly embedding integrity and looking to do so experientially. Developing instructional skills with experiential learning requires time and space to reflect, determine next steps, and build confidence with new skills. Experiential learning asks instructors to shape learning differently, shifting from the traditional compliance and rote learning model most have participated within, to one that embraces co-creation, intentional practice, and deep reflection. Learning from experience is inherently about developing competence, improved self-efficacy, and the ability to make choices well-matched to goals and needs. This is as true for instructors as for students: Adopting an experiential, experimental, and appreciative mindset and working through one adaptation at a time can model the attributes that contribute to a culture of integrity.

Cross-References ▶ Academic Integrity and the Affordances and Limitations of Authentic Assessment

19

Integrity Through Experience: Fostering a Culture of Academic. . .

301

References Amigud, A., & Lancaster, T. (2019). 246 reasons to cheat: An analysis of students’ reasons for seeking to outsource academic work. Computers & Education, 134, 98–107. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.compedu.2019.01.017 Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). Generating, deepening, and documenting learning: The power of critical reflection in applied learning. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), 25–48. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1188550.pdf 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 Blunsdon, B., Reed, K., McEachern, S., & McNeil, N. (2003). Teaching organisational theory in undergraduate management programmes: An exercise in facilitated theory testing for active experimentation. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03098770305632 Boydell, T. (1976). Experiential learning. Manchester monographs no. 5. Department of Adult and Higher Education, University of Manchester. Brookfield, S. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Jossey-Bass. 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). https://doi.org/ 10.21913/ijei.v5i2.614 Dickson, L., & Summerville, T. (2018). ‘The truth about stories’: Coming to compassionate pedagogy in a first-year program. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 6(3), 24–29. https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v6i3.378 Emerson, L., Rees, M. T., & MacKay, B. (2005). Scaffolding academic integrity: Creating a learning context for teaching referencing skills. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 2(3), 17–20. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.2.3.3 Ghaye, T., Melander-Wikman, A., Kisare, M., Chambers, P., Bergmark, U., Kostenius, C., & Lillyman, S. (2008). Participatory and appreciative action and reflection (PAAR): Democratizing reflective practices. Reflective Practice, 9(4), 361–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14623940802475827 Goldman, J. A., Carson, M. L., & Simonds, J. (2022). It’s in the pedagogy: Evidence-based practices to promote academic integrity. In D. A. Rettinger & T. Bertram Gallant (Eds.), Cheating academic integrity: Lessons from 30 years of research (pp. 131–168). Jossey-Bass. Hamilton, M., & Richardson, J. (2007). An academic integrity approach to learning and assessment design. Journal of Learning Design, 2(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.5204/jld.v2i1.27 Ions, K. J., & Sutcliffe, N. (2019). Barriers to constructing experiential learning claims through reflective narratives. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 10(1), 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/heswbl-04-2019-0053 International Center for Academic Integrity [ICAI]. (2021). The fundamental values of academic integrity. (3rd ed.). https://academicintegrity.org/images/pdfs/20019_ICAI-FundamentalValues_R12.pdf Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. Kolb, K. H., Longest, K. C., & Singer, A. J. (2015). Choosing not to cheat: A framework to assess students’ rationales for abiding by academic integrity policies. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2015. 090109 Lavine, M. H., & Roussin, C. J. (2012). From idea to action: Promoting responsible management education through a semester-long academic integrity learning project. Journal of Management Education, 36(3), 428–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562911428602

302

R. M. Brooks

Lindstrom, G. E. (2022). Accountability, relationality and Indigenous epistemology: Advancing an Indigenous perspective on academic integrity. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada (pp. 125–139). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1_6 Little Bear, L. (2009). Naturalizing Indigenous knowledge: Synthesis paper. University of Saskatchewan, aboriginal education resource Centre: Saskatoon, SK, Canada; First Nations and Adult Higher Education Consortium: Calgary. http://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/education/21._ 2009_july_ccl-alkc_leroy_littlebear_naturalizing_indigenous_knowledge-report.pdf Luckner, J. L., & Nadler, R. S. (1997). Processing the experience: Enhancing and generalizing learning (2nd ed.). Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Matsuo, M. (2019). Critical reflection, unlearning, and engagement. Management Learning, 50(4), 465–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507619859681 Matsuo, M., & Nagata, M. (2020). A revised model of experiential learning with a debriefing checklist. International Journal of Training and Development, 24(2), 144–153. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/ijtd.12177 McGill, S. (2008). Integrating academic integrity education with the business law course: Why and how? Journal of Legal Studies in Education, 25(2), 241–282. Miron, J. B. (2022). Academic integrity in work-integrated learning (WIL) settings. Academic Integrity in Canada, 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1_12 Miron, J., Wilson, R., Freeman, J., & Sears, K. (2022). Academic integrity in upper year nursing students’ work-integrated settings. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 18(16). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-022-00107-y Mitchell, H. J. (2018). Land-based education: Embracing the rhythms of the earth from an Indigenous perspective. JCharlton Publishing. Morris, E. J. (2016). Academic integrity: A teaching and learning approach. Handbook of Academic Integrity, 1037–1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_11 Morris, T. H. (2019). Experiential learning – A systematic review and revision of Kolb’s model. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(8), 1064–1077. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019. 1570279 Poitras Pratt, Y., & Gladue, K. (2022). Re-defining academic integrity: Embracing Indigenous truths. Academic Integrity in Canada, 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1_5 Risquez, A., O’Dwyer, M., & Ledwith, A. (2013). ‘Thou shalt not plagiarise’: From self-reported views to recognition and avoidance of plagiarism. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.596926 Roberts, J. W. (2011). Beyond learning by doing: Theoretical currents in experiential education. Routledge. Roberts, J. W. (2016). Experiential education in the college context: What it is, how it works, and why it matters. Routledge. Seaman, J., Brown, M., & Quay, J. (2017). The evolution of experiential learning theory: Tracing lines of research in the JEE. Journal of Experiential Education, 40(4), NP1–NP21. https://doi. org/10.1177/1053825916689268 Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. A. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership (the Jossey-Bass Business & Management Series) (5th ed.). Wiley. Schenck, J., & Cruickshank, J. (2015). Evolving Kolb: Experiential education in the age of neuroscience. The Journal of Experimental Education, 38(1), 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1053825914547153 Sotiriadou, P., Logan, D., Daly, A., & Guest, R. (2020). The role of authentic assessment to preserve academic integrity and promote skill development and employability. Studies in Higher Education, 45(11), 2132–2148. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1582015 Stephens, J. M. (2016). Creating cultures of integrity: A multilevel intervention model for promoting academic honesty. Handbook of Academic Integrity, 995–1007. https://doi.org/10.1007/978981-287-098-8_13

19

Integrity Through Experience: Fostering a Culture of Academic. . .

303

Stoesz, B. M., & Yudintseva, A. (2018). Effectiveness of tutorials for promoting educational integrity: A synthesis paper. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(1). https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0030-0 Studiosity Canada and Angus Reid. (2022). 2022 Canadian student wellbeing survey. https://www. studiosity.com/2022studentwellbeing (full report). Yu, H., Glanzer, P. L., Johnson, B. R., Sriram, R., & Moore, B. (2018). Why college students cheat: A conceptual model of five factors. The Review of Higher Education, 41(4), 549–576. https:// doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0025 Zivcakova, L., Wood, E., Baetz, M., & De Pasquale, D. (2012). How do faculty members respond to their students’ discussions of academic misconduct and academic integrity? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 8(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.21913/ijei.v8i1.782

Integrating Academic Integrity: An Educational Approach

20

Erica J. Morris

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conceptualizing an Educational Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strengthening Academic Integrity Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exploring Teaching and Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developing Integrity and Academic Literacies in Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

306 307 311 314 317 320 321

Abstract

This chapter explores an educational approach to support academic integrity and minimize student academic misconduct across a university or college. Building on perspectives and research, a conceptualization of this approach is offered, comprising three areas: academic integrity policy, teaching and assessment, and academic integrity education and academic literacies. Given international concerns about the occurrence of student academic misconduct and the implications of this for academic standards, an institutional approach can be designed to cultivate an ethos of integrity for teaching, learning, and student support, as well as provide an approach for managing academic misconduct with a process that is accessible, consistent, and equitable. It is highlighted how institutional policy can be augmented to reflect an educational approach by enhancing procedure to give an inclusive and developmental process for students. In promoting academic integrity, the importance of teaching practices involving active and experiential learning is considered, and the ways in which assessment might be effectively used in this regard. It is clear that the diversity of student cohorts should be recognized in designing interventions for developing student integrity and academic literacies, which can involve programs on academic writing, as well E. J. Morris (*) University of Northampton, Northampton, UK e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_96

305

306

E. J. Morris

as offering peer mentoring opportunities. It is vital that institutional structures are designed to support the student holistically, including academic, study, and wellbeing services. Further, facilitating in-class discussions with students about academic integrity issues is likely to be beneficial as part of an educational approach. Keywords

Academic Integrity · Academic Literacies · Academic Misconduct · Academic Standards · Assessment · Assessment Literacy · Assignment Outsourcing · Enhancing Curriculum · Institutional Policy · Institutional Change · Plagiarism · Professional Development · Teaching Practices

Introduction In this chapter, an institutional approach for integrating academic integrity is proposed and explored. This proposal builds on and extends a recommended strategy for supporting academic integrity that emphasizes a teaching and learning approach involving students, educators, professional service roles, and leaders across a university or higher education college (Bertram Gallant, 2008, 2017, 2020; Morris, 2016; Morris & Carroll, 2016). In light of international concerns about the occurrence of student academic misconduct and the implications of this for academic standards (Bretag, 2020), an institutional strategy can be designed to not only cultivate an ethos of integrity for teaching, learning, and student support, but can provide an approach for managing academic misconduct with a process that is accessible, consistent, and equitable. Here, it is valuable to consider the terminology used in the chapter, where: Academic integrity means acting with the values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility in learning, teaching and research. Universities consider that it is vital for students and all staff to act in an honest way and take responsibility for their actions and every part of their work (Universities Australia, 2017, p. 4).

Student academic misconduct, as a term, can be usefully conceived as the “other side of the coin” to academic integrity, including student behaviors that might be described as unacceptable academic practice, which are due to underdeveloped skills in note-making and authorship, such as using and presenting sources (VaccinoSalvadore & Hall Buck, 2021), as well as serious forms of misconduct (e.g., assignment outsourcing). This may involve a student using formal outsourcing (essay mills, bespoke writing services) or informal outsourcing of assignments, where peers, friends, or family members complete the assignment, with the student submitting this as their own work (Awdry, 2021). The concern about possible increases in student academic misconduct in assessment is not new. Over the last 15 years, there have been institutional, national, and international initiatives addressing the issue of student plagiarism, particularly with

20

Integrating Academic Integrity: An Educational Approach

307

the increasing use of technology in society and changes relating to the diversity of student cohorts (Birks et al., 2020; Bretag & Mahmud, 2016; del Mar Pàmies et al., 2020; Morris & Carroll, 2011; Sutherland-Smith, 2008). In recent years, research has been undertaken to better understand the different forms of assignment outsourcing or “contract cheating” that a minority of students engage with, providing evidence to inform recommendations for institutions to help tackle this issue (Ahsan et al., 2022; Awdry, 2021; Bretag et al., 2018, 2019; Eaton et al., 2019; Lancaster & Clarke, 2016; Morris, 2018). Prominent perspectives have reasoned that advancing academic integrity across an institution, and thereby preventing and managing student academic misconduct effectively, should involve developing a holistic institutional approach with education at the “heart” of this (Bertram Gallant, 2017; Bretag, 2020; Macdonald & Carroll, 2006; TEQSA, 2017; Universities Australia, 2017): “academic integrity is a teaching and learning issue; hence, we should foreground learning, rather than character” (Bretag, 2020, p. 2). By drawing on research, an educational approach for supporting academic integrity across an institution is explored in this chapter, addressing the following questions: What is the nature of this approach? What are the areas and underpinning principles of the approach? How can we ensure such an approach is integrated across different areas of practice? The chapter is structured as follows. In the subsequent section, an educational approach for an institution is conceptualized and summarized. The areas of this approach are then considered in turn, namely: policy, teaching and assessment, and academic integrity education and academic literacies. In each area, emerging issues are considered, with a particular emphasis on implications for practice. Finally, the institutional approach and issues relevant to integrating academic integrity are summarized.

Conceptualizing an Educational Approach An educational approach for integrating academic integrity across an institution can valuably be conceptualized as comprising three areas: policy, teaching and assessment, and academic integrity education and academic literacies. These areas necessarily have implications for practice regarding students, educators, professional service roles, and institutional leadership. This conceptualization is informed by research and perspectives that have been developed in the field of academic integrity (Bertram Gallant, 2020; Birks et al., 2020; Bretag, 2020; Bretag & Mahmud, 2016; Davis, 2022; Eaton, 2022a; Eaton et al., 2019; Harper et al., 2018; Morris, 2016; Morris & Carroll, 2016). Table 1 encapsulates an educational approach, which is underpinned and guided by three principles, in which an institutional approach: • Is developed from an understanding of the variety of contributory contextual and individual factors for why students may engage in unacceptable academic practice or more serious forms of academic misconduct.

Educators

Area Students

Gaining a working knowledge of policy and academic misconduct procedures through professional development opportunities, including good practice in identifying and reporting potential breaches (e.g., workshops, seminars, mentoring).

Student representation and involvement in the development of policy and associated guidance (e.g., through an institutional working group or steering committee).

Academic integrity policy Developing an understanding of policy through orientation and induction, and academic integrity education. Building awareness and knowledge of the different forms of academic misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, collusion) and the procedures and potential outcomes for breaches (sanctions), as well as how technologies are employed in helping to identify potential cases.

Enhancing teaching practices to make use of experiential or “active learning pedagogies,” such as problem or team-based learning (Bertram Gallant, 2017, p. 89). Creating and improving assessment design to reflect assessment for learning principles,

Teaching and assessment Gaining an appreciation of one’s learning preferences and how different teaching strategies promote understanding of subject or discipline knowledge and capabilities relevant to professional integrity and employability. Developing assessment literacy, including an understanding of the use of assessment for learning, feedback and feedforward, assessment criteria, and skills for self and peer assessment (Price et al., 2012). Engaging in practices and skills for undertaking different types of assessment (formative and summative) and completing a range of assessment tasks (e.g., reports, group presentations, live projects).

Table 1 An educational approach for integrating academic integrity, with implications for practice Academic integrity education and academic literacies Gaining and strengthening skills for research, study, academic writing, and good academic practice, including finding and evaluating sources, reading strategies, note making, critical thinking, and using and presenting sources. Engaging in academic integrity education through completing an academic integrity module and/or participating in workshops or seminars. Developing an understanding of established writing and academic practice conventions in a subject, discipline, or professional area (e.g., the use of common knowledge). Making effective use of digital tools to support research, study and writing, particularly as part of the assessment process (e.g., employing referencing software; using a text-matching application for formative purposes). Creating assessment tasks that are designed in stages, so that students have opportunities for formative feedback on their work. Ensuring that students are guided and directed to relevant study support advisers or coaches and online resources.

308 E. J. Morris

Professional services roles

Establishing a working knowledge of policy as relevant to one’s role within a professional service area, such as educational development, library, or student support services. Involvement in opportunities to evaluate and improve policy documentation and associated guidance through institutional initiatives or committees.

An understanding of academic integrity issues that might be generic or specific to the subject or discipline, and of specialist academic integrity roles within a department or faculty (e.g., academic conduct officer) or undertaking such a role over a period. Involvement in opportunities to evaluate and improve policy documentation and associated guidance through faculty initiatives or institutional committees. including in-class opportunities for students to gain skills in assessment literacy. Ensuring students have opportunities to learn about the requirements for assessment tasks through providing assignment briefs and in-class opportunities to discuss the purpose and nature of an assessment, as well as the standards expected (e.g., use of exemplars of assignments, activities involving marking criteria). Judicious consideration of how particular forms of assessment may mitigate the likelihood of plagiarism and/or assignment outsourcing. An appreciation of the role of teaching and assessment in promoting academic integrity amongst students. Activities according to nature of role, such as designing and facilitating professional development opportunities for educators on assessment design, or the effective use of digital technologies in teaching and learning. (continued)

As relevant to role: developing students’ generic skills for research, study and academic writing through individual support sessions, workshops, and providing sources of guidance. Producing and contributing to a variety of generic study support resources, including media assets (e.g., on skills for timemanagement, giving a presentation, collaborative working, academic writing).

20 Integrating Academic Integrity: An Educational Approach 309

Area Institutional leadership

Academic integrity policy Ensuring the provision of academic integrity policy informed by international and national guidance, including processes for recording and monitoring academic misconduct data. Establishing a coherent set of policy documents and guidance resources that are clear, accessible and equitable, and that have an educational focus. Providing resources and support for an office for academic integrity, institutional working group or committee with a remit to ensure the implementation of an institutional approach. Establishing policy that specifies how technologies are employed to identify potential cases (e.g., the use of textmatching applications).

Table 1 (continued) Teaching and assessment Providing structures and resource for initiatives designed to enhance pedagogies and assessment strategies. Ensuring that professional development is integral to all staff roles across the university.

Academic integrity education and academic literacies Ensuring structures and systems are in place for student support, which could be centralized provision, as well as having specialist roles within faculties (e.g., academic personal tutors). Providing innovative forms of support for students throughout the lifecycle (from induction to graduation) and to address the many aspects of being a student, including personal and well-being support, and employability development.

310 E. J. Morris

20

Integrating Academic Integrity: An Educational Approach

311

• Is evidence-informed, drawing on contextual and institutional data, so that information on academic integrity breaches is consistently reported, and is used to evaluate changes in policy and regulations, and the impact of these on academic misconduct cases. • Embeds equity, diversity, and inclusion considerations in policy and practice, and in interventions to enhance students’ academic literacies. Further, it is proposed that an institutional approach should be aligned to a college or university’s strategy to promote student success; a strategy that relates to the complete lifecycle for a student (i.e., including student induction, attainment, and graduate progression), as well as recognizing the range of experiences of being a student (i.e., academic, personal and well-being, and social aspects) (Thomas, 2020).

Strengthening Academic Integrity Policy How might academic integrity policy at an institution be developed in ways that advance an educational ethos for minimizing student academic misconduct? This can involve improving policy to reflect an educational perspective in managing academic misconduct; revising procedure to provide an inclusive and developmental process for students; and by enhancing policy implementation by creating complimentary and aligned resources for staff and students. Here, the term, “policy” refers to institutional documentation, which typically encompasses academic integrity principles and values; expectations regarding student behaviors relating to study and assessment; forms of unacceptable academic practice and misconduct; and the process and procedure for managing an academic integrity breach, with potential outcomes or penalties (Anohina-Naumeca et al., 2020; Morris & Carroll, 2016; Reedy, Wurm, et al., 2021a). The understanding of policy and its implications may be fostered through guidelines and forums for educators, academic integrity modules for students, and institutional campaigns in partnership with students (Birks et al., 2020; Morris, 2018, 2020a; Morris & Carroll, 2016; Reedy, Wurm, et al., 2021a). A recurrent theme in the field has been the need for institutions to not only regularly review policy, but move from a punitive approach in managing academic misconduct to an approach that is educational, including tailored developmental interventions for students who have engaged in plagiarism or other forms of academic misconduct (Bertram Gallant & Stephens, 2020; Bretag & Mahmud, 2016; Pitt et al., 2021): institutions can form a taskforce to . . . discuss and design a developmental approach . . . invest some resources into building up the structures necessary to support students in the aftermath of cheating. These same structures . . . can also engage in preventative education and culture-building, so the institution is supporting integrity in all facets (Bertram Gallant & Stephens, 2020, p. 64).

312

E. J. Morris

Bertram Gallant (2017, 2020) has proposed that a teaching and learning approach can involve building on a student’s experience of engaging in an academic integrity breach, with a developmental response: “Students who are caught cheating need assistance to make sense of their experience in a helpful way that will guide their future decision making and actions” (2017, p. 92). So, essentially, an outcome or consequence for the student involves them taking part in a seminar, workshop, or mentoring scheme, depending on the arising issues linked to the incident (e.g., support in academic writing skills or ethical decision making). These kinds of interventions are considered further in the penultimate section of this chapter on developing integrity and academic literacies. This educational emphasis is also relevant to students who may engage in assignment outsourcing early on in their degree program. In a qualitative study, Pitt and her colleagues (2021) explored students’ experiences of a misconduct process, having been suspected of “contract cheating” (where three out of the five cases were “not proven”) and following outcomes, continued with their program of study. A number of key themes emerged from the student interviews, including how the majority found the process “the most challenging experience of the student’s life” and as a consequence of the experience, participants could feel particularly stressed in submitting assignments (despite these adhering to academic integrity standards) (Pitt et al., 2021). Based on these findings, it has been suggested that, regarding a procedure for a potential case of assignment outsourcing, institutions could point to the educational purpose of an agreed outcome, readily recognize and address students’ stress and concerns arising from an investigation, and guide students to further support (Pitt et al., 2021). This does not mean that assignment outsourcing should not be seen as a serious issue, which might lead to an outcome to indicate the severity of the issue (e.g., suspension from a university), where the determined outcome depends on, for example, whether a student has engaged in this form of misconduct previously (Harper et al., 2018; Morris, 2018). Evidence-informed recommendations on developing policy for academic integrity emphasize the importance of involving all stakeholders in the process of implementing policy, along with underlining how the framing, language, and terminology employed should reflect an educational perspective (Bretag et al., 2011; Bretag & Mahmud, 2016; Davis, 2022; Fudge et al., 2022; Morris & Carroll, 2016). Policy can be devised to make use of terminology reflecting this approach, so that, for example, the terms, “academic integrity breach,” “assignment outsourcing,” “meeting,” and “outcome” could replace the terms “violation,” “contract cheating,” “hearing,” and “penalty” (Bretag & Mahmud, 2016; Fudge et al., 2022; Pitt et al., 2021). This can lead to the use of “respectful guidance” about policy for students (Fudge et al., 2022, p. 11). Bretag and her colleagues (Bretag et al., 2011; Bretag & Mahmud, 2016) have proposed features that characterize exemplary policy, which are seen as vital in contributing to a culture of academic integrity within an institution: “access” (e.g., the policy is easy to find, well-structured, clearly written), “approach” (i.e., an educational stance is emphasized), “responsibility” (i.e., responsibilities pertaining to academic integrity are stated for all students and staff roles), “support”

20

Integrating Academic Integrity: An Educational Approach

313

(i.e., guidance and training are established to ensure policy enactment), and “detail” (e.g., examples of academic misconduct, and procedure and outcomes are described). It is also recommended that the values of academic integrity, such as honesty and respect (International Center for Academic Integrity, 2021) should be made explicit in policy (Bretag et al., 2011; Bretag & Mahmud, 2016). Recent work has focused on how policy needs to be developed in ways that ensures inclusive practice, as well as entailing a developmental process for students (Davis, 2022; Fudge et al., 2022). A pertinent concern relating to inclusivity is that students from particular groups, including minority groups, students with English as an additional language, and those students with a learning difference (e.g., dyslexia) can be over-represented in academic misconduct cases (i.e., disproportional to their representation in the student body as a whole) (Davis, 2022; Eaton, 2022a). This may be due to, for instance, implicit bias in the identification and reporting of potential cases, and subsequent investigation processes (Eaton, 2022a, b). Eaton (2022b) makes a vital call for institutions to establish further evidence in this regard, so that a more in-depth understanding can be established on how such overrepresentation arises and the ways in which this can be effectively addressed. Davis (2022) has detailed how policy at an institution was improved to provide a developmental response as part of the procedure for those students identified as engaging in an academic integrity breach (i.e., with no record of a previous breach and the student is in their first year of study). The issue here is that this response is aligned to ensuring an inclusive approach which recognizes that particular groups of students (e.g., those from non-traditional educational backgrounds) are supported through an intervention following a minor breach during the early stages of their course. So rather than a penalty being applied, a student takes an online academic integrity module and participates in good academic practice training (Davis, 2022). What is striking about this work is how evidence from a range of sources informed the enhancement of policy; this involved interviews with staff with an academic integrity remit, students who had experienced a misconduct process, as well as an analysis of policy based on universal design for learning principles (Davis, 2022), and significantly, enabled a methodology that was more than consultative: By involving all of the key stakeholders . . . the researcher was able to break down the barriers to policy change that can occur from insufficient consultation, engagement or evidence, and to join up the concerns and aspirations of all participants to present a proposal for positive change that was . . . swiftly put into place (Davis, 2022, p. 15).

In a similar vein, a collaborative approach has been emphasized in an institutional case study focused on strengthening policy, particularly in addressing the issue of patchy or inconsistent application of policy across an institution (Reedy, Wurm, et al., 2021a). This initiative involved a community of practitioners working together to iteratively design and produce accessible academic integrity resources for educators and students to support the process of embedding policy as practice. These assets included guidance for students on expectations relating to academic integrity;

314

E. J. Morris

flow-charts to aid understanding of the process in investigating a breach (one chart aimed at staff, one designed for students); and in the form of a comic strip, scenarios illustrating the different types of academic misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, collusion), along with the possible outcomes for students (Reedy, Wurm, et al., 2021a). It has also been reported that workshops with practitioners were beneficial for the co-creation of the flow charts, and more generally, in how policy could be effectively discussed, interpreted, and enacted by staff. In summary, policy can be augmented in key ways to reflect an educational approach for integrating academic integrity across a university or college. Through a collaborative process with leaders, staff, and students, this can involve enhancing procedure to give an inclusive and developmental process, as well as creating engaging guidance, so that the implications of policy are meaningful and relevant to students.

Exploring Teaching and Assessment There has been longstanding recognition that teaching, learning, and assessment strategies have a crucial part to play in promoting academic integrity among students (Bertram Gallant, 2008, 2017; Bretag et al., 2018; Macdonald & Carroll, 2006; Morris, 2016; Sutherland-Smith, 2008). This section unpacks three pertinent aspects of this perspective: the importance of teaching practices for experiential and active learning; the way in which assessment is linked to academic integrity issues; and the need for institutions to enable educators and those who support learning to engage in professional development to enhance their practice. Integral to these aspects is how digital technologies are deployed throughout the teaching and learning experience, whether in remote or blended learning provision, including asynchronous and synchronous online forums; technology-enhanced assessment involving, for example, virtual student presentations; the use of applications to support e-marking, and dialogic approaches to feedback and feedforward; or the online delivery of exams, including time-limited and open book formats (Jisc, 2020a, b, 2022; Reedy, Pfitzner, et al., 2021b; Vergés Bausili, 2018). Proponents in the field of academic integrity have stressed the value of employing active and collaborative learning pedagogies, such as flipped classroom approaches and experiential learning models (e.g., problem and team-based learning) to foster an environment conducive for student engagement, attainment, achievement, and graduate employability (Bertram Gallant, 2017, 2020; Bretag et al., 2019; Morris, 2016; Morris, 2020a). These perspectives are aligned to recent work on identifying teaching practices in higher education that have a significant impact on student learning; practices that are generic (i.e., applicable to a range of subjects) and based on robust evidence (Smith & Baik, 2021). Through their systematic review, Smith and Baik (2021) have highlighted the features of quality learning environments, which include: “take into account students’ goals, and make clear the relevance of what they are learning,” “facilitate application/practice opportunities in authentic or simulated practice situations,” “give

20

Integrating Academic Integrity: An Educational Approach

315

students opportunities to engage in inductive/exploratory/dialogic learning,” and “give students opportunities to interact and work with peers” (pp. 1704–1705). Empirical work has highlighted those influential factors associated with students engaging in assignment outsourcing: student dissatisfaction with the teaching and learning environment and the view that “there are lots of opportunities to cheat in my subjects” (Bretag et al., 2018, p. 9). This has prompted researchers to emphasize that: “Curriculum and pedagogy could better reflect the realities of working in a highly connected and networked world, in which sharing and collaboration are an increasing part of professional practice” (Bretag et al., 2018, p. 14). As argued previously, it would be valuable for research to examine the impact of pedagogical approaches (e.g., team-based learning) on academic integrity issues (Morris, 2020a). Research and good practice guidance literature has tended to focus on exploring the link between assessment design and the prevention of student academic misconduct. There has, however, been tension in this exploration. On the one hand, there have been endeavors across higher education to improve how students are assessed. These have involved initiatives to move to programfocused assessment strategies (Jessop, 2019; Jessop & Tomas, 2017), employing assessment for learning approaches (Baughan & Morris, 2019; Sambell et al., 2013; Sambell & Sambell, 2019), making changes to use inclusive assessment (Plymouth University, 2016) and incorporating practices that support the development of students’ assessment literacies (Morris, 2020b; Price et al., 2012). Ultimately, the goal of such initiatives has been to enhance assessment so that its relevance for subject and professional practices is strengthened, and to make a positive difference to student learning outcomes. On the other hand, there has been consideration about how assessment might be designed in ways to mitigate the possibility of students engaging in plagiarism or collusion (e.g., Carroll, 2007; Hrasky & Kronenberg, 2011; Morris, 2016) and more recently, a questioning of whether certain forms of assessment can, after all, prevent assignment outsourcing (Birks et al., 2020; Bretag et al., 2019; Ellis et al., 2020; Morris, 2020a). The rationale has been that to promote good academic practice in students and reduce the possibility of an academic integrity breach, assessment can be designed so that, for example: the process of learning (e.g., stages of project work) and the final product is assessed (e.g., a presentation) or tasks are authentic or work-integrated (e.g., creating educational resources for a health charity, authoring a consultancy report for a client) (Bretag et al., 2019; Morris, 2016). However, this rationale has been primarily based on practical guidance for educators rather than empirical studies (Bretag et al., 2019; Ellis et al., 2020). In addition, it has become clear that a range of formative and summative coursework assignments, such as lab reports, case studies, and critical reflections, can be “outsourced” by a student to a third party (e.g., a custom academic writing website) with the student submitting the assignment as their own (Bretag et al., 2019; Morris, 2020a). An institutional response to this may be to rely on the use of invigilated exams, but it is recognized that there are pedagogical reasons for not using this type of assessment (e.g., validity with regard to assessing professional practices) as well as evidence that with such high-stakes assessment, students may engage in other forms

316

E. J. Morris

of academic misconduct (e.g., using smartwatches that are not allowed under exam conditions) (Birks et al., 2020; Bretag et al., 2019). Based on a comprehensive survey of students, it has been found that there are assessment tasks that are seen as “least likely” to be outsourced, including: oral presentations or an assignment followed by a viva; an individualized assignment, drawing on unique experience; and an assignment involving reflection on a placement or practical work (Bretag et al., 2019). The key considerations and issues for these types of assessments have been summarized in guidance for educators (Morris, 2021). In the context of business and management education, Sotiriadou and her colleagues (2020) have provided a strong example of how the use of assessment can be developed and evaluated. This study focused on scaffolded authentic assessments in two courses, which both involved interactive oral assessments as the final task: a mock job interview on a sport management course and an interview with a client on an international management course. These assessments were designed to build on the students’ acquired knowledge from the previous assessments on each course, such as a problem-based case study of a local organization. It was reasoned that these assessments would not only improve student employability through experiential learning but would also promote academic integrity (Sotiriadou et al., 2020). Overall, students rated the assessments highly with regard to their employability skills: for example, for the interactive oral assessment on the sport management course, an average of 6.5 was obtained for the statement “The assessment had realworld relevance” and 6.2 for “Able to gain professional skills” (where 1 indicated “strongly disagree” and 7 “strongly agree”). In the final interactive oral assessments used on both courses, the majority of students thought that it would be very hard to purchase the assessment. The interactive assessments were, of course, live and the questions posed to the student by the assessor were individualized to the student and the organization they had considered. These researchers have proposed characteristics for authentic assessments that promote academic integrity and employability, including the scaffolding of assessments across a course, culminating in an interactive oral assessment, and support for students so that they can understand the requirements of the assessment (e.g., providing assessment rubrics, a recording of an example mock interview) (Sotiriadou et al., 2020). Educators strive to devise assessments that are engaging, meaningful, and valid: there are myriad possibilities for different types of formative and summative assessment within subject, discipline, and professional areas. It is widely recognized that professional development can be beneficial for teaching staff in rethinking assessment design, as well as in considering aspects of academic integrity policy and practice (Birks et al., 2020; Curtis et al., 2021; Eaton et al., 2019; Fudge et al., 2022; Morris & Carroll, 2016; Slade et al., 2019). This might involve holding forums, such as workshops or seminars focused on enhancing understanding amongst staff about contemporary academic integrity concerns (e.g., assignment outsourcing) with complementary guidance resources that can be used to inform practice (Curtis et al., 2021).

20

Integrating Academic Integrity: An Educational Approach

317

Developing Integrity and Academic Literacies in Students Through international and institutional research, an understanding of the reasons as to why students might engage in plagiarism, collusion, or assignment outsourcing has evolved over the last decade. Academic misconduct can be due to a variety of factors, that may be interrelated in practice, including underdeveloped study or time management skills; insufficient experience in academic writing; the pressures of competing commitments while studying, such as family or carer responsibilities; and mental health issues (Brimble, 2016; Eaton et al., 2019; Tindall et al., 2021; VaccinoSalvadore & Hall Buck, 2021; Vučković et al., 2020). This understanding has informed how educational strategies and interventions can be designed to enable students to: • Gain an appreciation of the principles of academic integrity and how these relate to academic conventions and practices within their subject or discipline. • Actively participate in their academic or subject community, and have timely and flexible opportunities to develop skills and practices for finding and evaluating sources, reading, note making, academic writing, project and time management, and collaborating with peers. • Build an understanding of their learning preferences and for assessment literacy, including how assessment relates to learning, the value of self and peer assessment, and the purposes and requirements of different forms of assessment (e.g., reports, projects, eportfolios) (Morris, 2016; Vaccino-Salvadore & Hall Buck, 2021; Vučković et al., 2020). A range of effective strategies and interventions to promote integrity and academic literacies in students have been proposed based on research and educational practice. Table 2 provides a summary of four primary strategies, where representative examples from the literature are distilled to highlight the focus and elements of each, along with related considerations: deploying an academic integrity education program or module (Morris, 2016; Sefcik et al., 2020); running an academic integrity seminar or course at an institution (Bertram Gallant, 2017, 2020; Bertram Gallant & Stephens, 2020); promoting academic literacies in students (Fudge et al., 2022); and having a program on academic writing (Perkins et al., 2020). These kinds of strategies are not mutually exclusive, but ideally, an institution can rationalize and devise a coherent provision that entails, for example, a cross-institutional academic integrity module, and complementary workshops and guidance for academic literacies development that could be embedded at the subject level (Morris, 2021). Strategies and interventions can also be designed in ways that recognize the student holistically, with connections to well-being support services (Tindall et al., 2021). Across these four primary strategies (Table 2), three key issues emerge. Firstly, an intervention can be designed in a way that reflects the nature of the educational context and the diversity of a student cohort, where, for instance, there might be a relatively high proportion of mature students or those who have English as an additional language. Secondly, an educational response should be, where possible,

Focus and elements Students complete generic module as part of an induction process or early on their program of study. An online or blended module comprising engaging content, including media assets, self-assessment activities, and/or a final assessed task. Curriculum comprising, for example, academic integrity principles, different forms of academic integrity breaches, using citation and referencing systems, academic and study skills (e.g., note making, time management).

Educators to envisage “cheating as creating teachable moments” (Bertram Gallant, 2017, p. 92). A structured program of group sessions involving students in authentic activities focused on developing skills in ethical decision making and building understanding of academic integrity practices.

Strategy or intervention Academic integrity education program or module (Morris, 2016; Sefcik et al., 2020)

Academic integrity seminar or course (Bertram Gallant, 2017, 2020; Bertram Gallant & Stephens, 2020)

Table 2 Strategies and interventions for developing integrity and academic literacies Considerations Coverage and content are comprehensive and aligned to institutional policy that has an educational emphasis. Students engage in a generic module or modules that are tailored to the subject or discipline (e.g., with subjectspecific examples) and integrated in subject-based curriculum. The module involves an assessed activity that students are required to pass (e.g., involving feedback). Mechanisms are in place to maintain records on student module completion rates, thereby helping to assess the impact of academic integrity education on misconduct data. A generic module might be complemented by enabling students to engage in academic integrity workshops or seminars, which are provided as part of their program of study and therefore made relevant to their developing subject-based academic literacies. A stage of “assessment” could become part of an academic misconduct process, in which a student engages in a reflective writing assessment and discussion. This can help the student to understand the main reasons for their breach and accordingly, an educational response can be based on this assessment. A student can therefore take part in developmental opportunities that are relevant or valuable to them (e.g., an intervention focused on ethical reasoning or for improving academic writing skills). An academic integrity seminar might be one of a number of key educational responses to a student engaging in academic misconduct.

318 E. J. Morris

Academic writing program (Perkins et al., 2020)

Promoting academic literacies (Fudge et al., 2022)

A coherent set of learning strategies and resources to facilitate students’ understanding of integrity practices and academic literacies. This includes workshops for students, an institutional academic literacies course (‘University Studies’), short modules on academic integrity scenarios, guidance on using a text-matching application as an educational tool, and peer-assisted study support (PASS) sessions on academic integrity. An Academic English Masterclass focused on building confidence in students and their skills in academic writing, as well as promoting an understanding of acceptable academic practices (one two-hour session per week over 12 weeks). Topics include supporting students in locating sources, planning essays, and referencing.

A peer mentoring scheme might also be employed in which, following an academic integrity seminar (as an outcome to an identified breach), the student is supported by a peer through a series of sessions. These are designed to further enhance understanding and skills for integrity. Students from equity groups or non-traditional educational backgrounds, in particular, may need tailored support in developing academic writing practices, and study and time management skills. Institutional policy can involve a process that enables students to understand why they might have engaged in a breach, with appropriate individualized support then offered to the student (e.g., further guidance on academic writing). Following the introduction of this type of intervention, it can be considered whether there might be a decrease in the proportion of student assessments indicating plagiarism (i.e., comparing proportions in student cohorts before and after the intervention over a period).

20 Integrating Academic Integrity: An Educational Approach 319

320

E. J. Morris

individualized: If a student has engaged in academic misconduct, then there is a need to support the student to come to understand the reasons for their behavior, and to offer them opportunities to learn from the experience and develop appropriate skills and practices (e.g., Bertram Gallant & Stephens, 2020). Thirdly, it is important to monitor and evaluate the impact of interventions in relation to institutional data on academic misconduct, thereby gaining insights about how educational strategies can be improved. An emergent theme in the recent literature has been the importance of providing in-class opportunities for students to discuss academic integrity issues with their educators (Eaton et al., 2019; Harper et al., 2018; Vaccino-Salvadore & Hall Buck, 2021).

Summary This chapter has explored an educational approach to support academic integrity and minimize student academic misconduct across a university or college. Building on key perspectives and research, a conceptualization of this approach has been offered, which entails three areas: academic integrity policy, teaching and assessment, and academic integrity education and academic literacies. This approach is underpinned by principles focused on an understanding of why students may engage in academic misconduct; policy, strategies, and interventions that are evidence-informed and evaluated for enhancement purposes; and the importance of embedding equity, diversity, and inclusion considerations in policy and practice. These latter considerations have been highlighted as a priority for the field of academic integrity (Davis, 2022; Eaton, 2022a). Institutional policy can be strengthened to reflect an educational focus, where, through collaborative processes involving leaders, educators, professional service roles, and students, a pathway for an academic integrity breach can involve an outcome that is developmental in nature (Bertram Gallant & Stephens, 2020; Davis, 2022). Here, the student can be supported to reflect on why they may have engaged in a breach and have the opportunity to develop academic and professionally relevant skills. Although there has been a questioning of the idea that welldesigned assessment for learning tasks can help to minimize the possibility of plagiarism, collusion, or assignment outsourcing, engaging, meaningful, and valid assessments have a valuable role to play in promoting good academic practices in students, as well as the development of work-relevant and life-long learning skills (e.g., Sotiriadou et al., 2020). Proposals have also pointed to the value of employing active pedagogical strategies, as well as enquiry and problem-based learning models to support academic integrity (Bertram Gallant, 2008, 2017; Morris, 2020a). The diversity of student cohorts should be recognized in designing strategies and interventions for developing student integrity and academic literacies. Current recommendations for this area include students completing academic integrity modules and programs on academic writing, as well as offering peer mentoring opportunities. There has been a shift in the field: It is vital that institutional structures

20

Integrating Academic Integrity: An Educational Approach

321

are designed to support the student holistically, including academic, study, and wellbeing services.

References Ahsan, K., Akbar, S., & Kam, B. (2022). Contract cheating in higher education: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(4), 523–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1931660 Anohina-Naumeca, A., Birzniece, I., & Odiņeca, T. (2020). Students’ awareness of the academic integrity policy at a Latvian university. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 16(12). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-020-00064-4 Awdry, R. (2021). Assignment outsourcing: Moving beyond contract cheating. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(2), 220–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020. 1765311 Baughan, P., & Morris, E. (2019). Re-visiting frameworks for enhancing assessment in higher education. The International Journal of Assessment and Evaluation, 26(2), 27–39. https://doi. org/10.18848/2327-7920/CGP/v26i02/27-39 Bertram Gallant, T. (2008). Academic integrity in the twenty-first century: A teaching and learning imperative. ASHE Higher Education Report, 33(5). 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 Bertram Gallant, T. (2020). Leveraging the teachable moment: What, if anything, can students learn from cheating? In T. Bretag (Ed.), A Research Agenda for Academic Integrity (pp. 55–68). Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Bertram Gallant, T., & Stephens, J. M. (2020). Punishment is not enough: The moral imperative of responding to cheating with a developmental approach. Journal of College and Character, 21(2), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/2194587X.2020.1741395 Birks, M., Mills, J., Allen, S., & Tee, S. (2020). Managing the mutations: Academic misconduct in Australia, New Zealand and the UK. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 16(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-020-00055-5 Bretag, T. (2020). Introduction to a research agenda for academic integrity: Emerging issues in academic integrity research. In T. Bretag (Ed.), A Research Agenda for Academic Integrity (pp. 1–12). Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Bretag, T., & Mahmud, S. (2016). A conceptual framework for implementing exemplary academic integrity policy in Australian higher education. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 463–480). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_24 Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., Rozenberg, P., Saddiqui, S., & van Haeringen, K. (2018). Contract cheating: A survey of Australian university students. Studies in Higher Education, 44(11), 1837–1856. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1462788 Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., van Haeringen, K., Saddiqui, S., & Rozenberg, P. (2019). 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 Bretag, T., Mahmud, S., Wallace, M., Walker, R., James, C., Green, M., East, J., McGowan, U., & Partridge, L. (2011). Core elements of exemplary academic integrity policy in Australian higher education. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 7(2), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.21913/ IJEI.v7i2.759 Brimble, M. (2016). Why students cheat: An exploration of the motivators of student academic dishonesty in higher education. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 365–382). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_58

322

E. J. Morris

Carroll, J. (2007). A handbook for deterring plagiarism in higher education (2nd ed.). Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford Brookes University. Curtis, G. J., Slade, C., Bretag, T., & McNeill, M. (2021). Developing and evaluating nationwide expert-delivered academic integrity workshops for the higher education sector in Australia. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(3), 665–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07294360.2021.1872057 Davis, M. (2022). Examining and improving inclusive practice in institutional academic integrity policies, procedures, teaching and support. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 18(14). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-022-00108-x del Mar Pàmies, M., Valverde, M., & Cross, C. (2020). Organising research on university student plagiarism: A process approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(3), 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1658714 Eaton, S. E. (2022a). New priorities for academic integrity: Equity, diversity, inclusion, decolonization and Indigenization. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 18(10). https://doi. org/10.1007/s40979-022-00105-0 Eaton, S. E. (2022b, April 5). Why we need to pay attention to equity, diversity, and inclusion in student conduct. BMC On Society. Blog Network. Retrieved September 30, 2022, from https:// blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-society/2022/04/05/why-we-need-to-pay-attention-to-equitydiversity-and-inclusion-in-student-conduct/ Eaton, S. E., Chibry, N., Toye, M. A., & Rossi, S. (2019). Interinstitutional perspectives on contract cheating: A qualitative narrative exploration from Canada. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 15(9). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-019-0046-0 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 Fudge, A., Ulpen, T., Bilic, S., Picard, M., & Carter, C. (2022). Does an educative approach work? A reflective case study of how two Australian higher education Enabling programs support students and staff uphold a responsible culture of academic integrity. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 18(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00099-1 Harper, R., Bretag, T., Ellis, C., Newton, P., Rozenberg, P., Saddiqui, S., & van Haeringen, K. (2018). Contract cheating: A survey of Australian university staff. Studies in Higher Education, 44(11), 1857–1873. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1462789 Hrasky, S., & Kronenberg, D. (2011). Curriculum redesign as a faculty-centred approach to plagiarism reduction. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 7(2), 23–36. https://doi. org/10.21913/IJEI.v7i2.761 International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI). (2021). The fundamental values of academic integrity. (3rd ed.). Retrieved September 30, 2022, from https://academicintegrity.org/resources/ fundamental-values Jessop, T. (2019). Changing the narrative: A programme approach to assessment through TESTA. In C. Bryan & K. Clegg (Eds.), Innovative assessment in higher education. A handbook for academic practitioners (2nd ed., pp. 36–49). Routledge. Jessop, T., & Tomas, C. (2017). The implications of programme assessment patterns for student learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(6), 990–999. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02602938.2016.1217501 Jisc. (2022, March 2). Principles of good assessment and feedback. Jisc Guide by J. Ferrell & S. Knight. Retrieved September 30, 2022, from https://www.jisc.ac.uk/full-guide/principles-ofgood-assessment-and-feedback Jisc. (2020a, November 2). Digital assessment in higher education. Jisc Guide by J. Clay. Retrieved September 30, 2022, from https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/digital-assessment-in-highereducation Jisc. (2020b, August 11). Rising to the challenge to deliver 110,000 exams online. Jisc Member story. Retrieved September 30, 2022, from https://www.jisc.ac.uk/membership/stories/rising-tothe-challenge-to-deliver-110-000-exams-online-11-aug-2020

20

Integrating Academic Integrity: An Educational Approach

323

Lancaster, T., & Clarke, R. (2016). Contract cheating: The outsourcing of assessed student work. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 639–654). Springer. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-981-287-098-8_17 Macdonald, R., & Carroll, J. (2006). Plagiarism – A complex issue requiring a holistic institutional approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 233–245. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02602930500262536 Morris, E. J. (2016). Academic integrity: A teaching and learning approach. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 1037–1053). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981287-098-8_11 Morris, E. J. (2018). Academic integrity matters: Five considerations for addressing contract cheating. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(15). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40979-018-0038-5 Morris, E. J. (2020a). A changing focus: Re-considering research on contract cheating. In T. Bretag (Ed.), A Research agenda for academic integrity (pp. 112–126). Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Morris, E. J. (2020b). Behind the marks: Reviewing moderation and marking practices in higher education. In P. Baughan (Ed.), On your marks: Learner-focused feedback practices and feedback literacy (pp. 169–178). Advance HE, UK. Morris, E. (2021). Understanding academic integrity: Strategies and interventions in higher education. Watt Works Quick Guide, 35. Learning and Teaching Academy, Heriot-Watt University. Retrieved September 30, 2022, from https://lta.hw.ac.uk/resources/assessment-andfeedback/ Morris, E., & Carroll, J. (2011). Policy works: Recommendations for reviewing policy to manage unacceptable academic practice in higher education. The Academy JISC Academic Integrity Service, The Higher Education Academy, UK. Morris, E. J., & Carroll, J. (2016). Developing a sustainable holistic institutional approach: Dealing with realities ‘on the ground’ when implementing an academic integrity policy. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 449–462). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978981-287-098-8_23 Perkins, M., Gezgin, U. B., & Roe, J. (2020). Reducing plagiarism through academic misconduct education. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40979-020-00052-8 Pitt, P., Dullaghan, K., & Sutherland-Smith, W. (2021). ‘Mess, stress and trauma’: Students’ experiences of formal contract cheating processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(4), 659–672. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1787332 Plymouth University. (2016). Inclusive assessment: Good practice guide. Teaching & learning with Plymouth University. Retrieved September 30, 2022, from https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/youruniversity/teaching-and-learning/inclusivity/inclusive-assessment Price, M., Rust, C., O’Donovan, B., Handley, K., & Bryant, R. (2012). Assessment literacy: The foundation for improving student learning. Assessment Standards Knowledge exchange (ASKe), Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford Brookes University. Reedy, A. K., Wurm, P. A. S., Janssen, A., & Lockley, A. (2021a). A community of practice approach to enhancing academic integrity policy translation: a case study. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(12). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00080-y Reedy, A., Pfitzner, D., Rook, L., & Ellis, L. (2021b). 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(9). https://doi. org/10.1007/s40979-021-00075-9 Sambell, K., & Sambell, A. (2019). Developing autonomy via assessment for learning: students’ views of their involvement in self and peer review activities. In C. Bryan & K. Clegg (Eds.), Innovative assessment in higher education. A handbook for academic practitioners (2nd ed., pp. 173–189). Routledge. Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Montgomery, C. (2013). Assessment for learning in higher education. Routledge.

324

E. J. Morris

Sefcik, L., Striepe, M., & Yorke, J. (2020). Mapping the landscape of academic integrity education programs: What approaches are effective? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1604942 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 Smith, C. D., & Baik, C. (2021). High-impact teaching practices in higher education: A best evidence review. Studies in Higher Education, 46(8), 1696–1713. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03075079.2019.1698539 Sotiriadou, P., Logan, D., Daly, A., & Guest, R. (2020). The role of authentic assessment to preserve academic integrity and promote skill development and employability. Studies in Higher Education, 45(11), 2132–2148. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1582015 Sutherland-Smith, W. (2008). Plagiarism, the internet and student learning: Improving academic integrity. Routledge. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). (2017, October 4). Good practice note: addressing contract cheating to safeguard academic integrity. Retrieved September 30, 2022, from https://www.teqsa.gov.au/latest-news/publications/good-practice-noteaddressing-contract-cheating-safeguard-academic Thomas, L. (2020). Excellent outcomes for all students: A whole system approach to widening participation and student success in England. Student Success, 11(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10. 5204/ssj.v11i1.1455 Tindall, I. K., Fu, K. W., Tremayne, K., & Curtis, G. J. (2021). Can negative emotions increase students’ plagiarism and cheating? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(25). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00093-7 Universities Australia. (2017, November). Academic integrity best practice principles. Retrieved September 30, 2022, from https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/ 06/UA-Academic-Integrity-Best-Practice-Principles.pdf Vaccino-Salvadore, S., & Hall Buck, R. (2021). Moving from plagiarism police to integrity coaches: Assisting novice students in understanding the relationship between research and ownership. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(20). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40979-021-00085-7 Vergés Bausili, A. (2018). From piloting e-submission to electronic management of assessment (EMA): Mapping grading journeys. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 463–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12547 Vučković, D., Peković, S., Blečić, M., & Đoković, R. (2020). Attitudes towards cheating behavior during assessing students᾽ performance: Student and teacher perspectives. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 16(13). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-020-00065-3

Walking the Talk: Modelling Integrity as University Professionals as Part of Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Activities

21

Amanda White

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Are We Modelling Integrity for Our Students? And If Not, Why Not? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Approaches to Modelling Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Honesty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fairness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Courage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Examples of Walking the Talk: A Collection of Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Institutional Dedication to Integrity in Teaching and Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Courage to Report Large-Scale Academic Misconduct and Take Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accounting and Accountability: Constructing a Subject with Integrity at Its Core . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

326 326 328 328 329 330 330 331 332 333 333 334 335 338 338

Abstract

Academic integrity is a fundamental building block of scholarship and universities as institutions. However, little attention has been paid to how university teachers can model integrity as part of teaching, learning, and assessment activities. There is the assumption that university teachers will properly attribute the work of others and acknowledge the contributions of colleagues and peers; however, there are multiple factors that may inhibit this process – including the overwork of university teachers, a lack of training in teaching and learning, and an increase in the casualization of the academic workforce. This chapter provides a structured review of how university teachers can embed and model integrity to encourage our students to study and act with integrity. A. White (*) University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_97

325

326

A. White

Keywords

Academic integrity · Professional integrity · Teaching and learning practices

Introduction The academic community has spent many years working on the challenge of academic misconduct – what motivates students? How can we get them to understand why academic integrity is important? How can we teach them how to study with integrity? And what are the options to deal with academic misconduct, academic dishonesty, a breach of academic integrity or cheating (or insert any other of numerous descriptions). However, we have not much as a community examined whether university teachers are walking the talk – are we exhibiting the six fundamental values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage (International Center for Academic Integrity [ICAI], 2021) in our everyday teaching practices? In this chapter, we will examine the reasons why we may not be modelling the same level of scrutiny we apply to our students, and then examine methods and ways in which university teaching academics can better model academic integrity and the six fundamental values and conclude with some case studies of examples of walking the talk.

Are We Modelling Integrity for Our Students? And If Not, Why Not? Plagiarism by academic staff is often in the news. For example, the Vice-Chancellor for Research at the University of North Carolina resigned his position after engaging in plagiarism in a grant application (Basken, 2022). There are also stories related to paper mills that are producing work published in ranked journals (Grove, 2022) and academics who have engaged in a lifetime of research misconduct (Worthington, 2019). There are websites dedicated to identifying research misconduct and keeping a record of retracted papers, and academics who are well known for being human research misconduct detectors, such as Professor Elizabeth Bik (Shen, 2020). Research involves building on the work of others and recognizing that past work through the process of referencing and citations. Why is research integrity important to universities? One of the two main outputs of universities is research and its contribution to the public good – and breaches of research integrity by academics affects the validity of this output as well as the university’s reputation. The damage to a university’s reputation has multiple flow on affects including university rankings (which are often highly weighted towards research outputs), the ability of the institution to attract donors, and the ability of the institution to attract research funding and high-quality academic staff. The other major output of universities is the production of graduates through the provision of teaching and learning to students as part of degree programs. The majority of a university’s revenue comes through student fees – so it is not a trivial service or output of the university. Teaching is also an area where staff build on the work of

21

Walking the Talk: Modelling Integrity as University Professionals as. . .

327

others; however, very little attention is paid towards integrity in the production of teaching and learning materials and experiences. Why is this so? Is it because the teaching and learning materials and experiences are delivered by the university as a whole and therefore individual recognition is not important? Is it because students do not care about where teaching and learning materials come from? Is it because there are no official citation metrics, systems, or repositories related to attribution of teaching and learning materials or experiences, and they do not contribute to university rankings and may not factor strongly in promotion applications? What sort of ways may university teachers be modelling poor academic integrity practices that either undermines their attempts to teach students about how to study with integrity or provide reasons for students to rationalize improper behavior? The following activities are by no means a comprehensive list: • Using slides from textbook publishers and removing attribution information. • Adding images into class materials without any attribution. • Copying and pasting material from external sources without appropriate referencing. • Using the materials of other academics without acknowledgement. • Using exercises or problems from out-of-date textbooks without attribution of the source. • Paying teaching assistants or other staff to create resources and not acknowledging their contribution. • Creating PDFs of material from behind a paywall (such as a newspaper article) and posting it on the Learning Management System. • Marking without providing clear rubrics or assessment criteria. The research in the academic integrity space focuses on how we can improve our students’ understanding of academic integrity, better design assessments to reduce the opportunity for students to engage in academic misconduct. The first handbook on academic integrity provided a rich resource to help improve our understanding of ways to support academic integrity (Bretag, 2016). There have also been evaluations of the various forms of educational models to support academic integrity (Sefcik et al., 2019). However, we have not spent much time considering the practices of university educators in their everyday teaching and learning activities. There are no mentions within the academic literature that this author could find that refer to the issue of plagiarism and integrity in teaching materials. A search using the terms “plagiarism by teachers” only returns one result – a blog piece by a similarity/ plagiarism checking software company (Compilatio, n.d.). One might think that university teachers, many of whom have a doctorate (or other terminal) degree, would have a strong understanding of academic integrity through their extensive research training and as part of the process of publishing scholarly work. However, research indicates that university teachers have little time for professional development related to educational pedagogy and instead focus on obtaining practical knowledge that will help them immediately within the classroom (Silander & Stigmar, 2021). An older study found that 37.3% of respondents to a

328

A. White

survey aimed at Australian university academics had never undertaken training in university teaching (Bexley et al., 2011). With the greater focus on research output and university rankings since that study was undertaken, the exodus of older academics as a result of COVID-19 pandemic-related early retirements or voluntary redundancies as part of cost-cutting measures in the face of declining university revenues – the number of academics without training in university teaching may be higher. In addition, those who remain are feeling overworked, exhausted, and burned out by the significant amount of changes in their work (Reynell van der Ross et al., 2022). In addition to less formal training in education and pedagogy, the tertiary education sector has seen an increase in casualization of the university teaching workforce (Hommel & Hommel, 2020) – having teaching conducted by casual staff rather than permanent staff. One group of researchers has highlighted that McDonalds is likely to provide superior treatment, pay transparency, and employment opportunities to its employees compared to universities (Nadolny & Ryan, 2015).

Approaches to Modelling Integrity In this chapter, it is proposed that university teachers should model academic integrity as professionals, extending past traditional ideas of academic integrity around attribution and acknowledgement. Better modelling of academic and professional integrity for our students might reinforce our lessons on studying with integrity and help to build a greater culture of integrity overall. The following paragraphs will provide a number of examples that may provide inspiration for university teachers. The International Centre for Academic Integrity’s six fundamental values (honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage) are used as a framework for various approaches and activities that will help teachers “walk the talk” and demonstrate professional and academic integrity to their students.

Honesty Meeting the fundamental principle of honesty is likely one of the easiest for university teachers – especially when the ICAI specifies that giving credit to the owner of a work is one way of doing so (International Center for Academic Integrity [ICAI], 2021). Common methods for acknowledgement include: • Referencing source materials including PowerPoint slides provided by commercial textbook publishers. • Understanding copyright in regard to the use of images, text, and other resources. • Using images that are copyright-free from sources such as WikiCommons and copyright-free image websites with clear attribution (which often have one-click attribution tools that allow you to copy and paste the creator’s details into any type of document).

21

Walking the Talk: Modelling Integrity as University Professionals as. . .

329

The ICAI also states that keeping promises is a form of honesty. This can be thought of in relation to unit or subject outlines that state rights and responsibilities of both staff and students. This can include creating clear expectations around when marks and feedback of assessment tasks will be provided to students, along with explanations when you are unable to meet those agreed deadlines.

Trust The second principle, trust, is one that requires two or more parties and is a relationship that is reciprocal. This raises the question – where does trust come from and how is it built? We know that some jobs and brands inherently have trust – doctors, scientists, and teachers are generally highly trusted, while investment bankers and politicians generally are trusted less (Clemence, 2022). This raises the question, where people tend to trust the profession of teachers generally, do students immediately trust their university teachers? Or does trust have to be built over time? Consulting research indicates that Gen Z are much less likely to trust university institutions (Choudaha, 2022). This finding implies that university teachers need to spend time building trust with their cohorts. Huddy (2015) suggests that by mutual sharing and emotional vulnerability, trust can be built in university classrooms between the teacher and the student. Some teachers might be aghast at the idea of being vulnerable with their students; however, there are ways in which teachers can share some of themselves to build trust. Examples include: • Adopting principles related to greater pastoral care (Noddings, 2013), including regular check-ins with students, smaller class sizes and activities to help students get to know their teacher and vice versa. • Playing the game two truths and a lie – teachers share three statements about themselves, and students vote on which is the lie. This can help students understand more about their teachers and what activities they may engage in outside the classroom. • Using a weekly polling question about preferences – for example, favorite type of chocolate, preferred beverage, favorite study snack or your ideal vacation. • Using storytelling and personal experiences to convey theoretical content. • Utilize social media (e.g., Instagram, which allows students to follow you, but has no requirement for you to follow them) to share snippets of your life as a teacher and/or researcher and/or administrator. This helps students understand the larger responsibilities you have besides being their teacher and that you engage in a varied range of tasks. • Using language that is student-centered and positions learning in your subject as a collaborative exercise, that teachers will be facilitating learning with students. Rather than “you will be required to complete the following assessment,” it can be rephrased to “we will be learning together to support you in the following assessment.”

330

A. White

The idea of trust has also been linked to the concept of psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999) – if students do not feel safe to take risks by sharing their thoughts, asking questions, and participating in classroom activities, then trust and engagement are unlikely to follow.

Fairness The principle of fairness is built around impartial and rational treatment and applying rules and policies evenly. This means that teachers need to have a clear understanding of university rules, policies, and procedures and that we can demonstrate fairness by explaining how we apply university, faculty or unit/subject rules fairly and equitably across the cohort. Examples of how we can model fairness for our students includes: • Explaining rules and policies and also working through scenarios of consequences when rules and policies are not followed. This may be related to academic integrity policies, or other areas such as in which situations students may receive an extension or special consideration. Exercises that involve active learning and collaborative discussion are best to help embed these lessons rather than referring students to websites that contain potentially confusing and unclear university jargon. • When errors are made in an assessment or marking – own up to the mistake, design a remedy that is equitable and fair, and clearly explain that to the class. The desire to be superhuman and infallible as a teacher, or to maintain a position of superiority over the class does not encourage trust. Everyone makes mistakes, and as teachers, we understand mistakes are part of the learning process. • Follow institutional protocols when students breach integrity rules – for example, teachers should not levy a 0 mark when a student breaches an integrity rule rather than follow institutional processes which are implemented to ensure procedural fairness. The student communication network is always more efficient than university teachers can imagine – through WhatsApp or WeChat groups, discord servers, or other social media groups. News related to unfair treatment may spread and hamper efforts to build trust, psychological safety, and respectful relationships with students.

Respect The ICAI states that respect is about tackling challenges while maintaining your values – and where there is disagreement, to actively listen and receive feedback openly (ICAI, 2021). When it comes to teaching, the idea of feedback is one where we can model respect for our students. Teachers provide feedback to students on assessments, and we receive feedback in end-of-term anonymous feedback surveys – but these often do not help students in the semester they are taking the subject.

21

Walking the Talk: Modelling Integrity as University Professionals as. . .

331

There are multiple methods by which feedback can be received about teaching, learning, and assessment: • An anonymous comment box or discussion forum within the learning management system. • Using a live interactive polling tool to ask students about their experiences within the unit/subject so far. • Focus groups led by an independent teacher. It is important that the unit/subject coordinator or teachers within the subject do not lead focus groups about student feedback – students are more likely to be honest when it is an independent facilitator. • Electing a group of student representatives for a degree program who meet with university teachers to provide feedback on units/subjects and/or degrees. Providing frequent opportunities to receive feedback and showing students how you deal with feedback provided by students helps develop respect and mutual trust. Low student response rates to feedback surveys may be indicative of the perception that their feedback does not matter and is ignored. Small adjustments may be made to classes, or explanations can be provided as to why certain changes cannot or will not be made. This honesty helps students understand that teachers respect their feedback and encourages them to respect the feedback teachers provide to them – whether that be about assessment, classroom behavior, or academic integrity.

Responsibility Accountability and responsibility go hand in hand. University teachers are responsible for implementing and maintaining academic integrity through the process of detection, investigation, and reporting of suspected cases. Within universities, teachers are accountable to department heads, faculty, and university management. Student participation within governance structures exist – students are able to be elected to positions on faculty and university committees – however, these activities are focused on governance and responsibility at a higher level. Committees to review or ratify student results ask teachers to explain their grade distributions to peers – but not to the student body. Should teachers be accountable to their students? And if the answer is “yes,” how can we model this accountability as part of our responsibility in modelling professional integrity? Transparency is one option – sharing information about teaching and learning with students. Opportunities to provide transparency and accountability include: • Providing descriptive statistics about assessment results. • Providing feedback against a prereleased marking rubric to students. • Providing a drop-in session where students can query how their assessment was marked.

332

A. White

• Providing qualitative feedback from assessment markers in a group fashion – for example, the common things students did well and the most frequent mistakes. • Providing comparison data of grade distributions for final unit/subject results and comparisons to past semesters or cohorts. • Encourage students to identify any instances within your course materials where you have not followed integrity rules – proving that you are being held to the same standards that you expect of students. • Providing students with clear information and status updates about any integrity or misconduct matters that are underway. Another area of responsibility and accountability that universities may wish to consider is related to academic integrity and misconduct case statistics reporting. In Australia, universities may be required to provide information to the government regulatory agency Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) relating to policies and procedures to ensure academic integrity and also the number and types of academic misconduct (TEQSA, 2019). However, there are no requirements for publication of the academic misconduct statistics in any public way in many jurisdictions. In others, university or government policies or regulations may mandate reporting related to academic misconduct. Releasing such information has significant advantages – including an understanding of the number of cases found at institutions – but also disadvantages including unfavorable news content and the potential for the reporting of less cases by university teachers to manage statistics downwards. An increasing number of cases could be perceived as both students engaging in misconduct to a greater extent, as well as a greater level of effort by teachers to detect misconduct. When considering responsibility – universities should also consider their responsibilities to teachers. This can be implemented in a number of ways including: • Providing paid time for casual teachers to investigate and deal with integrity and misconduct-related matters. • Providing sufficient institutional administrative support to teachers lodging allegations of misconduct to ensure cases are resolved in reasonable time frames. This is difficult given the financial strain universities were placed under as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic which resulted in job losses in both faculty/academic and professional ranks. • Allowing academics to opt-in to a process that would exclude student evaluations or feedback from those who found to have engaged in misconduct or are under investigation for misconduct. This would encourage academics to report potential misconduct without fear of retribution from the student.

Courage The fundamental values guide developed by the ICAI describe courage as “the capacity to act in accordance with one’s values despite fear” (ICAI, 2021, p. 10). How does one do this as a teacher? To act with courage, teachers need to feel

21

Walking the Talk: Modelling Integrity as University Professionals as. . .

333

supported by their peers, faculty, and university and have a sufficient understanding of university policies and procedures and educational pedagogy to stand by decisions related to student learning. This can be difficult when having courage may mean engaging in unpopular behavior that may result in low student evaluation scores and complaints to university management. Such scores are often used in applications for permanent positions, promotion, or tenure. Misconceptions about student evaluations, such as poor scores imply poor teaching, may result in teachers being more apprehensive about acting with courage for fear of retaliation and its flow on effects. One area in which this especially applies to academic integrity is the reporting of academic or professional misconduct by teachers. Hamilton and Wolsky (2022) provide a comprehensive analysis of the factors affecting teacher propensity to report instances of misconduct – time, knowledge, support, and fear. In addition to these factors, Prentice (2020) raises the importance of the negative emotions associated with academic misconduct – the betrayal when students cheat, and the emotional trauma of long drawn out formal proceedings for misconduct. It is no wonder that teachers may not feel very courageous when it comes to reporting suspected misconduct by students. A final area where university teachers can model integrity (especially professional) is in the calling out or calling in of inappropriate behavior by colleagues to foster a culture of ethics and integrity.

Examples of Walking the Talk: A Collection of Case Studies The following section explores examples of both institutions and individuals who are leading with integrity in relation to teaching and learning activities.

Institutional Dedication to Integrity in Teaching and Learning As part of the research for this chapter, a review of the websites of the 43 universities in Australia was conducted to determine whether the information provided to the university community about academic integrity covered teachers and teaching, not just students and their assessments. Eight universities (18.6% of n ¼ 43) include teachers and/or teaching in their public website materials related to academic integrity. This chapter explains the importance of academic integrity in building a professional identity that is embedded with integrity. Ten universities (23.2%) included reference to the development or linkage of academic integrity and professional integrity. Only one of the ten overlapped with institutions that mentioned that integrity was important for teachers as well. Four of the ten universities mentioning the relevance of integrity to professional and career development also drew a clear link between academic integrity and personal integrity and/or ethics. This is depicted in Fig. 1:

334

A. White

Fig. 1 Summary of references to teachers/ teaching, professional integrity, and personal morals or ethics in Australian universities academic integrity webpages

Some examples of how universities include teachers and/or teaching in their website materials is provided in Table 1. There is a high proportion of Australian universities not stating that academic integrity is important for teachers as well as students. The linkage of academic integrity to professionalism is one way in which to engage students with academic integrity and improve their understanding of academic integrity. This has long been the case in legal education – as lawyers, as well as law students, are likely to be faced with many challenges to their ethics and integrity and therefore the development of a law students’ professional identity is linked to integrity, including academic (James, 2016). It makes logical sense to consider expanding university materials to include an emphasis on professional identity. Table 2 provides samples from the universities that do refer to professional integrity in their academic integrity materials online.

The Courage to Report Large-Scale Academic Misconduct and Take Action White (2020) reported on the creation of an open-access board game to improve student understanding with academic integrity. The incident that drove the creation of the board game was large-scale academic misconduct by 17% (55 students) of the cohort in the author’s final year undergraduate accounting subject. The emotions experienced by the author certainly spanned those mentioned in Prentice (2020) – anger, despair, disappointment. A senior colleague was consulted, and the academic was asked very carefully to consider whether raising formal misconduct allegations was appropriate given the extremely large amount of additional labor required to

21

Walking the Talk: Modelling Integrity as University Professionals as. . .

335

Table 1 Examples of the inclusion of teachers and/or teaching in academic integrity statements University Charles Sturt University

University of Wollongong

James Cook University

Queensland University of Technology

University of South Australia

Example “Academic integrity is the expectation that teachers, students, researchers and all members of the academic community act with: Honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility.” (emphasis added) (Charles Sturt University, n.d.) “At UOW we understand that academic integrity is not just an issue that impacts students. We recognise that it is fundamental to the work of the whole academic community, including students, teachers, researchers, coordinators and administrators.” (emphasis added) (University of Wollongong, n.d.) “Academic integrity is the commitment to act ethically, with honesty, respect and fairness in creating and communicating information in an academic environment. This applies to both staff and students.” (emphasis added) (James Cook University, n.d.) “At QUT, we are committed to creating and fostering an environment that encourages and rewards academic honesty, and ensuring that you have clear guidance and assistance so you can follow the principles of academic integrity. This means that both staff and students are expected to exhibit honesty, respect, fairness and trust, and act in a responsible manner when undertaking academic activities.” (emphasis added) (Queensland University of Technology, n.d.) “These values guide the behaviour of everyone in the academic world, including students, teachers and scholars.” (emphasis added) (University of South Australia, n.d.)

prepare the allegations (over 200 hours of work on top of the academic’s regular workload and where no assistance was able to be provided), the potential impact on end of semester student evaluations, and the potentially long and drawn out institutional processes for misconduct cases without the guarantee of a penalty against the affected students. Advice was provided to award the students a zero mark and to inform them that if they would like to appeal, a formal allegation of misconduct would be lodged with the institution. The author went on to proceed with lodging 55 allegations of misconduct, of which all were upheld, but she experienced significant emotional and physical stress during the process. End-of-semester student evaluations were severely affected, as institutional policy did not allow for students who had allegations of misconduct pending to have their responses be excluded from survey reporting. This case is an example of courage as the teacher persisted with reporting the cases of misconduct in the face of significant adversity.

Accounting and Accountability: Constructing a Subject with Integrity at Its Core The University of Technology Sydney (UTS) requires all Bachelor of Business students to complete a subject called Accounting and Accountability – called

336

A. White

Table 2 Examples relating academic integrity to professional and personal integrity University Example University of Technology “At UTS, academic integrity is part of our core values as a university Sydney and we see academic integrity and professional integrity as closely linked” (University of Technology Sydney, n.d.) Western Sydney “Academic integrity gives you a foundation for being an ethical University citizen and a trusted worker in whatever context you find yourself in. Acting unethically could get you into trouble, both in university and your later professional life.” (Western Sydney University, n.d.) Bond University “Bond University is committed to ensuring that you are equipped with the tools and knowledge necessary to be highly successful in your studies and your career. Academic integrity is central to this because it safeguards professional competence and promotes ethical occupational behaviour.” (Bond University, n.d.) University of Queensland “Academic integrity forms a central part of your intellectual and personal development. It teaches you how to uphold values, develop proper skills in research, thinking and writing, and how to conduct yourself in an ethical manner. These are lifelong skills that will serve you well in your future life and career.” (University of Queensland, n.d.) University of Southern “Academic integrity matters – Producing your own work, to the best Queensland of your ability means you have demonstrated what you have learnt and you have earned your qualifications. This will help you navigate opportunities and challenges in the workplace and succeed as a professional in your chosen career.” (University of Southern Queensland, n.d.) Swinburne University of “Acting with integrity enables you to become a confident, capable Technology graduate with skills and capabilities that are valued by others as you emerge as a young professional.” (Swinburne University of Technology, n.d.) University of Melbourne “Academic integrity goes beyond the policing of university assessment and is part of a graduate’s formation as a professional, underpinning their behaviour in the workplace, and reflecting on their personal honesty and integrity in all aspects of life.” (The University of Melbourne, n.d.)

AAA for short by the students and teachers (subject number 22108). While it focuses on teaching students introductory accounting, the subject was designed to embed integrity within all facets of its construction and delivery. The table below provides examples of how integrity, through the six fundamental values, are embedded. Fundamental principle Honesty

Example The subject uses an open education resource textbook which has been adapted from an existing US text that has creative commons licensing. All images contain appropriate attributions and alternative text (for accessibility). The online textbook and audiobook also contains acknowledgments of the source text authors and units within the university that provided financial support. A head teaching assistant prepares the weekly problems that students attempt during tutorials and her work is acknowledged in the digital files provided to students. (continued)

21

Walking the Talk: Modelling Integrity as University Professionals as. . .

Fundamental principle Trust

Fairness

Respect

Responsibility

337

Example The teaching team (consisting of one permanent full-time academic and anywhere between 5 and 15 teaching assistants/casual tutors) builds trust with students through the use of recurring games to get to know a little more about the teacher for the workshop or tutorial (as previously described in this chapter). Communications with students always open with a comment or question related to the student’s well-being and end with an offer to provide the student with or direct them to additional support. Teachers were chosen for the team because of their commitment to a pedagogy of care (Noddings, 2013) and a desire to connect and form relationships with students. Students engage in hands-on learning activities in workshops to help them better understand university policies and rules and the consequences of not following the rules. This includes academic integrity activities that provide general education as well as specific support related to the assessments within the subject. Where the lecturer makes a mistake in an auto-graded quiz, or students query the teacher’s solution – an open discussion is facilitated in the class and additional marks can be provided to students. The outcome of this discussion is documented for all students to see. The learning materials were designed using principles of universal design for learning to ensure that access to learning is equitable. The lecturer acknowledges publicly within classes that learning takes place in many ways and neurodivergent students may find it useful to stand up, move about the room, take breaks to learn in a way that best suits them and there is no requirement to engage in a particular way. The lecturer shows respect to students by accepting that when requesting extensions of less than 1 week, students are telling the truth and that evidence is not usually required. A sentiment check is conducted every week at the end of class that allow the lecturer to know whether students are understanding the material, feel comfortable to ask questions (psychological safety), and understand how the learning activities relate to the subject and assessments. An anonymous comment box is available for every topic in the course. At the beginning of each week, any feedback received is addressed. Changes that have been made are clearly conveyed to students and any feedback that cannot or will not be actioned is explained. Connected to fairness, the lecturer takes responsibility for errors or confusion in class activities or assessments and provides clear descriptions for any remedies that will be implemented. Where students have displayed inappropriate behavior (such as sexual or other inappropriate comments made using anonymous online interactive and polling tools) – rather than ignore the behavior – it is called out and a discussion related to professionalism is facilitated. Students are provided with an individual, personalized breakdown of their final marks. This includes their performance on individual final exam questions. The teaching team also provides a comprehensive review document for the final exam that provides histograms of the marks awarded for each question and feedback from the exam markers of what students did well and common mistakes. Grade distributions are also provided. Students can use this information to evaluate their own performance against the performance of the cohort before making any queries to the teacher. (continued)

338

Fundamental principle Courage

A. White

Example As described above, inappropriate behavior is called out and discussed immediately. Upon discussion with colleagues, it was identified that this is not a common strategy – with most simply deleting the offending comment and ignoring the issue so as not to encourage the students to continue such behavior. The subject also integrates mental health as a topic within curriculum and regular discussions relating to supporting mental Well-being.

What is the impact of this commitment to integrity? In combination with highquality teaching resources, AAA receives the highest student satisfaction ratings across all large (300+ student cohort size) subjects within the UTS Business School with comments such as “this is the first subject where my feedback was taken on board and a change was made straight away to help students.”

Conclusion While universities and teachers must continue our work to educate students about how to study with integrity, and support colleagues to enforce academic integrity standards – it is also critical for us to “walk the talk” and embed the six fundamental values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage in a broader way. This can be through an expansion of our description of academic integrity to include teachers and teaching materials, and also emphasize the linkage of academic integrity to professional and personal integrity. There also needs to be support for teachers within universities to embed the six fundamental values, as asking teachers to do even more, without support or relief from other tasks, reduces the chance of walking with integrity as university professionals.

References Basken, P. (2022). UNC research chief steps down over plagiarism charge. Times Higher Education, 11 March, available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/unc-research-chiefsteps-down-over-plagiarism-charge. Accessed 30 Sept 2022. Bexley, E., James, R., & Arkoudis, S. (2011). The Australian academic profession in transition: An alternative futures interpretation. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-245-7. Bond University. (n.d.). Why is academic integrity important. Bretag, T. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of academic integrity. Springer. available at: https://www. springer.com/gp/book/9789812870971. Accessed 28 June 2019 Charles Sturt University. (n.d.). Academic Integrity. Available at: https://www.csu.edu.au/currentstudents/your-course/course-essentials/subject-enrolment/types-of-subjects/academic-integ rity. Accessed 30 Sept 2022. Choudaha, R. (2022). Americans’ Most Trusted Universities, and the Need to Bridge Gaps in Public Trust”. Morning Consult. Available at: https://morningconsult.com/2022/08/02/most-trusteduniversities-gaps-public-trust/. Accessed 30 Sept 2022.

21

Walking the Talk: Modelling Integrity as University Professionals as. . .

339

Clemence, M. (2022). Doctors and scientists are seen as the world’s most trustworthy professions. Ipsos. Available at https://www.ipsos.com/en/global-trustworthiness-index-2022. Accessed 30 Sept 2022. Compilatio. (n.d.). Plagiarism among teachers: a practice that has been ignored. Available at: https:// www.compilatio.net/en/blog/plagiarism-among-teachers. Accessed 30 Sept 2022. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. Grove, J. (2022). Academic fraud factories are booming, warns plagiarism sleuth. Times Higher Education, 19 January, available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/academicfraud-factories-are-booming-warns-plagiarism-sleuth. Accessed 30 Sept 2022. Hamilton, M., & Wolsky, K. (2022). The barriers to faculty reporting incidences of academic misconduct at community colleges. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge (pp. 467–485). Springer. Hommel, M. J., & Hommel, U. (2020). Casualisation in HE is good for business: Get over it. University World News. Available at: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php? story¼20201211110620766. Accessed 30 Sept 2022. Huddy, S. (2015). Vulnerability in the classroom: Instructor’s ability to build trust impacts the student’s learning experience. International Journal of Education Research, 10(2), 96–104. International Center for Academic Integrity [ICAI]. (2021). The fundamental values of academic integrity, Third. Available at: https://academicintegrity.org/images/pdfs/20019_ICAI-Funda mental-Values_R12.pdf James, C. (2016). Academic integrity in legal education. Handbook of Academic Integrity, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_44 James Cook University. (n.d.). Academic Integrity. Available at: https://www.jcu.edu.au/students/ learningcentre/academic-integrity. Accessed 30 Sept 2022. Nadolny, A., & Ryan, S. (2015). McUniversities revisited: A comparison of university and McDonald’s casual employee experiences in Australia. Studies in Higher Education Routledge, 40(1), 142–157. Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral education (2nd ed.). University of California Press. Prentice, F. (2020). Impediments to reporting contract cheating: Exploring the role of emotions. In T. Bretag (Ed.), A research agenda for academic integrity (pp. 69–85). Edward Elgar Publishing. Queensland University of Technology. (n.d.). What is academic integrity at QUT. Reynell van der Ross, M., Olckers, C., & Schaap, P. (2022). Engagement of academic staff amidst COVID-19: The role of perceived organisational support, Burnout risk, and lack of reciprocity as psychological conditions. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1–17. Sefcik, L., Striepe, M., & Yorke, J. (2019). Mapping the landscape of academic integrity education programs: What approaches are effective? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(1), 30–43. Shen, H. (2020). Meet this super-spotter of duplicated images in science papers. Nature. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01363-z. Accessed 30 Sept 2022. Silander, C., & Stigmar, M. (2021). What university teachers need to know – Perceptions of course content in higher education pedagogical courses. International Journal for Academic Development, Routledge, 00(00), 1–14. Swinburne University of Technology. (n.d.). Academic Integrity. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. (2019). Guidance Note: Academic Integrity, Version 1.2. Available at: https://www.teqsa.gov.au/latest-news/publications/guidance-noteacademic-integrity. Accessed 30 Sept 2022. The University of Melbourne. (n.d.). The importance of academic integrity. Available at: https:// academicintegrity.unimelb.edu.au. Accessed 30 Sept 2022.

340

A. White

University of Queensland. (n.d.). Academic integrity and student conduct. Available at: https://my. uq.edu.au/information-and-services/manage-my-program/student-integrity-and-conduct/aca demic-integrity-and-student-conduct. Accessed 30 Sept 2022. University of South Australia. (n.d.). Academic Integrity Module: What is Academic Integrity. University of Southern Queensland. (n.d.). Academic Integrity for UniSQ students: What is academic integrity. Available at: https://www.unisq.edu.au/current-students/academic/aca demic-integrity Accessed 30 Sept 2022. University of Technology Sydney. (n.d.). Academic Integrity. University of Wollongong. (n.d.). Why is academic integrity so important?. Available at: https://www. uow.edu.au/about/governance/academic-integrity/teachers/importance/. Accessed 30 Sept 2022. Western Sydney University. (n.d.). What is Academic Integrity?. Available at: https://www. westernsydney.edu.au/studysmart/home/study_with_integrity/what_is_it. Accessed 30 Sept 2022. White, A. (2020). Interactive approaches to learning about academic integrity: The role of fun and games (pp. 86–99). A Research Agenda for Academic Integrity, Edward Elgar Publishing. Worthington, E. (2019). Swinburne university researcher has 30 papers retratcted, loses job. ABC News, 26 October.

Grading Standards in Higher Education: Trends, Context, and Prognosis

22

Gigi Foster

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why Do We Grade? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions and Recent Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The COVID Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Is Grade Inflation a Threat? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why We Might Not Worry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why We Might Worry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Core Supporting Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social and Economic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Political Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Macro-behavioral View of the Tertiary Education Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Upshot for Grading Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prognosis and Policy Prescriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

342 342 343 345 347 347 347 349 349 350 351 354 354 356 356 356

Abstract

Concerns about diluted grading standards in higher education have been an easy conversation starter over the past 30 years in developed Western nations. Why have these concerns arisen? Are they well founded? If real, does grade inflation present a threat to the higher education sector or to scientific progress – and if so, why? What is the prognosis for grading standards in the future? This chapter surveys the existing evidence about the phenomenon of grade inflation in Western universities and then discusses the underlying socioeconomic and political factors that lead to it, for what reasons it might be considered a problem, and what might

G. Foster (*) University of New South Wales, School of Economics, Sydney, NSW, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_48

341

342

G. Foster

be done about it if one does consider it a problem. A macro-behavioral view of the motivations and interactions of the parties involved (governments, universities, students, and academics) is employed to analyze the issue and suggest responses. Keywords

University standards · Grade inflation · Pass/fail · Dilution

Introduction As early as 40 years ago, documented upward trends in grades over time were being used to raise the specter of widespread grade inflation in Western higher education (e.g., Etzioni, 1975; Kolevzon, 1981). These concerns blossomed over the ensuing decades, giving rise to a veritable cottage industry in the education literature that continued to document and loudly condemn observed increases in average grades within and across higher education institutions. This chapter reviews the evidence of undergraduate grade inflation in Western countries, discusses their sources in terms of broad social and economic changes, and offers recommendations about how one might respond to these trends.

Why Do We Grade? Academics have adopted the convention of grading students’ work on a universally understood scale of quality as a gatekeeping device. Students with high enough grades relative to their peers are judged as having “academic potential,” and some will further their studies and become the next generation of academics. The intensive training of new researchers then enables the propagation of academic ideals. Undergraduate grades are hence used by academics in decisions about whom to admit into postgraduate programs, send on exchange programs, fund via merit scholarships, and hire as research and teaching assistants. The grades that result from this academic gatekeeping process are also used by government and industry as a selection device, under the assumption that those capabilities that lead a student to produce high grades in tertiary study (e.g., intelligence, motivation, self-discipline, work ethic, and detail orientation) are correlated with, if not identical to, the capabilities that predict success in the nonacademic labor market. Students, and their friends and family, also use grades as a source of third-party feedback on whether they are “cut out” for particular sorts of work. Thus, within and beyond academia, the purpose of grading is to differentiate students from one another, which enables the allocation of young people into positions that suit them, based on their talents, and through this supports long-run productivity and social welfare. Furthermore, by creating a hierarchy, the practice of grading arguably stimulates competition among students, motivating them to work harder to get ahead of others.

22

Grading Standards in Higher Education: Trends, Context, and Prognosis

343

Definitions and Recent Trends There is a distinction between trends in earned grades and bona fide grade inflation. Bona fide grade inflation is involved when grading standards decline (i.e., when work of a given objective quality standard is awarded a higher grade today than it was in the past). Therefore, grade inflation does not occur when grades rise commensurately with the quality of student work. However, there is no perfect measure of the objective quality of academic work. Thus, there is no foolproof way to determine empirically whether changes in grade distributions are indicative of grade inflation or are reflective of changes in the underlying distribution of academic quality. Grade inflation is more likely to be signaled by rising grades than by flat or falling grades, but grade increases by themselves do not necessarily imply the existence of reductions in grading standards. Has overall academic quality increased over the past 40 years? Previous research has found increases in measured intelligence scores since intelligence testing began in the early to mid-1900s (the “Flynn effect”; see Neisser et al., 1996), although previously steady score increases have slowed or reversed in some Western countries (Bratsberg & Rogeberg, 2018; Dutton & Lynn, 2013; Sundet et al., 2004). Even if the timing of increases in intelligence scores matched the timing of observed grade increases, it is unclear whether increases in intelligence test scores actually translate into increases in the ability of the student population in Western countries to deliver high-quality academic work. In response to calls by the US Department of Education for greater accountability in higher education, a series of white papers by the Educational Testing Service (Dwyer et al., 2006; Millett et al., 2007, 2008) is littered with lamentations about the dearth of reliable and valid measurement of student achievement in higher education programs. Suggestive evidence about trends in student achievement over time could be derived from a careful comparison of the quality of undergraduate essays or other academic work across two or three generations, although the influence of changing social, academic, economic, political, and institutional norms on judgments about quality would pose a significant challenge for even a well-executed exercise. Nonetheless, this is a potentially fruitful area of future educational research. The most comprehensive publicly available data across the American university sector is available at gradeinflation.com. This website presents data through 2016 from over 230 four-year colleges and universities, covering more than two million undergraduate students. The data show that average grades in the sampled schools rose. In 1940, the average grade point average (GPA) in the American colleges and universities was 2.4; that figure rose to 2.8 by 1980 and 3.0 by 2000. Grades rose in both private and public 4-year colleges and universities (although grades are higher at private schools than at public schools) and both outside and inside the Ivy League (gradeinflation.com; Rojstaczer & Healy, 2010): Rising grades were seen sectorwide. However, there is evidence that grade increases have not been observed at lesser-status institutions, such as community colleges in the United States (gradeinflation.com). Popov and Bernhardt (2013) independently analyzed these data going back to 1960 and developed a model based on the link between

344

G. Foster

universities and the labor market in which employers attempt to discern true graduate quality based on the noisy signals of “institution the graduate attended” and “average grades the graduate earned.” The model could explain the more extreme rise in grades seen at higher-status institutions. The implication is that as the link between universities and the labor market strengthened, the pressure towards grade inflation increased. Other studies have documented similar trends. Rosovsky and Hartley (2002) reviewed an array of evidence drawn from across the US higher education sector documenting increases in undergraduate grades starting in the mid-1960s. These authors suggested, among other interpretations, that faculty began inflating grades during the Vietnam War to help students avoid the draft. A number of detailed institutional case studies, including Kezim et al. (2005), suggested that grade inflation exhibited a linear trend within a given institution in the American Northeast over a 20-year period in the late 1900s and that adjunct (vs tenured) faculty awarded higher grades. If this is true, then the casualization of the academic workforce (see also Dobbie & Robinson, 2008) may be a contributing factor in recent upward trends in grades. More recently, an NBER working paper (Denning et al. April 2021) found that college graduation rates increased from the 1990s through 2010, and that this increase is mostly explained by the observed increase in student GPAs over the period. Moreover, after exploring alternative explanations for the observed rising GPAs (e.g., changes in student or institutional characteristics), the authors concluded that the principal cause was grade inflation. Similar trends have been observed in other countries and have often been accompanied by the concern that grades today convey less information about student quality than they once did. In Germany, the head of the German Council of Science and Humanities stated, “the grades which students currently receive say almost nothing meaningful about their real achievement” (The Local, 2012). In Britain, the prevalence of first-class degrees has been increasing according to data published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA, https://www.hesa.ac.uk/) and the higher education watchdog, Office for Students (OfS, https://www.officeforstudents. org.uk/). In 2012, the CEO of the Association of Graduate Recruiters in the UK opined in the UK Telegraph, in reference to HESA data, that “[o]ver the past decade, employers have become less confident that the degree class in itself tells them what they need to know” (Paton, 2012). Still, some authors have disputed the conclusion that grade inflation explains the award of an increasing number of better grades in the UK, suggesting that unmeasured improvements in higher education might be able to explain the rise in grades (Jephcote et al., 2021). In Australia, the convention is to use a far larger range of numbers in judging student performance than is used in other countries. Academics in Australia use the full range of numbers from 50 to 100 to denote passage of a course, with successive ranges of “marks” associated with different “grades” (e.g., a mark between 50 and 65 is considered a “pass,” whereas one between 85 and 100 is considered a “high distinction”); and it is quite rare for a student to be awarded a mark above 90. Average course marks are typically in the 60s or 70s, depending on the course. This

22

Grading Standards in Higher Education: Trends, Context, and Prognosis

345

by itself means that undergraduate students from Australia seeking postgraduate positions in the United States are vulnerable to inaccurate judgments by admissions officers who wrongly assume that scores in the exceptional range by Australian conventions in fact denote average performance. One might think that this difference in grading conventions indicates a resistance in Australia to global grading trends, but we are missing recent representative data about grade distributions in Australia over time using which this hypothesis could be evaluated. The best evidence yet produced in regard to grade distributions in Australian universities has used variation not over time, but in the concentrations of international and non-English language speaking students in different courses. These students often struggle with English and with the need to adapt to Western academic conventions. Focusing on this source of variation and using data from two Australian universities’ business faculties over 3 years, Foster (2012) finds that the presence of more international and non-English language speaking students in a course, controlling for available measures of student ability, is associated with higher grades in that course. She conjectures that this is at least partly due to pressure on teachers to preserve grade distributions across courses and time, a phenomenon which – if the quality of the student cohort does not decline – would work against the emergence of grade inflation in Australia over time. Further research is needed to document whether sector-wide grade inflation exists in Australia, and if so, the extent to which the increase in enrollments by international full-fee paying students in Australian universities over the past generation has contributed to it.

The COVID Effect The COVID outbreak and the policy countermeasures that it precipitated around the world brought several of the themes discussed above into stark relief, accentuating prior trends. One of these is the aforementioned bloat in the number of first-class degrees awarded by British universities. By 2019, the last normal academic year before the COVID-19 outbreak, the UK OfS reported that 29.5% of students graduated with a first-class degree, up from 15.7% in 2010/11. Moreover, almost half of the 2019 “firsts” could not have been predicted by various performance measures (Woolcock, 2020). The situation became even more acute by 2020/21, when 37.9% of students graduated with first-class degrees, and again half of these could not be explained (OfS, 2022). In the first year of the pandemic, British universities adopted a “no detriment” policy, meaning that each student was almost guaranteed a final grade at least as good as the most recent assessment of them by their university (QAA, 2020). This policy was no longer in place in 2021, but testing conditions were generally easier for students than pre-pandemic, with online and open-book exams, and with flexible and extended exam times. The implied grade inflation resulted in a public uproar and, by mid-2022, Universities UK was publicly committing to returning the number of first-class and “2.1” degrees to their pre-pandemic levels by 2023 (Lough, 2022).

346

G. Foster

The experience was similar in other countries. For example, Brown University, an Ivy League university in the US, reported that 67% of its grades in 2020/21 were “A”s compared with just 39% in 1993 and 57% in 2018/19. This represented an exacerbation of existing concerns: the university President told the campus newspaper as early as 2014 that the proportion of students getting “A”s was “too high for comfort” (Gelb-Bicknell, 2022). Grade inflation was also evident at Canadian universities in which pass/fail systems were introduced during the pandemic (Bains, 2020). A pass-fail policy was also followed in many US institutions as part of addressing COVID policy disruptions in the spring term of 2020 (Burke, 2020). In both the UK and the USA, among other Western countries, an additional issue was pushed to the forefront during the pandemic: changes in the way that high school graduates were assessed for university places. In the UK, grade inflation in university application exams (“A-levels”) was evident, with 38.5% receiving top grades in 2020 compared with 25.2% in 2019. This caused a boom in applications to elite universities, which reacted by limiting the number of places they offered. In 2021, A-level exams were simply canceled, and grades were awarded according to teacher evaluations. Accordingly, the number of top grades swelled to 44.8% (Finn et al., 2022). In the United States, many universities adopted an “SAT-optional” policy for evaluating undergraduate applicants, including Harvard, which extended this policy through 2026 (Harvard University, 2022). Some universities have repudiated standardized admissions tests even more assertively, with the University of California system a standout example: its institutions will no longer consider test scores even if students submit them (University of California, 2022). Other higher education institutions, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, reinstated SAT and ACT admission requirements promptly in 2022 (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2022). The landscape of US undergraduate university admissions office attitudes towards traditional standardized testing now runs the gamut from “don’t want” through to “must have.” In Australia, concerns that university admissions standards had fallen abruptly as a result of pandemic policies were more muted except in New South Wales, where concerns were raised that the International Baccalaureate exam administered only at private schools was subject to generous marking, giving privileged students an advantage in university admissions over their public-school peers (Baker, 2022). Suspected grade inflation during the COVID era has prompted something of a backlash, particularly in the UK, where the higher education watchdog (i.e., OfS) has warned universities that they will be under more scrutiny regarding grading standards (Daily Mail, 2021) and universities have responded by committing to a return to pre-pandemic grade distribution. Thus, the sharp decline in grading standards that occurred during the COVID era may be partially arrested going forward, with a possible return to 2019 levels and trends within the next few years. Even if this occurs, events of the COVID era will produce a pocket of low grading standards that the transcripts of students who found themselves in upper high school and university programs in 2020–2022 will carry permanently.

22

Grading Standards in Higher Education: Trends, Context, and Prognosis

347

Is Grade Inflation a Threat? Many authors who have documented grade increases write in strongly normative tones, expressing distress at the phenomenon of falling standards. Only infrequently are these concerns explicitly justified. Instead, it is often taken for granted that the reader agrees that falling grading standards, indicated by rising grades, would represent a serious problem. What scares us about the specter of grade inflation? Are our fears justified?

Why We Might Not Worry One might argue that like monetary inflation, grade inflation is only a problem when the rate of inflation is very steep or is different for different groups of students. If the same rate of inflation is afflicting the grades of all students gradually, and causes no changes in the student ranking, then everyone affected has time to adjust to the increasing grades. Then following the analogue with monetary inflation, the effect of gradual and ubiquitous grade inflation would be equivalent to what would happen if we issued a new currency. In a stable state, with impunity, we could decree that what was $2 is now $1, and so with grades in a stable university sector, where what was once an F is now a D and what was once a B is now an A. Indeed, the universities of countries with strongly differing grading conventions regularly perform these types of “currency exchanges” when transferring grades across borders for students studying abroad. As discussed above, in Australia, grades above 90% in undergraduate courses are rare, and the average is between 60% and 70%, whereas in the US, the average grade is between 80% and 90%. Such cross-country differences in the meaning of grades are simply treated by academic program directors worldwide as differences in the values of the currencies being used. Why then should gradual shifting of the entire distribution worldwide be seen as a problem even if underlying student quality has not changed commensurately? Some have argued that grade inflation is a good thing because it narrows the gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, because grades in STEM subjects are typically lower than grades in other subjects, and women are more likely to quit areas of study in which they do poorly. Others suggest that grade inflation might lead students to persist with their studies to earn their degrees, making them better educated and more valuable to employers (Strauss, 2021).

Why We Might Worry If grade inflation is not uniform across students, then the primary problem from a holistic social perspective is that those who use grades as a signaling device for the acquisition of knowledge and skills will be unable to adjust their expectations

348

G. Foster

appropriately in every case in which a judgment is required, leading to worse decisions about how to allocate students to work. Unanticipated and unrecognized changes in the grading conventions applied to certain groups of students (e.g., defined by country, discipline, level, or institution) over time is highly problematic. There is a secondary problem of perceived unfairness to individual students who are marked differently for work of the same standard, and this has been the main implicit motivation of much work in the education literature surrounding the calibration or benchmarking of academic standards across graders (e.g., Sadler, 2013). These problems can be remedied to some extent via changes to universities’ reporting practices, such as the reporting of a student’s class rank in addition to the grade. Ranking, however, is limited when differentiation cannot be captured among the work of a large number of students receiving an “A,” for example, and this constrains the ability of this method to assist judgment in all settings. Another potential problem of rising grades is the ceiling effect. If grades rise to the point that every student receives the topmost grade, then the grading system becomes unable to deliver on its promise of differentiation. Such a problem can be remedied by redefining grading conventions that are then adopted simultaneously by all graders (akin to the adoption of a new currency in a particular country). However, unlike that case, in which a central bank and the power of the country as a whole are brought to bear on the organization and coordination of the change, there is no one person or leadership group in charge of setting grading standards. Thus, a planned, universal redefinition of grading conventions benevolently designed to escape the ceiling effect will simply not be forthcoming. For these reasons, rising grades are a threat to academia to the extent that they hamper the ability of academics to make good judgments about whom to select for postgraduate positions and scholarships, since it is postgraduate students who will ultimately carry the banner of academia forward into the future. However, there are other ways that academics can compensate for the possibility that undergraduate transcripts may carry less information than they once did. Selection devices such as class ranks, face-to-face interviews, and/or standardized test scores (see Wongsurawat, 2008) or more stringent post-entry requirements for postgraduate programs can be used. As long as additional selection tools are available, academics can (in principle) continue to self-replicate, performing their primary social function of upholding the ideals of intellectual inquiry down the generations. In a similar way, employers can use interviews, additional job-entry requirements, probationary periods in employment contracts, and high-stakes performance reviews for selection judgments. While glancing at a transcript is easier than implementing these measures, employers can continue to follow stricter screening processes than they did a generation ago. Students, however, have the least ability to find substitutes for the signal provided by grades. Their most potent substitute is to carry on in education, entering postgraduate programs, and then use the grades achieved at those higher levels to inform the self-diagnosis function that previously was supported by their undergraduate grades. Indeed, the need of all parties involved for further differentiation mechanisms is arguably the main reason for the proliferation of postgraduate enrollments

22

Grading Standards in Higher Education: Trends, Context, and Prognosis

349

and for the refrain that master’s degrees are “the new bachelor’s” (Pappano, 2011). A further psychosocial problem afflicting students who receive high grades that are more prevalent is reduced student motivation to learn and achieve due to the lower competition for those high grades. Ultimately thus the main long-run consequences of increases in grades are higher workloads for everyone affected – academics, employers, and students. In the short run, student motivation may be reduced, and student-employer matches may be worse.

Core Supporting Elements To provide specific recommendations about how to respond to the phenomenon of rising grades, one needs to understand the broader economic, political, and social environment in which upwardly trending grades have arisen.

Social and Economic Factors At the base of recent changes lie several fundamental realities of modern Western society. Beginning in the latter decades of the twentieth century (1970–2000), the productivity of skilled (vs unskilled) workers began to climb disproportionately, leading to an increasing wage gap between these two groups. This change, itself driven largely by technological innovation (often termed “skill-biased technological change”; see Berman et al., 1998), meant that becoming skilled was increasingly a requirement for an individual to become successful in society. These new social expectations led to increased demand for education beyond secondary school for members of all social classes, but access to information and social power tempered this demand. Less advantaged (vs privileged) children generally have access neither to the information nor to opportunities, including the cultural support and confidence, to believe that they can truly “make it” in life through higher education. However, this dampening force has lost strength over time, as better worldwide communication and transportation infrastructure, and trends towards cross-country cultural convergence, make people all around the world searching for a better life hit upon the possibility of obtaining Western higher education as a pathway to success. Within many Western countries, the second half of the twentieth century also saw a great expansion of national ideals of equality and opportunity for people with diverse characteristics. Segregation and discrimination were attacked more viciously than in prior decades, including via formal legislation and revised university admissions policies. Providing higher education opportunities to people of all backgrounds increasingly became part of the very ideals pursued by Western nation-states, and it came to be seen as a way for people from all walks of life to advance in society. Against the background of these phenomena, which have dramatically pushed up the per capita demand for higher education over the past two generations, is another social force that is crucial in shaping the tertiary education environment. This force is the extreme pressure placed by the academy upon individuals training for an

350

G. Foster

academic position in a particular discipline. This pressure, felt through the long years of slaving to earn a terminal degree followed by the long years slaving to earn tenure, pushes aspiring academics to subjugate their personal whims and morals to the ideals promulgated by the profession. While this socialization process happens in other professions, it is particularly strong in academia, as witnessed by stringent entry requirements and extended periods of training and proving oneself. Once inducted into academia via this lengthy process, a professor typically retains at least some of this conditioning. The ideals typically promulgated by the academic professions, and to which we should therefore expect some personal commitment (or at least lip service) on the part of academics who have “made it,” include such things as hard work, the pursuit of intellectual and scientific progress, service to the broader society, and objectivity in analysis. A final relevant trend in the socioeconomic landscape is that economic inequality has been on the rise for the past few decades in most Western countries. This trend is due partly to continued general skill-biased technological change and partly to a particular brand of it. There are increasing opportunities for individuals to become extremely rich through work in multinational corporations that enjoy unprecedented access to resources in multiple countries, which they can exploit more rapidly and more effectively than in previous decades because of diplomatic and scientific technology. This increased scope and potency of private-sector companies has delivered a rise in overall economic productivity and aggregate wealth but, at the same time, has changed the distribution of that wealth away from the poor and towards the rich. This regressive change, remarked upon recently by Thomas Piketty (2014), is at base an outgrowth of the lack of perfect monitoring by the people of a Western country of the activities of the companies that their country has incorporated. Those in charge of these large companies can take advantage of their favorable economic and political positions to ensure that a disproportionate share of the wealth generated by their companies’ activities flows directly to themselves and their friends. While it may seem removed from changes in grades, this type of “rentseeking” – the funneling of the resources and economic value of a large group to that group’s leaders – is crucially important to the extent that universities and those working within them to influence grading practices are either vulnerable to or themselves engage in this type of behavior. Such dynamics have only worsened during the COVID era (Frijters et al., 2021; Murray & Frijters, 2022).

Political Factors The changes in the social and economic environment over the past two generations have given rise to changes in the political environment as well. First, as already noted, the ideals of equality and equal opportunity have become more strongly woven into the fabric of the modern Western nation-state. This has given rise to initiatives directly promoting the idea that people are all of equal worth, such as the teaching in public schools of revisionist histories that highlight the accomplishments of native peoples, and the creation in universities of whole departments devoted to

22

Grading Standards in Higher Education: Trends, Context, and Prognosis

351

the study of such peoples. In this way, just as academicians are inculcated with academic ideals during their long years of training, the rising generation in modern nation-states is inculcated with the ideal of human equality during their many years in school. The rise of equality ideals has also meant that the government administrators who run the state have increasingly used rhetoric about equality and equal access, even when pursuing programs or initiatives that in reality have little to do with either. This pattern is not unique to the modern age; it is rather the particulars of the rhetoric that are distinctive to our modern society. Moreover, this pattern is not restricted to public sector workers. When any large organization becomes associated with a particular set of ideals, the opportunity is opened for individuals who do not actually share those ideals to advocate the allocation of the organization’s resources towards particular activities in the name of those ideals, even when in reality the connection between the activities and the ideals is tenuous at best. This dynamic is at play even within universities. Political factors relate to economic stress. The Great Recession and its aftermath created economic suffering in many Western nations, with which many governments (the main financiers of education) have had to grapple. In Europe, reduced government expenditure exacerbated the suffering. In the US, where the percentage of GDP collected as taxes was already lower than in any other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country, governmental redistribution of income towards infrastructure, healthcare, education, and other services is relatively low, and private funding of higher education is more prevalent. Australia was viewed as a Great Recession success story, which mainly came on the back of well-timed income redistribution via stimulus checks and subsidies distributed to all citizens (Greenglass et al., 2014). Even in Australia, however, government funding for higher education declined for decades starting in the 1980s (Breen, 2002) and continues to decline (Davis, 2013). Global policy responses to COVID in 2020 created even more widespread economic damage, which is likely to result in further reductions in the government-supported supply of undergraduate education, placing even more pressure on the university sector as it responds to increasing demand. This economic damage, including the future public budgetary support for higher education in Western states, is likely to extend for years (Foster, 2022; Frijters et al., 2021).

A Macro-behavioral View of the Tertiary Education Landscape With the prior framework in mind, what are the main dynamics afflicting universities, students, educators, and governments that underpin the phenomenon of grade inflation? First, the increasing number of young people attending university (see US Department of Education, 2013) has meant that universities with strong reputations that formally or informally require on-campus residency have been unable to absorb their proportionate share of students in the absence of massive, long-term building projects that not all have undertaken. Consequently, admission rates at some of these schools, such as the American Ivy League, have been steadily falling (The Ivy Coach, 2017).

352

G. Foster

If falling admission rates have not been accompanied by significant declines in the applicant pool quality and have been coupled with a concomitant rise in admission standards – such that now only the absolute highest-potential students are offered places at top-quality residential schools – then we might expect average grades to rise mechanically (Weinberg, 2007). However, to the extent that academics aim for fairly similar overall grade distributions from year to year, an increase in average student ability within an institution or even in the population at large (à la the Flynn effect) may be unable to account for radical upward shifts in the grade distribution (Baird & Feister, 1972). A tendency to target similar distributions year by year could be an outgrowth of simple inertia, at either the individual or institutional levels, or a desire to maintain the very differentiation among students that makes grading useful. Furthermore, ability increases from cohort to cohort may simply not have been large enough to explain the upward trends in grades observed within institutions. To this point, in reviewing the research that has examined the relationship between changes over the past 40 years in the measured ability of student cohorts, on the one hand, and changes in average grades, on the other, one analyst remarks, “...student quality increases cannot account for the magnitude of grade [increases] observed. The bulk of grade [increases] at these institutions is due to other factors” (Rojstaczer, 2014). What then are these “other factors?” Most importantly, the increased demand for higher education has meant that the social and economic power of the higher education sector has grown. Seen as the gatekeepers to personal enrichment and a better life, providers of tertiary education are viewed by prospective students and governments as suppliers of highly valued goods. For universities whose activities are funded by private endowments, these endowments and the limited ways in which they can legally be used provide a strong restraint on the ability of profit-hungry people to extract the university’s value for themselves, were they to attain leadership roles within the university. However, many universities cannot rely on private, restricted-use endowments, and must be supported by the state and/or tuition fees. Universities’ consequent increased dependency on market forces arguably threatens the autonomy that has characterized academia for generations. Publicly funded universities are more vulnerable today than in the past not just because of tightening public budgets but because of government initiatives that are described using the required rhetoric about increasing access and fairness, but in fact are the outgrowth of political realities and market forces. Like corporations then, many universities today must sell their “product” to stay afloat, and cannot avoid looking like attractive prospects to those intending to extract the value delivered by the university for their own personal purposes. In the past, these people would have pursued private-sector work but are now attracted to the university sector as a possible route to riches. The gradual corporatizing of university leadership, the attempts by bureaucrats to control academic activities, the increased commodification of university education, universities’ increased expenditure on marketing activities, and the decreased voice of professors in the running of the

22

Grading Standards in Higher Education: Trends, Context, and Prognosis

353

university (e.g., Marginson & Considine, 2000) are outgrowths of the dynamics described above. Adding to these problems is the increased sense of entitlement with which many students arrive at universities, having been exposed as schoolchildren to ideas about equal human value. To be seen as offering a credible product, thereby safeguarding its reputation, the university has typically required a cadre of professors who are seen to be genuinely committed to academic ideals. In the long run, without such a cadre, the university is merely another provider of vocational training rather than as society’s caretaker of intellectual progress. Without having the training and professional identity that their academics possess, corporate university leadership need the services of their academics to continue to run the university as a university. In turn, in this environment, academics are the only ones within the university who have both the means and the incentive to keep grading standards high. Neither the individual student nor the termlimited corporate leaders of the university wish to see students do poorly. Poor grades would be bad for the student individually and would retard the ability of the university to attract ever more fee-paying students, since prospective students will be put off by low graduation rates or low-quality placement of graduates in a job market where everyone’s transcripts are inflated. Among the reasons advanced for grade inflation since the 1980s is that universities’ leaders increasing base remuneration, promotion, tenure, and other decisions affecting academic staff partly on student evaluations, which puts pressure on teachers to “go easy” on students (Stroebe, 2016). Perhaps a surprising ally of academics in their desire to control grade inflation is prospective employers, who have no stake in the personal outcomes of students but do have, like academics, clear reasons for preserving the signaling quality of transcripts. Employers’ wishes are partly represented by third-party accreditation agencies, although these agencies cannot perfectly monitor a university’s quality and so are vulnerable to co-optation by university bureaucracies. Finally, alternative forms of postsecondary training have been increasingly offered to absorb demand from people who are unable to gain access to universities. Some such institutions are publicly funded, such as the community college system in the United States and the Technical and Further Education (TAFE) system in Australia. There has also been an eruption of for-profit third-party providers of such training that differ in quality and in the programs they offer, but have a standard business model: Offer (or appear to offer) job-related skills and knowledge and make profits on fees from students desperate to earn some kind of qualification. Finally, newly established joint ventures with universities, such as Coursera, now offer educational services online at a fraction of the cost of conventional university programs. All of these sources of postsecondary education services compete to a greater or lesser extent with universities. Universities that shifted their courses online during the COVID era will have accumulated experience in this delivery style and increased their ability to compete with such providers, but at the same time changed and arguably reduced the quality of the products they sell.

354

G. Foster

The Upshot for Grading Practices Grading choices within today’s universities play out not only in relation to the quality of student work but in terms of power games between academics and university bureaucrats and students (Sadler, 2011; Smith & Fleisher, 2011). Several forces are aligned in the modern university against the academic’s incentive to maintain grading standards. There are first the pressures towards direct monitoring and control of teaching and assessment placed by bureaucrats now being paid handsomely (Devinney, 2013) to fill leadership roles within universities, who were attracted to the sector ultimately because of the increased demand for higher education. This pressure is coupled with the increasingly powerful force of student entitlement, supported by the equality ideals of the nation-state described above. Finally, the rise of other postsecondary education providers creates more competition faced by universities in the market and only adds to the pressure then placed upon academics by university bureaucrats. These control games should be expected to be far less prevalent in universities that do not rely on student fees but rather are funded via endowments and government grants, and to the extent that evidence has been compiled, this indeed seems to be the case (see Foster, 2011). Because academics are not well-organized politically and to the extent that they are joined or overruled by bureaucrats on committees and other bodies that take academic decisions within universities, academics’ collective voice on academic matters is weakened. Small battles are often fought within individual courses to preserve grading standards. Some academics simply start to bend to the rising pressures to raise grades, a tendency that is exacerbated by bureaucrats’ increasing reliance on student evaluations to reward academics (cf. Johnson, 2003). While individual students exert additional pressure on individual academics to raise grades in particular courses, students as a group lose the most from declining standards that force them to spend a longer portion of their lives in educational programs. Yet, like academics, students are politically unorganized and their collective voice often goes unheard. Adjunct faculty do not share the strong gatekeeping incentive of tenured faculty that gives rise to the desire to ensure students are differentiated from one another. Thus, it should not be surprising that adjunct faculty award higher grades than tenured faculty (see Kezim et al., 2005). To the extent that present-day profitoriented university bureaucrats can do so while still maintaining their university’s reputation and hence its market value, they will try to find ways to substitute adjunct and temporary academics for tenured academics due to the relative ease of controlling their actions by direct means. In turn, this will gradually reduce the main institutional source within the academy of pressure to keep grading standards high.

Prognosis and Policy Prescriptions Armed with the analysis above, what trajectory might we predict for undergraduate grades in the future, and what policy actions might work to counter further rises? No single person can hope to reverse the global trend of rising grades, as it is the

22

Grading Standards in Higher Education: Trends, Context, and Prognosis

355

outgrowth of group phenomena. Various remedies have been proposed in the literature, from more effort devoted to training academics to teach (Against Grade Inflation. Editorial (2004)) to more bureaucratic monitoring of professors’ grading activities (Rojstaczer & Healy, 2012). As Wendell (2001) bluntly states, however, “It’s not as if there is some code of academic integrity being upheld by anyone in a real position of power.” The only ways in which the forces outlined in this chapter can be countered – and such a countering will inevitably have to be gradual rather than revolutionary, given the size and power of the groups involved – involve nurturing the group-related counterforces that presently exist, however understated they are at present. These possible counterforces, each of which has been touched on above, are as follows: Stronger academic indoctrination. Further strengthening of the identification with academic ideals on the part of the worldwide cadre of academics, and incorporation of more arduous terminal-degree programs and more stringent requirements for scientific contributions. The goal is to create academics who are better equipped, due to their ideological commitments, to withstand the pressures in modern universities towards increasing grades. Stronger academic power. Increasing the voice of tenured academics within universities, including supporting their freedom to use their professional judgment with impunity when delivering courses and when grading, rather than being punished for awarding grades that are out of line with student or university leadership expectations. The goal is to reduce the personal incentives that academics presently face, due to strong pressures from university leadership and from individual students, to relax standards. More social success associated with not achieving a postsecondary degree or with achieving one from an alternative provider. More government investment in trade and industry training, apprenticeship programs, and the proactive creation of a positive “social success” image of people who enter the workforce without a tertiary degree or with a degree from a less-prestigious institution. The goal is to relieve the demand-side pressure for university-provided postsecondary education, so as to reduce both students’ sense of entitlement to good grades from universities and universities’ appeal to profit-minded bureaucrats. Profit-minded university bureaucrats have no incentive to take these steps, and will resist giving power back to academics. They will also resist the allocation of additional resources to postgraduate programs, which are the main context in which future academics are groomed but are more expensive to run than undergraduate programs. University bureaucrats would not be against a simultaneous pushing of the entire grade distribution downwards across the entire sector, but in the absence of coordinated efforts, they will individually resist being the first mover. One possible source of energy for action is the group interest embodied in national and international academic societies that operate independently from universities and students. While it can be co-opted by university peak bodies, government as well has a fundamental incentive to ensure that the public money spent on

356

G. Foster

higher education is spent well, which has motivated the creation of quality standards agencies (e.g., TEQSA, 2014). Government also has a broader social caretaking agenda of ensuring that its citizens obtain value from their degrees. Hence, initiatives funded by government and academic societies hold some promise in countering grade inflation. Finally, while individual students benefit from grade inflation in the short run, an organized student voice against the dilution of standards has been heard in the class-action suits against third-party higher education providers (Fair, 2016).

Conclusion Rising grades are an undeniable feature of the Western higher education landscape as it has evolved over the past 75 years. By themselves, higher grades cannot materially damage intellectual progress or the ability of academics to fill their role in society. However, the forces that give rise to relaxed grading standards are powerful and not aligned with the goals of the academy. These underlying forces and the incentives they create are the greater threat.

Cross-References ▶ “Big Q” and “Small q” Quality: A Taxonomy for Assuring Academic Quality, Standards, and Integrity in Online Learning ▶ Commercialization of Higher Education ▶ Lessons Learned During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Concerns Moving Forward: Academic Leadership Lens

References Against Grade Inflation. Editorial. (2004). Nature, 431(7010), 723. http://www.nature.com/nature/ journal/v431/n7010/full/431723b.html Australian Government Tertiary Education and Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA). (2014). Welcome to TEQSA. http://www.teqsa.gov.au/. Accessed 1 Nov 2014. Bains, S. (2020). Senate report. September 14, 2020. https://the-peak.ca/2020/09/senate-reportseptember-14-2020/. Accessed 30 Sept 2022. Baird, L., & Feister, W. J. (1972). Grading standards: The relation of changes in average student ability to the average grades awarded. American Educational Research Journal, 9, 431–442. Baker, J. (2022). NSW uni bosses order review of perfect ATARs after IB students beat James Ruse. Sydney Morning Herald Online Edition. Accessed 30 Sept 2022. Berman, E., John, B., & Machin, S. (1998). Implications of skill-biased technological change: International evidence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(4), 1245–1280. Bratsberg, B., & Rogeberg, O. (2018). Flynn effect and its reversal are both environmentally caused. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(26), 6674–6678. Breen, J. (2002). Higher education in Australia: Structure, policy, and debate. http://nihongo. monash.edu/aused/aused.html. Accessed 28 Oct 2022.

22

Grading Standards in Higher Education: Trends, Context, and Prognosis

357

Burke, L. (2020). #PassFailNation. InsideHigherEd. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/ 03/19/colleges-go-passfail-address-coronavirus. Accessed 30 Sept 2022. Daily Mail. (2021). Grading standards crackdown. Daily Mail (20 July 2021), accessed from Factiva 23 September 2022. Davis, G. (2013). Funding cuts a concern for all. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/ opinion/funding-cuts-a-concern-for-all/story-e6frgd0x-1226621964048. Accessed 1 Nov 2014. Denning, J. T., Eide, E.R., Mumford, K., Patterson, R.W. & Warnick, M. (2021). Why have college completion rates increased? An analysis of rising grades. NBER Working Paper 28710. https:// www.nber.org/papers/w28710. Devinney, T. (2013). Are university leaders really overpaid? http://www.modern-cynic.org/2013/ 05/08/university-leaders/ Dobbie, D., & Robinson, I. (2008). Reorganizing higher education in the United States and Canada: The erosion of tenure and the unionization of contingent faculty. Labor Studies Journal, 33, 117–140. Dutton, E., & Lynn, R. (2013). A negative Flynn effect in Finland, 1997–2009. Intelligence, 41, 817–820. Dwyer, C. A., Millett, C. A., & Payne, D. G. (2006). A culture of evidence: Postsecondary assessment and learning outcomes. Educational Testing Service. Etzioni, A. (1975). Grade inflation. Science, 190(4210), 10. Fair, L. (2016). FTC case against DeVry yields $100 million settlement. https://www.ftc.gov/ business-guidance/blog/2016/12/ftc-case-against-devry-yields-100-million-settlement? page¼2. Accessed 28 Oct 2022. Finn, P., Cinpoes, R., & Hill, E. (2022). The impact of covid-19 on A-levels since 2020, and what it means for higher education in 2022/23. LSE British Politics and Policy. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/ politicsandpolicy/impact-of-covid19-on-a-levels/. Accessed 30 Sept 2022. Foster, G. (2011). Academics as educators in Australian universities: Power, perceptions, and institutions. Economic Papers, 30(4), 568–575. Foster, G. (2012). The impact of international students on measured learning and standards in Australian higher education. Economics of Education Review, 31, 587–600. Foster, G. (2022). Do lockdowns and border closures serve the “greater good”? Connor Court Press. Frijters, P., Foster, G., & Baker, M. (2021). The great Covid panic: What happened, why, and what to do next. Brownstone Institute. Gelb-Bicknell, C. (2022). Brown grade inflation continues to soar, data shows. The Brown Daily Herald. (27 April 2022, accessed from Factiva, 21 September 2022.) Greenglass, E., Antonides, G., Christandl, F., Foster, G., Katter, J. K. Q., Kaufman, B. E., et al. (2014). The financial crisis and its effects: Perspectives from economics and psychology. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 50, 10–12. Harvard University. (2022). Harvard College will allow students to apply for admission without requiring SAT or ACT scores for the upcoming Harvard College Classes of ‘27, ‘28, ‘29, and 30. https://college.harvard.edu/about/news-announcements/admissions-update-2023-2026-applica tion-cycles. Accessed 28 Oct 2022. Jephcote, C., Medland, E., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2021). Grade inflation versus grade improvement: Are our students getting more intelligent? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(4), 547–571. Johnson, V. E. (2003). Grade inflation: A crisis in college education. Springer. Kezim, B., Pariseau, S. E., & Quinn, F. (2005). Is grade inflation related to faculty status? Journal of Education for Business, 80(6), 358–363. Kolevzon, M. S. (1981). Grade inflation in higher education: A comparative study. Research in Higher Education, 15(3), 195–212. Lough, C. (2022). Universities promise to return to pre-pandemic level of firsts. Press Association National Newswire. (5 July 2022, accessed from Factiva 23 September 2022). Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinvention in Australia. Cambridge University Press.

358

G. Foster

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2022). Tests & scores. https://mitadmissions.org/apply/ firstyear/tests-scores/. Accessed 28 Oct 2022. Millett, C. A., Stickler, L. M., Payne, D. G., & Dwyer, C. A. (2007). A culture of evidence: Critical features of assessments for postsecondary student learning. Educational Testing Service. Millett, C. A., Payne, D. G., Dwyer, C. A., Stickler, L. M., & Alexiou, J. J. (2008). A culture of evidence: An evidence-centered approach to accountability for student learning outcomes. Educational Testing Service. Murray, C. K., & Frijters, P. (2022). Rigged: How networks of powerful mates rip off everyday Australians. Allen and Unwin. Neisser, U., Gwyneth, B., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., et al. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. The American Psychologist, 51(2), 77–101. Office for Students (OfS). (2022). Analysis of degree classifications over time: Changes in graduate attainment from 2010–11 to 2020–21. Reference OfS 2022.22, https://www.officeforstudents. org.uk/media/cd778d76-5810-488b-b1e6-6e57797fe755/ofs-202222.pdf Pappano, L. (2011). The master’s as the new bachelor’s. New York Times, Education Life section: July 22. Paton, G. (2012). Warning over ‘grade inflation’ as first-class degrees double. http://www.telegraph. co.uk/education/universityeducation/9011098/Warning-over-grade-inflation-as-first-class-degreesdouble.html. Accessed 28 Oct 2022. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA. Popov, S. V., & Bernhardt, D. (2013). University competition, grading standards, and grade inflation. Economic Inquiry, 51(3), 1764–1778. Rojstaczer, S. (2014). Grade inflation at American Colleges and Universities. www. gradeinflation.com. Accessed 26 Sept 2014. Rojstaczer, S., & Healy, C. (2010, March 4). Grading in American Colleges and Universities. Teachers college record. http://www.tcrecord.org Rojstaczer, S., & Healy, C. (2012). Where a is ordinary: The evolution of American college and university grading, 1940–2009. Teachers College Record, 114(7) http://www.tcrecord.org Rosovsky, H., & Hartley, M. (2002). Evaluation and the academy: Are we doing the right thing? Grade inflation and letters of recommendation. American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Sadler, D. R. (2011). Academic freedom, achievement standards and professional identity. Quality in High Education, 17(1), 85–100. Sadler, D. R. (2013). Assuring academic achievement standards: From moderation to calibration. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 20(1), 5–19. Smith, D. E., & Fleisher, S. (2011). The implications of grade inflation: Faculty integrity versus the pressure to succeed. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 4(1), 32–38. Strauss, V. (2021). Grade inflation is just plain bad. Right? Maybe not. Washington Post, 21 September 2021. Accessed from Factiva 23 September 2022. Stroebe, W. (2016). Why good teaching evaluations may reward bad teaching: On grade inflation and other unintended consequences of student evaluations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 800–816. Sundet, J. M., Barlaug, D. G., & Torjussen, T. M. (2004). The end of the Flynn effect? A study of secular trends in mean intelligence test scores of Norwegian conscripts during half a century. Intelligence, 32, 349–362. The Ivy Coach. (2017). Ivy league statistics. https://www.ivycoach.com/ivy-league-admissionsstatistics/. Accessed 30 Sept 2022. The Local. (2012). Grade inflation blows up German Universities. https://www.thelocal.de/ 20121219/46847/. Accessed 30 Sept 2022. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). (2020). ‘No Detriment’ policies: An overview. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/guidance/no-detriment-policies-an-overview.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2022. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Digest of education statistics, 2012 (NCES 2014–015), Chapter 3.

22

Grading Standards in Higher Education: Trends, Context, and Prognosis

359

University of California. (2022). Exam requirement. https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/ admission-requirements/freshman-requirements/exam-requirement/. Accessed 28 Oct 2022. Weinberg, S. L. (2007). Grade inflation: An examination at the institutional level. In S. S. Sawilowsky (Ed.), Real data analysis (pp. 315–323). Information Age. Wendell, B. (2001). Can untenured faculty members stop grade inflation? The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/article/Can-Untenured-Faculty-Membe/45518/ Wongsurawat, W. (2008). Grade inflation and law school admissions. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(3), 224–235. Woolcock, N. (2020). Grade inflation figures show nearly half of first-class degrees ‘unexplained’. The Times, 20 November 2020, accessed from Factiva 21 September 2022.

On Recycling Our Own Work in the Digital Age

23

Miguel Roig

Contents What Constitutes Reusing Others’ Work (i.e., Plagiarism)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Self-Plagiarism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Self-Plagiarism in Science and Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reader-Writer Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beyond Recycling in Journal Articles: Some Considerations of Reuse in Other Scholarly Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conference Presentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Doctoral Dissertations and Theses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why Should Authors Be Concerned About Reusing Their Own Previously Disseminated Work? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

362 363 365 369 370 370 372 373 375 376 376 376

Abstract

The concept of self-plagiarism has been typically examined as a type of research and/or writing malpractice often associated with forms of publication misconduct, such as duplicate publication and “salami publication.” In these and related transgressions, previously published text, data, or other intellectual content is misrepresented as new material in subsequent publications. These forms of inappropriate reuse will be explored in the context of traditional publication domains, such as journal articles, as well as in other domains of research and scholarship not often addressed by the existing publication ethics literature. The chapter’s discussion of recycling our previously published content is grounded in the notion that authors of scientific and scholarly material enter into an implicit contract with their readers in which readers’ expectations are that, unless M. Roig (*) Department of Psychology, St. John’s University, Staten Island, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_15

361

362

M. Roig

otherwise noted, such works are accurate, original to the author/s, and not previously disseminated in a formal manner. Accuracy in science and in scholarship is always a given. However, as researchers and academics often rely on the work of others, authors have an ethical responsibility to alert readers as to when content (e.g., ideas, text, data) are the authors’ own and when they are derived from others’ work. Failure to do so could lead to a charge of plagiarism. Similarly, as previously disseminated content may be re-examined and/or reused, readers should always be informed as to its correct provenance. Previously disseminated content that is reused and presented as if it were new may be construed as an instance of self-plagiarism and, in the case of covertly recycled data, possibly rise to the level of research misconduct. Keywords

Self-plagiarism · Text recycling · Salami publication · Duplicate publication · Augmented publication

What Constitutes Reusing Others’ Work (i.e., Plagiarism)? For many who teach in tertiary institutions (e.g., colleges and universities), it is difficult to imagine a student who, at this point in their education, is not familiar with the concept of plagiarism. Indeed, although evidence indicates that most students are able to define plagiarism (Barry, 2006; Power, 2009; Yeo, 2007), other studies suggest a considerable amount of confusion and/or ignorance about plagiarismrelated matters, such as the appropriate use of citations (Bašić et al., 2019; Childers & Bruton, 2016; McGowan & Lightbody, 2008; Power, 2009; Sutherland-Smith, 2005a; Zwick et al., 2019), quotations (Löfström and Kupila (2013), and proper paraphrasing (Landau et al., 2002; Pecorari, 2003; Walker, 2008), though, admittedly, some evidence indicates a modest trend toward better understanding of these issues (Curtis & Vardanega, 2016). Nonetheless, the bulk of the academic integrity literature indicates that many students admit to plagiarizing. For example, the work of the late Donald McCabe and his colleagues who had surveyed thousands of students across North America indicates that approximately 62% of undergraduates and 59% of graduate students admit to having plagiarized at least once (McCabe, 2005). Moreover, instructional staff is not always in agreement about what forms of writing constitute plagiarism (Roig, 2001; Sutherland-Smith, 2005b). And judging by the many editorials (see Roig, 2014) and articles that have appeared in the biomedical and social sciences literature (see Habibzadeh & Marcovitch, 2011) and by the many articles that are retracted for plagiarism or self-plagiarism (Fang et al., 2012), far too many of those scientists and academics who should know better engage in plagiarism. In fact, a recent study of journal editors in the arts, humanities, and social sciences sponsored by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE; Committee on Publication Ethics, 2019) revealed that plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and issues of proper attribution were some of the most common publication ethics

23

On Recycling Our Own Work in the Digital Age

363

issues editors must face, a finding similar to that previously reported by Wager et al. (2009). But, unlike outright fabrication and falsification, the ongoing situation with the misappropriation of others’ work should, perhaps, not be all that surprising, given the apparent lack of objective, quantifiable criteria for determining whether plagiarism has occurred. After all, there does not appear to be a widely accepted operational definition of plagiarism that distinguishes between proper paraphrasing and textual plagiarism. Similarly, no official guidance exists that addresses questions such as: How many consecutive words from another source may an author include in a phrase or sentence? or How many copied phrases or sentences merit a plagiarism charge? (Roig & deJacquant, 2000). Even journal editors’ threshold for what constitutes plagiarism in terms of what percentage of similar text from other sources may be acceptable can vary widely (Zhang & Jia, 2012). Thus, despite the presence of institutional policies (McGrail & McGrail, 2015; Sutherland-Smith, 2011) and other international professional associations’ guidance on this important topic (e.g., COPE), instructors, journal editors, and concerned others will inevitably need to use their own judgment when adjudicating “borderline cases.” Plagiarism of other intellectual content (e.g., ideas, processes) presents additional challenges that make such transgressions much more difficult to operationalize (Resnik, 2012). For example, plagiarism, reuse, and inappropriate manipulation of images in the biomedical sciences has become an area of great concern in the scientific community. But, thanks to the work of image sleuths, such as Elizabeth Bik (see Shen, 2020), increasing numbers of studies have now been issued expressions of concern or have even been retracted outright because of malpractices involving images (Bik et al., 2018). Moreover, the question of intentionality (Sutherland-Smith, 2011) and of the seriousness of these infractions involving textual plagiarism (Howard, 1999) have been a source of concern for some instructors. Consequently, because of a certain degree of ambiguity inherent in how textual plagiarism and, possibly, plagiarism of other types of content, is typically defined, some cases are likely to be classified by the “I know it when I see it” approach (Famous expression used in a US Supreme Court case to explain the difficulty of determining whether material in a film should be considered obscene. Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 [1964]; see, e.g., Pecorari, 2008, p. 38).

Self-Plagiarism An analogous situation with respect to the problem of lack of quantifiable criteria in plagiarism occurs in some instances of self-plagiarism (Peh & Arokiasamy, 2008), a somewhat controversial term used to describe situations in which authors reuse their previously disseminated content and pass it off as new. Even the term, selfplagiarism, has been the subject of recent criticism in the sciences (e.g., Andreescu, 2013), with some observers pointing out that, whereas the term “plagiarism” denotes stealing from others, it is obviously impossible to steal from oneself (Bird, 2002; Callahan, 2014). In spite of such criticisms, Bruton (2014) notes that “the term self-

364

M. Roig

plagiarism has become too widespread for it to be replaced by different terminology anytime soon . . .” (p. 77). Relative to its more famous cousin, self-plagiarism is often said to lie in a gray area (e.g., Bird, 2002; Jacobs, 2011), and it is generally not considered research misconduct according to the United States Public Health Service’s (PHS) Office of Research Integrity (ORI). For example, Dahlberg (2007) has noted that “ORI often receives allegations of plagiarism that involve efforts by scientists to publish the same data in more than one journal article. Assuming that the duplicated figures represent the same experiment and are labeled the same in both cases (if not, possible falsification of data makes the allegation significantly more serious), this so-called ‘self-plagiarism’ does not meet the PHS research misconduct standard” (p. 4). In the academic context, self-plagiarism is generally considered a form of cheating, and tertiary institutions which include relevant discussion and guidance on the subject caution students against this dishonest practice (Bretag & Mahmud, 2009). However, many other institutions do not seem to offer any guidance regarding this troublesome subject (Salhaney & Roig, 2004). When this type of transgression is covered in academic dishonesty policies, it tends to simply forbid “double dipping,” the reuse of papers in new courses, if the papers have already earned the student credit in another course (Bretag & Mahmud, 2009). However, a more nuanced discussion about what constitutes acceptable forms of reuse is seldom available in these policies. For example, students may understand that they cannot reuse a previously submitted paper, but what if they consider reusing three-quarters of a previously submitted paper, or half of a paper, or a quarter of a paper? What about the reuse of the same central thesis previously presented in one course, but later “textually repackaged” with little or no modification to the central ideas presented and no indication to the new instructor as to its previous submission to another course? These questions notwithstanding, general awareness of self-plagiarism as a problematic student practice does not seem to be as prevalent as that for plagiarism. Of course, plagiarism is a far more serious infraction. Nonetheless, given that many students seem to believe that plagiarism itself is not a serious transgression (e.g., Park, 2003), the question remains as to the proportion of students and instructors who view self-plagiarism as a problematic writing practice (see Hallupa & Bolliger, 2013), let alone a form of academic or research misconduct. With respect to instructors, and assuming that a large portion of contributors to science and scholarship are also university instructors, some evidence suggests that a significant proportion of them might not consider the practice of reusing their own content unethical. For example, Price et al. (2001) presented various ethically questionable research scenarios to health educators and found that 64% of the sample considered self-plagiarism behaviors acceptable. In view of the increased attention given to self-plagiarism in recent years (Eaton & Crossman, 2018), one would hope that a greater awareness of the problematic nature of this malpractice has led to lower levels of acceptability. Certainly, the views of editors and authors can also differ substantially with respect to what constitutes appropriate reuse of content (Yank & Barnes, 2003), especially with respect to text reuse (e.g., Hall et al., 2018; Pemberton et al., 2019) with editors

23

On Recycling Our Own Work in the Digital Age

365

from the field of education tending to be less tolerant of recycling (Bruton & Rachal, 2015). The fact remains that graduate students and instructors have been largely operating without clear guidance on this important issue (Eaton & Crossman, 2018) and, consequently, it should not be surprising that the general concept of self-plagiarism, particularly with respect to textual reuse (i.e., text recycling), remains unclear to many including graduate students (Moskovitz & Hall, 2020). Fortunately, the situation regarding available relevant guidance is just beginning to change (see, for example, Roig, 2014; and, especially, the more recent guidance offered by the Text Recycling Research Project [TRRP] at textrecycling.org).

Self-Plagiarism in Science and Scholarship Several basic forms of self-plagiarism have been identified in scholarly periodicals, and these are briefly summarized below. It should be noted that a common feature in most of these malpractices is that: (1) there is substantial recycled material (text and/or data) in the new paper from the previously disseminated paper and (2) the reader is misled or never fully informed about the nature or extent of the reuse. In some cases, citations to the earlier published work are, in fact, provided in the new publication, but in problematic cases this is often done in such an ambiguous manner that the reader is unable to determine the extent, and/or true nature, of the reuse. All such cases in which readers are not informed, or are misled, about reused content should perhaps be termed “covert” (covert duplicate publication, covert salami publication; covert text recycling; see, for example, Tramer et al., 1997; Roig, 2014). von Elm et al. (2004) and, more recently, Bruton (2014) provide a more extensive treatment of the various forms of this type of “double-dipping” in journal articles. A brief review of common forms of self-plagiarism in the sciences follows. Covert Duplicate Publication A well-known form of self-plagiarism, and one that appears to be on the rise since the mid-1990s (Larivière & Gingras, 2010), occurs when an author submits a previously published paper to a different journal. There are many ways in which this type of duplication occurs, and these can range from publishing an identical copy of the earlier published version to one that contains mostly “cosmetic” changes such as a change in the title on in the authorship order or in some specific elements within the body of the paper such as name and/or location where study subjects were recruited and/or tested. With respect to the latter version, the result is that the duplicate paper may appear to be different on the surface, but it is likely to contain substantial amounts of recycled text and, especially concerning, earlier disseminated data that are presented as new. Tramer et al. (1997) have demonstrated the danger of this type of misconduct when duplicated data are interpreted as new data in a meta-analytic study. Yet, it is almost certain that some meta-analytic studies have already been contaminated by duplicates. One reason for this conjecture is that duplicates are inadvertently included in meta-analyses and/or systematic reviews because in far too many cases in which indexing services such as

366

M. Roig

MEDLINE tag the duplicates, journals fail to identify them as such and in few cases have these duplicates been retracted (Malički et al., 2019). Thus, Choi et al. (2014), for example, have reported that 69% of the meta-analyses carried out by Korean biomedical researchers included duplicate publications. Like the Tramer et al. (1997) study, these authors also showed how, in two instances, the inclusion of the duplicates had led to higher effect sizes than would have occurred without inclusion of the duplicates (for a more recent example of the effects of inadvertently including a duplicate paper in a meta-analysis, see the correspondence between Jüni et al., 2021 and Chu et al., 2021). It bears repeating Dahlberg’s (2007) point that intentionally presenting old data as new data is tantamount to data falsification (or fabrication), a major type of research misconduct, because the “new” data are data that, in reality, do not exist and, therefore, the duplicate data end up fraudulently skewing the scientific record. Another way in which duplicate publication may manifest itself is through translations of previously published works. For example, a paper first published in a low-circulation journal in one language may be later translated and then published in a journal of greater circulation or vice versa. An argument in support of this type of duplication is that such duplicates in a different language serve a greater purpose when others who cannot read in the language of the original paper can benefit from the wider dissemination of the research. Few would disagree with such noble purpose, and, in fact, some journal editors (e.g., Dickens et al., 2011) will accept these types of manuscripts provided that the authors disclose the prior publication. Obviously, this approach is only meaningful and appropriate when the authors acknowledge the prior published version to readers, as per long-established criteria for republishing already-published journal articles. For example, according to the guidelines published by the International Committee for Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE, 2022), authors may submit for publication a previously published paper if the editors of both journals give their approval. The secondary publication must aim at a different audience; it must “faithfully” reflect the data and interpretations of the primary publication and respect the primary status of the prior publication. There must also be full disclosure to readers and all other relevant parties, such as documenting agencies, about the previous publication, including its full citation. Finally, the title of the secondary publication must indicate that it is a secondary publication (i.e., a translation) of the original. Although these guidelines serve the biomedical research community, they should be equally applicable to other scientific and scholarly disciplines in which the scientific status of a claim rests on the number of independent observations made in its support. The overriding concern here is the need for full transparency in that the provenance of evidence must always be made clear to readers. Covert Augmented Publication A particularly problematic type of self-plagiarism occurs when a set of published data is then republished again with additional observations (see Smolčić & Bilić-Zulle, 2013; also known as data aggregation, Kim et al., 2014). For example, consider the following fictitious scenario: Three

23

On Recycling Our Own Work in the Digital Age

367

surgeons decide to describe the effectiveness of a new surgical procedure with the results of twenty successful cases. Subsequently, two other surgeons and colleagues of the authors who adopt the new technique contribute several additional cases to the original database, and the combined data are analyzed and presented in a new paper with a modified title, two new authors, a larger set of cases, but no mention of the earlier publication (i.e., cross-referencing). Alternatively, the previous publication may have been cited, but this is done in an ambiguous manner such that readers are misled into believing that the new data set is independent from the old one. If the augmented data set is interpreted as independent from the original 20 cases, readers will be misled as to the true strength of the evidence in support of the new surgical procedure. As with the traditional duplicate publications, the new publication is likely to have significant portions of recycled verbatim text from the earlier published version and this type of textual duplication may, itself, be problematic (see below the section on text recycling). However, the more fundamental problem with cases of data augmentation is that old data are mixed with new data, and the combined data are conveyed as new. By misleading readers as to the true number of successful cases, the scientific record becomes distorted as to the true strength of the evidence for the effectiveness of the new surgical procedure. An example of this type of self-plagiarism is briefly described by Bonnell et al. (2012) (see also level 4 of duplicate publication in Davidhizar & Giger, 2002). Covert Salami Publication Generating two or more published papers from the same study is generally known as “salami slicing” (Hoit, 2007; Huth, 1986; Nature Materials, 2005), but terms such as “data disaggregation” (Houston & Moher, 1996) and “least publishable unit” (Broad, 1981) have also been used to describe this potentially questionable practice. As an example, consider a fictional large-scale retrospective study on health gains and health-care cost outcomes in a sample of type II diabetes patients who are examined according to their dietary and exercise activity. The results of the study are published in a diabetes journal. Sometime after publication, the authors (again, and for a variety of reasons, new authors may be added and old authors dropped) decide to reanalyze the data by including other demographic variables that were not examined in the previous study and/or excluding a very small number from their sample such as underweight subjects, an instance of data disaggregation; they publish the results in an obesity journal but with only ambiguous cross-referencing or no cross-referencing between the papers (see Houston & Moher, 1996 for a detailed description of one case). As with instances such as the one depicted in the above scenario some cases of covert salami publication are likely to mislead readers into believing that the later study provides new data that are interpreted to be independent from the data reported in the previously published paper. In other versions of salami publication, there may not be any recycled data. That is, prior to any publication, the authors may decide to segment the data set into separate discrete units in order to maximize the number of publications produced from the larger, original data collection effort. For example, they may decide to

368

M. Roig

publish the results of outcome costs in one journal and the results of the health gains data in another journal (see Martin, 2013; Smolčić, 2013 for additional examples). Although both papers will obviously share some text similarities in terms of sample descriptions and perhaps some other methodological characteristics, much of the rest of each paper could conceivably be very different from the other. It is perhaps for these reasons that at least one author has questioned the inclusion of salami publication as a type of self-plagiarism (Bruton, 2014). Nonetheless, and for reasons that are beyond the scope of the present paper, this is a potentially problematic practice when such papers are published without clearly establishing their relationship. Admittedly, some instances of ostensible salami publication are entirely justifiable. For example, certain types of complex longitudinal studies will yield data about outcomes at various points during the study, and such data need to be published, including later studies from additional follow-up analyses that include earlier published data. A similar situation may occur with multicenter clinical trials in which it may be meaningful to report the results from a single center (see Houston & Moher’s, 1996 case). In other cases of salami publication data originally excluded from the earlier published paper might later become relevant and are then included in a later paper published with a longer time gap between the two salami slices. Instances of “fragmented publication” (Smolčić & Bilić-Zulle, 2013) are the exact opposite of “augmented publication” and, admittedly, there may be legitimate scientific reasons for excluding some data and reanalyzing them differently. But, again, the key issue is the need for transparency regarding the provenance of data in terms of how the various data sets in these separate papers relate to each other as is the rationale for reporting them separately. Thus, authors have an ethical obligation to disclose relevant details regarding the provenance of the data and any previous or concurrent related publications. Covert Text Recycling By far the most common form of self-plagiarism in science and scholarship occurs when authors reuse substantial portions of their own previously disseminated text in new publications. Evidence indicates that some academics recycle relatively minor portions of text (Bretag & Carapiet, 2007; Roig, 2005). However, other evidence suggests that, in some instances, the amount of reuse can be considerably greater than 50% or 60% of previously disseminated text (see, e.g., Neligan et al., 2010). Although undoubtedly there are instances in which small amounts of text recycling are appropriate, acceptable, and at times, perhaps unavoidable, substantial amounts of covertly recycled text are seldom so and are ethically questionable, representing the equivalent of a misdemeanor (see Zigmond & Fischer, 2002) and, in some cases, leading to retractions of papers even if the underlying data were original and never earlier disseminated (e.g., Marcus, 2010; Oransky, 2012). Cary Moscovitz and his colleagues at the TRRP (e.g., Anson & Moscovitz, 2021; Hall et al., 2021; Moskovitz, 2021) have provided a most comprehensive and thoughtful consideration of text recycling. In its latest guidance, these authors (Hall et al., 2021) provide the following definition: “Text Recycling is the reuse of textual material (prose, visuals, or equations) in a new document where (1) the material in the new document is identical to that of the source (or substantively

23

On Recycling Our Own Work in the Digital Age

369

equivalent in both form and content), (2) the material is not presented in the new document as a quotation (via quotation marks or block indentation), and (3) at least one author of the new document is also an author of the prior document.” The TRRP team has identified four distinct classes of text recycling that range in ethical appropriateness and acceptability depending on the exact conditions under which these tend to occur. Although their project is empirically grounded and represents a joint collaboration with notable organizations, such as the US National Science Foundation and COPE, it is not clear at this point the extent to which its guidance, as currently proposed will be integrated into existing policies and practice. For further consideration of their approach to this topic, readers are encouraged to visit their site, textrecycling.org. What follows is a discussion of text recycling in various situations. Some of the scenarios that follow are also discussed by TRRP guidelines (textrecycling.org), and have also been previously discussed in the guidance sponsored by the US Office of Research Integrity (Roig, 2014). However as was done in the latter online document, the present discussion is grounded on the Reader-Writer Contract, an approach to reading and writing that has its origins in the humanities (Tierney & LaZansky, 1980) and that addresses readers’ expectations of originality, accuracy, and novelty in our research and scholarship. It is believed that authors’ adoption of this perspective is consistent with the high standards and values of transparency that have traditionally characterized the practice of science and scholarship.

Reader-Writer Contract According to the Reader-Writer Contract, readers of academic work operate under three basic assumptions about the material being read. The first assumption concerns the creation and ownership of the work, which conveys to readers that the material presented is the exclusive creation of the listed authors. In instances in which others’ intellectual content is being conveyed, the authors ensure that proper attribution to others’ work is made using standard scholarly conventions, such as citations, footnotes, or other appropriate literary mechanisms. In addition, the reader-writer contract stipulates that any facts, figures, and ideas are accurately represented by the authors to the best of their ability. Finally, readers are assumed to approach these works with the understanding that the material is new and that in instances where such is not the case, readers are, again, informed about prior disseminations using established scholarly conventions (e.g., author notes or footnotes or some other acceptable technique). For example, the author of a work that has earlier been published in another language informs the reader of this fact in the front cover, title, or elsewhere in a prominent manner or as per ICMJE conventions. A new edition of an older textbook is identified as such in the newer version of the previous work by either the phrase “revised edition” or the new edition number. In both of these latter cases, there should be a clear expectation on the part of the reader that a substantial amount of material may have been recycled from the previous edition. With this context in mind, the problem of self-plagiarism is explored further.

370

M. Roig

The first two assumptions of the contract, originality and accuracy, are consistent with basic standards of ethical scholarship found in traditional writing guides for research papers, theses, and dissertations. These elements are also covered in many scholarly and scientific journals’ instructions to authors and in related guidance issued by professional organizations (e.g., ICMJE, COPE). The third element, which compels authors to be transparent with their readers regarding any prior dissemination of their work, whether in whole or in part, is central to the problem of self-plagiarism and somewhat of a gray area when it comes to limited amounts of text recycling. For example, as noted by Moskovitz (2020), the research of TRRP group indicates that there are no universal norms about text recycling. Nonetheless, various aspects of the expectation of novelty are addressed in the general guidance of organizations cited immediately above when the topic is discussed in the narrower context of duplicate publication and/or duplicate submission of manuscripts and of copyright violation. Moreover, when the topic of potential duplication arises, the cautionary advice to authors is to inform the editor about any overlap so that s/he may decide whether a manuscript is sufficiently original to be published. However, in instances where the degree of overlap is acceptable to the editor and the paper is published it is sometimes unclear whether readers are fully informed about any duplication. One difficulty with such an arrangement is that journal editors have varied opinions of what constitutes the acceptable amount of recycled content (see Pemberton et al., 2019) and thus in situations where editors hold liberal views of recycling and a paper contains covertly recycled text, the reader may feel misled about the true novelty of what s/he is reading if substantial amounts have been merely recycled from an earlier publication. Several authors (Bruton, 2014; von Elm et al., 2004) have described the various forms of this transgression as outlined above, but mainly within the biomedical and, to some extent, the social sciences fields and almost always within the domain of academic and/or scientific journals. However, recent retractions in other disciplines (e.g., Bo et al., 2014; Ghasemi et al., 2014; Leonard, 2015; Saurin et al., 2014; Zhan & Wan, 2014) suggest that many of the key issues related to self-plagiarism (e.g., the need for transparency regarding the reuse of our previously disseminated content) are equally applicable to other scientific disciplines as well to other domains, such as theses and dissertations, conference presentations, and books.

Beyond Recycling in Journal Articles: Some Considerations of Reuse in Other Scholarly Activities Books From Old Edition to New Edition As noted above, textbooks and other scholarly books, including the present volume, may be republished as revised editions of earlier works and these republished works will contain significant amounts of recycled content from the earlier editions. Although prefaces to new editions may inform the reader of changes to the new edition, readers are seldom directly informed

23

On Recycling Our Own Work in the Digital Age

371

that significant portions of textual material from an earlier edition will appear largely unchanged in the new edition. These apparent lapses in transparency are never considered an instance of self-plagiarism because there is, or there should be, an assumed expectation that a significant amount of the content will remain unchanged from edition to edition. For example, some university textbooks are revised a number of times over their lifetime, and each subsequent edition will likely retain significant amounts of content with little or no modifications. The absence of changes may simply represent well-written prose from the previous edition that continues to be current and/or relevant at the time of the revision. There may even be situations in which textbooks republished in a subsequent edition 2 or 3 years later that contain only very minor revisions, as it might be the case in certain disciplines, such as mathematics or statistics in which content does not change as rapidly as it might in other more empirical subject areas, such as biology, chemistry, and psychology. While the ethics of such faster-rate publishing tactics may be debated, these types of old-to-new-edition situations are not characterized as self-plagiarism as there is, or should be, a general understanding on the part of the readership that repetition of verbatim text from one edition to the other is a given. Thus, in these cases, it is not necessary to alert the reader that recycling of earlier material has taken place. A similar situation occurs with concise/abridged versions of full-length textbooks. The concise version may even be titled somewhat differently. But the general assumption is that the work is, essentially, the same as the full-length version, though with fewer details and/or narrower coverage. Reusing Portions of Chapters or Entire Chapters from One Book to a Different Book There are other situations where the inappropriateness of reuse is less clear and may confuse readers. For example, an author of a textbook in, for example, general psychology who later writes a textbook in child development using the same publisher may decide to recycle large portions or entire sections of some of the chapters from the general psychology textbook (e.g., conditioning, perceptual development) that are equally relevant to the new textbook on child development. Alternatively, if different publishers are involved, permission may be obtained to reuse the material allowing the author to reuse the content. The question arises, however, as to whether there is an expectation of complete novelty, on the part of readers regarding the content of the second book relative to the first book. Because of the likely difference in expectation, readers should be informed as to the extent of this type of reuse. From Journal Article to Book One can envision instances in which reuse from one source to another may be problematic, such as when authors are asked to write a review paper or a book chapter in their area of specialization. In these situations, there may be a very strong inclination to recycle text and other content without informing the reader, that the recycled material has already been published by the same author in other journal articles, edited books, or monographs (see Martinson et al., 2011, for an example). However, in addition to potential copyright issues, a reader who has already read the earlier works would be expecting a fresher, more

372

M. Roig

up-to-date perspective from the author. From a purely pedagogical perspective, if the primary purpose of academic work is to educate others, it would be more effective to convey the information using different language, rather than to merely repeat the same messages verbatim. Therefore, generally in these types of cases, for reasons outlined above, readers should be alerted to any such reuse. Surely, one could come up with additional combinations of situations not listed above in which an author will recycle text from one published document to another (e.g., book to journal). The extent and nature of the dissemination of the earlier produced content (e.g., content that is distributed to students taking a course vs. content from a keynote address to a small audience at a conference) may determine whether readers ought to be alerted about the prior dissemination. This is why it is always good practice to encourage authors to abide by the principles of the reader-writer contract and alert readers about the presence of reused content.

Conference Presentations Same Paper Presented at Multiple Conferences In some disciplines, questions have been raised about the appropriateness of presenting the same or roughly the same paper at different conferences (Sigelman, 2008). Certainly, issues regarding the provenance of data and the need for transparency with the audience may be similarly applicable in these situations. In addition, as with most scholarly and scientific journals, some conference sponsors insist on original presentations that are exclusive to that conference. But other organizations do not have such requirements. The expectations of the audience may also be different depending on the type of presentation being made (e.g., invited addresses vs. regular conference submissions) with some formats (i.e., invited address) expected in some cases to contain much more recycled content than other formats. Although a thorough exploration of recycling across conference domains is beyond the scope of the present work, authors should consider the principles of the reader-writer contract in guiding their conference presentation practices and alert their audiences about any content being recycled. Such alerts reinforce the practice of transparency in our own work and can be done in a manner similar to the way presenters acknowledge the assistance of others, their sources of financial support, potential conflicts of interest, etc., commonly reported in conference presentations. From Conference Presentation to Journal Article In most disciplines, papers that are presented at conferences are often subsequently submitted for publication to peer-review journals. One recent study of conference abstracts presented in selected biomedical science conferences estimates that about 30% of such presentations reach publication within 5 years (Kinney et al., 2021). In some disciplines such as psychology and education, it is common for the published papers to include an author note indicating any previous presentation of the paper’s content. However, other disciplines, particularly within the biomedical sciences, may not follow this

23

On Recycling Our Own Work in the Digital Age

373

practice and doing so may depend on the individual journal’s policy as detailed in the journal’s instructions to authors. Although the publishing of expanded versions of papers presented at conferences has a long-standing tradition in many disciplines that should continue to be strongly encouraged, some issues can arise when authors fail to indicate a paper’s prior dissemination history. For example, in the past, conference proceedings were only available in print and were usually distributed mainly to association members or conference registrants. However, the advent of the Internet and of open access has made many conference proceedings widely available to the public. If the title and authorship of a conference proceeding is different than that of the subsequently published paper, confusion can arise for those who might interpret each product as an independent contribution. Complicating the situation is the fact that conference proceedings come in many forms, ranging from compilations of paper titles with authors to a selection or complete compilation of full versions of presented papers. The latter situation can lead to further confusion if substantive changes are made to the structure of the paper in the published product as a result of feedback from a presentation (e.g., change in the language and/or authorship, including the addition or deletion of only a few key data points which will most certainly change all of the data tables and perhaps even figures depicting data). Thus, the question arises as to whether a reader would be able to recognize these two products as representing the same data or thesis. In addition, the full paper as proceedings presents additional challenges for authors and editors in some disciplines because, despite the proliferation of pre-print servers, some journals may continue to be less inclined to publish papers that are largely based on work that is already fully available online, whether in conference proceedings or from some of the fully searchable online repositories or preprint servers. Even more problematic are instances in which an association journal will publish the proceedings of its conference as full papers. Under some conditions, such instances represent primary publications according to longestablished guidelines and republication of a paper elsewhere, even if the paper is an expanded version of a conference proceeding, may be viewed as an instance of duplicate publication, not to mention the potential for copyright violation (see Vasconcelos and Roig (2014) for an example of this situation). In sum, in the absence of clear guidelines from the individual journal, authors can avert any confusion by being mindful of the reader-writer contract and ensuring full transparency with the editor and, especially, with their readers about any prior dissemination of their work.

Doctoral Dissertations and Theses From Dissertation or Thesis to Publications There is a tradition in many disciplines for authors to repackage portions of their dissertations into one or more publications, such as journal articles or books. Doing so is typically acceptable and, in fact, some journals’ instructions to authors specifically accept this practice.

374

M. Roig

Many authors include a note in the published work to indicate that it is a derivation of a thesis or dissertation, or that it is based in whole or in part, on their thesis or dissertation. However, it appears that this clarification is not always made by authors in some disciplines. From the perspective of the reader-writer contract this clarification should always be made. An area of concern with respect to publishing portions of theses/dissertations in more than one journal article is whether it makes scientific or logical sense to break the thesis/dissertation work apart (see section on “Salami Publication”). Thus, to maintain transparency with readers and to avoid potentially misleading them about the context of the research, authors should be required, when appropriate, to indicate in the subsequent journal articles, books, or book chapters the existence of related publications that were also derived from the same thesis/dissertation. From Publications to Doctoral Dissertations It is quite possible for some students who are completing doctoral work to have already been published in the same area of research and, consequently, may wonder about reusing the content of such publications. There are at least two important issues to consider in this scenario. Copyright issues aside, and assuming there are no department or institutional guidelines against the practice, reusing content from the student’s earlier publications is entirely acceptable provided that there is full transparency between the student and dissertation committee members and, of course, full transparency with the readers of the dissertation. It should be noted that at some institutions a doctoral dissertation consists of an assemblage of journal articles published by the doctoral candidate as part of his/her dissertation work with perhaps the addition of a more comprehensive introduction and discussion of the entire corpus of the work. In instances where the latter is not the standard procedure and assuming that the academic department accepts other forms of reuse of already-published material, there is a possible complication if the earlier published material was coauthored with other individuals. The dissertation committee members may wish to determine which portion/s of the co-authored products represent the student’s contributions and whether they are sufficiently substantive. If they accept this type of reuse, then permission from the coauthors must be requested to avoid potential claims of plagiarism against the student. Obviously, such requests should be made at the earliest possible stage of the dissertation process. Again, there are other situations in which authors of dissertations or theses might be compelled to recycle content from earlier disseminated products. For example, earlier I described how students are cautioned against engaging in “double-dipping,” that is, reusing a paper that had already earned credit in one course by submitting it to another course. A question arises as to appropriateness of using content of papers earlier submitted as course work in theses or dissertations. Eaton and Crossman (2018) wondered about this type of reuse and found one institutional guide that allows graduate students to reuse content from their course work in their theses and dissertations. However, these authors noted that the guidance was silent on whether a citation to the course work might be needed. From the perspective of the reader-writer contract, given the very limited nature of the earlier dissemination

23

On Recycling Our Own Work in the Digital Age

375

of papers submitted to courses, such reader alerts do not seem necessary. On the other hand, alerting the thesis/dissertation supervisor and committee members about the reuse should be a requirement. Thus, the extent of the dissemination of earlier content is a most important variable in determining whether readers should be alerted to any recycled content. Generally, readers may not need to be alerted to recycling if the product from which the content is derived had earlier received limited dissemination, especially if the dissemination is of an informal nature (e.g., a presentation to students in a class, dissemination to department colleagues) as opposed to a formal event (e.g., a smaller group of audience members at a conference). In the latter case, readers ought to be alerted. However, as with most situations in life, the devil lies in the details, for there may exist formal or informal or large versus small audiences/readers situations in which the prior dissemination should perhaps be disclosed. In the absence of proper guidance, a common sense, but ethically minded approach that considers the needs and expectations of readers of the new product should guide these decisions.

Why Should Authors Be Concerned About Reusing Their Own Previously Disseminated Work? The apparent rise in student plagiarism in recent years has also given rise to technology that facilitates its detection (Royce, 2003; see Scaife, 2007 for a review). Thus, services like Turnitin ® (http://www.turnitin.com/), which retain in their database a copy of every document that is submitted for analysis, should give students and others pause before they consider reusing, in part or in whole, an earlier submitted paper to satisfy the requirements of a new course. At the professional, academic level, the increasing digitization and wider availability of scholarly and scientific print material means that a point will be reached soon – at which all academic written work will be easily identified, retrieved, stored, and processed in ways that are inconceivable at the present time. Evidence suggests that students may already be sensitized to this possibility. For example, requiring them to submit their academic work electronically results in an increase in their awareness of various forms of plagiarism and possibly deter some of these behaviors (Mazer & Hunt, 2012). Consider the fact that many academic journals use some type of text similarity software, such as Crosscheck ®, to screen submitted manuscripts being considered for publication (see http://www.crossref.org/ 01company/06publishers.html). Editors using this technology have become alarmed at the large number of submissions containing plagiarized content (Bazdaric, 2012; Baždarić et al., 2012; Shafer, 2011) and likely self-plagiarized material as well. In addition, it is possible that other tools, such as eTBLAST and its resulting database, Déjà vu (currently offline in the process of being updated) which has already led to various retractions in the biomedical literature (Errami et al., 2008), are likely to become an established tool for use in screening scientific journal articles and perhaps other non-publication domains, such as grant proposals.

376

M. Roig

Summary In view of the increasing attention being given to the topic of self-plagiarism and of the recent developments in software technology designed to detect recycled text, students and professionals may need to reconsider previous practices with respect to publication. Doing so will be difficult for some, particularly for those who fail to see content recycling as a questionable practice or for those who may have limited language/writing skills and have relied heavily on the practice of recycling their previously written content. At a time when calls for transparency in science are at all-time high, keeping in mind the reader-writer contract throughout all stages of their scholarly activity may lead authors to adopt writing and other research practices that are more sensitive to the principles of responsible scientific and scholarly conduct. One would hope that these same attitudes may extend to other areas of personal and professional academic behavior.

Cross-References ▶ Patchwriting, Plagiarism, Pedagogy: Definitions and Implications ▶ Plagiarism, International Students, and the Second-Language Writer ▶ Publication Ethics and Graduate Students ▶ Writing the Self: Ghostwriter Perspectives and Identity Construction

References Andreescu, L. (2013). Self-plagiarism in academic publishing: The anatomy of a misnomer. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 775–797. Anson, I. & Moskovitz. C. (2021). Text recycling in STEM: A text-analytic study of recent NSF sponsored research reports. Accountability in Research 28: 349–371. Barry, E. S. (2006). Can paraphrasing practice help students define plagiarism? College Student Journal, 40(2), 377–384. Bašić, Ž., Kružić, I., Jerković, I., Buljan, I., & Marušić, A. (2019). Attitudes and knowledge about plagiarism among university students: Cross-sectional survey at the University of Split, Croatia. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(5), 1467–1483. Bazdaric, K. (2012). Plagiarism detection-quality management tool for all scientific journals. Croatian Medical Journal, 53(1), 1–3. Baždarić, K., Bilić-Zulle, L., Brumini, G., & Petrovečki, M. (2012). Prevalence of plagiarism in recent submissions to the Croatian Medical Journal. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 223–239. Bik, E. M., Fang, F. C., Kullas, A. L., Davis, R. J., & Casadevall, A. (2018). Analysis and correction of inappropriate image duplication: The molecular and cellular biology experience. Molecular and Cellular Biology, 38, 00309-18. https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.00309-18 Bird, S. J. (2002). Self-plagiarism and dual and redundant publications: What is the problem? Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 543–544. Bo, T.-L., Duan, S.-Z., Zheng, X.-J., & Liang, Y.-R. (2014). RETRACTED: The influence of sand bed temperature on lift-off and falling parameters in windblown sand flux. Geomorphology, 204, 477–484.

23

On Recycling Our Own Work in the Digital Age

377

Bonnell, D. A., Hafner, J. H., Hersam, M. C., Kotov, N. A., Buriak, J. M., Hammond, P. T., Javey, A., Nordlander, P., Parak, W. J., Schaak, R. E., Wee, A. T., Weiss, P. S., Rogach, A. L., Stevens, M. M., & Willson, C. G. (2012). Recycling is not always good: The dangers of self-plagiarism. ACS Nano, 6, 1–4. Bretag, T., & Carapiet, S. (2007). A preliminary study to determine the extent of self- plagiarism in Australian academic research. Plagiary: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication and Falsification, 2(5), 1–15. Bretag, T., & Mahmud, S. (2009). Self-plagiarism or appropriate textual re-use? Journal of Academic Ethics, 7, 193–205. Broad, W. J. (1981). The publishing game: Getting more for less. Science, 211(4487), 1137–1139. Bruton, S. V. (2014). Self-plagiarism and textual recycling: Legitimate forms of research misconduct. Accountability in Research, 21, 176–197. Bruton, S., & Rachal, J. R. (2015). Education journal editors’ perspectives on self-plagiarism. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13, 13–25. Callahan, J. L. (2014). Creation of a moral panic? Self-plagiarism and the academy. Human Resource Development Review, 13, 3–10. Childers, D., & Bruton, S. (2016). “Should it be considered plagiarism?” Student perceptions of complex citation issues. Journal of Academic Ethics, 14(1), 1–17. Choi, W.-S., Song, S.-W., Ock, S.-M., Kim, C.-M., Lee, J.-B., Chang, W.-J., & Kim, S. H. (2014). Duplicate publication of articles used in meta-analysis in Korea. Springerplus, 3(182), 1–6. Chu, D., Khamis, A., Akl, E., Neumann, I., Solo, K., & Schunemann, H. (2021). Revisiting the evidence for physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection – Authors’ reply. The Lancet, 398(10301), 663–664. Committee on Publication Ethics. (2019). A COPE study 2019: Exploring publication ethics in the arts, humanities, and social sciences. https://publicationethics.org/node/44481 Curtis, G., & Vardanega, L. (2016). Is plagiarism changing over time? A 10-year time-lag study with three points of measurement. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(6), 1167–1179. Dahlberg, J. (2007). ORI retains its working definition of plagiarism under new regulation. ORI Newsletter, 15, 4. Davidhizar, R., & Giger, J. N. (2002). Duplicate publication part 1. Consideration of the issues. Nurse Author & Editor, 12(3), 1–4. Dickens, B. M., Gruskin, S., & Tarantola, D. (2011). Avoiding plagiarism: The assurance of original publication. American Journal of Public Health, 101(6), 969. Eaton, S. E. & Crossman, K. (2018). Self-Plagiarism Research Literature in the Social Sciences: A Scoping Review. Interchange, 49(3), 285–311. Errami, M., Hicks, J. M., Fisher, W., Trusty, D., Wren, J. D., Long, T. C., & Garner, H. R. (2008). Deja vu A study of duplicate citations in medline. Bioinformatics, 24(2), 243–249. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 16751–16752. Ghasemi, O., Ghadimi, M. R., & Ghasemi, V. (2014) Adsorption and inhibition effect of Benzaldehyde Schiff bases on mild steel corrosion in 1 M HCl medium. Journal of Dispersion Science and Technology, 35(8), 1143–1154. https://doi.org/10.1080/01932691.2013.834263 Habibzadeh, F., & Marcovitch, H. (2011). Plagiarism: The emperor’s new clothes. European Science Editing, 37(3), 67–69. Hall, S., Moskovitz, C., & Pemberton, M. A. (2018). Attitudes toward text recycling in academic writing across disciplines. Accountability in Research, 25(3), 142–169. Hall, S., Moskovitz, C., & Pemberton, M. (2021). Understanding text recycling: A guide for researchers [Internet]. Text Recycling Research Project. Available from: https://textrecycling. org/files/2021/06/Understanding-Text-Recycling_A-Guide-for-Researchers-V.1.pdf Hallupa, C., & Bolliger, D. U. (2013). Faculty perceptions of student self plagiarism: An exploratory multi-university study. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11, 297–310.

378

M. Roig

Hoit, J. (2007). Salami science. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16, 94. Houston, P., & Moher, D. (1996). Redundancy, disaggregation, and the integrity of medical research. Lancet, 347, 1024–1026. Howard, R. M. (1999). Standing in the shadow of giants: Plagiarists, authors, collaborators. Ablex. Huth, E. J. (1986). Irresponsible authorship and wasteful publication. Annals of Internal Medicine, 104, 257–259. ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors). (2022). Overlapping publications. Duplicate Publications. Available: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishingand-editorial-issues/overlapping-publications.html. Accessed 26 Oct 2022. Jacobs, H. (2011). From and to a very grey area. EMBO Reports, 12, 479. Jüni, P., da Costa, B. R., Bobos, P., Bodmer, N. S., & McGeer, A. (2021). Revisiting the evidence for physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection. The Lancet, 398(10301), 663. Kim, S. Y., Bae, C.-W., Hahm, C. K., & Cho, H. M. (2014). Duplicate publication rate decline in Korean medical journals. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 29, 172–175. Kinney, N., Wubah, A., Roig, M., & Garner, H. R. (2021). Estimating the prevalence of text overlap in biomedical conference abstracts. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 6, 2. https://doi.org/10. 1186/s41073-020-00106-y Landau, J. D., Druen, P. B., & Arcuri, J. A. (2002). Methods for helping students avoid plagiarism. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 112–115. Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2010). On the prevalence and scientific impact of duplicate publications in different scientific fields (1980–2007). Journal of Documentation, 66(2), 179–190. Leonard, C. (2015). Notice of retraction of redundant publication. International Review of Law, 1, 5. Löfström, E., & Kupila, P. (2013). The instructional challenges of student plagiarism. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11, 231–242. Malički, M., Utrobičić, A., & Marušić, A. (2019). Correcting duplicate publications: Follow up study of MEDLINE tagged duplications. Biochemia Medica, 29(1), 010201. https://www. biochemia-medica.com/en/journal/29/1/10.11613/BM.2019.010201 Marcus, A. (2010). Redundancy, redux: Anesthesia journal retracts obesity paper in self-plagiarism case. Retraction Watch. Available from: http://retractionwatch.com/2010/08/04/redundancyredux-anesthesia-journal-retracts-obesity-paper-in-self-plagiarism-case/ Martin, B. R. (2013). Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment. Research Policy, 42, 1005–1014. Martinson, E. A., Piper, H. M., & Garcia-Dorado, D. (2011). How to catch a cheat: An editor’s perspective on a new age of plagiarism and data manipulation. Cardiovascular Research, 92, 1–2. Materials, N. (2005). Editorial. The cost of salami slicing. Nature Materials, 4, 1. Mazer, J. P., & Hunt, S. K. (2012). Tracking plagiarism electronically: First-year students’ perceptions of academic dishonesty and reports of cheating behavior in the basic communication course. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 8, 57–68. McCabe, D. L. (2005). Cheating among college and university students: A North American perspective. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 1(1) http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/ index.php/IJEI/article/view/14/9 McGowan, S., & Lightbody, M. (2008). Enhancing students’ understanding of plagiarism within a discipline context. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 17, 273–290. McGrail, E., & McGrail, J. P. (2015). Exploring web-based university policy statements on plagiarism by research-intensive higher education institutions. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13(2), 167–196. Moskovitz, C. (2020). There is no absolute expectation about text recycling. Clinical Biochemistry, 86, 65–66. Moskovitz, C. (2021). Standardizing terminology for text recycling in research writing. Learned Publishing, 34, 370–378. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/leap.1372

23

On Recycling Our Own Work in the Digital Age

379

Moskovitz, C., & Hall, S. (2020). Text recycling in STEM research: An exploratory investigation of expert and novice beliefs and attitudes. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication., 51(3), 252–272. Neligan, P., Williams, N., Greenblatt, E. P., Cereda, M., & Ochroch, E. A. (2010). Retraction letter for Neligan P, Malhotra G, Fraser MW, Williams N, Greenblatt EP, Cereda M, Ochroch EA. Noninvasive ventilation immediately after extubation improves lung function in morbidly obese patients with obstructive sleep apnea undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 110, 1360–1365. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 111(2), 576. Oransky, I. (2012). JACS makes it official, retracting Breslow “space dinosaurs” paper for “similarity to his previously published reviews”. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch. com/2012/05/20/jacs-makes-it-official-retracting-breslow-space-dinosaurs-paper-for-similarityto-his-previously-published-reviews/ Park, C. (2003). In other (people’s) words: Plagiarism by university students – Literature and lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 471–488. Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second- language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 317–345. Pecorari, D. (2008). Academic writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis. Continuum. Peh, W. C. G., & Arokiasamy, J. T. (2008). Plagiarism: A joint statement from the Singapore Medical Journal and the Medical Journal of Malaysia. Singapore Medical Journal, 49, 965–966. Pemberton, M. A., Hall, S., Moskovitz, C., & Anson, C. (2019). Text recycling: Views of North American journal editors from an interview-based study. Learned Publishing. https:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/leap.1259 Power, L. G. (2009). University students’ perceptions of plagiarism. The Journal of Higher Education, 80, 643–662. Price, J. H., Dake, J. A., & Islam, R. (2001). Selected ethical issues in research a publication: Perceptions of health education faculty. Health Education & Behavior, 28, 51–64. Resnik, D. B. (2012). Plagiarism: Words and ideas. Accountability in Research, 19, 269–272. Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors. Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), 307–323. Roig, M. (2005). Re-using text from one’s own previously published papers: An exploratory study of potential self-plagiarism. Psychological Reports, 97, 43–49. Roig, M. (2014). Journal editorials on plagiarism: What is the message? European Science Editing, 40, 58–59. Roig, M., & deJacquant, J. (2000). Guidelines on plagiarism in writing manuals across various disciplines. In Proceedings of the first ORI conference on research integrity. Office of Research Integrity. http://ori.hhs.gov/documents/proceedings_rri.pdf Royce, J. (2003). Has Turnitin.com got it all wrapped up? Teacher Librarian, 30(4), 26–30. Salhaney, J., & Roig, M. (2004). Academic dishonesty policies across universities: Focus on plagiarism. Psi Chi: Journal of Undergraduate Research, 9, 150–153. Saurin, T. A., Wachs, P., & Henriqson, E. (2014). Retraction notice to “Identification of non-technical skills from the resilience engineering perspective: A case study of an electricity distributor” [Safety Sci. 51 (2013) 37–48]. Safety Science, 62, 538. Scaife, B. (2007). IT consultancy plagiarism detection software report for JISC advisory service. NCC Group PLC. Shafer, S. L. (2011). You will be caught. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 112(3), 491–493. Shen, H. (2020). Seeing double. Nature, 581, 132–136. Sigelman, L. (2008). Multiple presentations of “the same” paper: A skeptical view. PS: Political Science and Politics, 41(2), 305–306. Smolčić, V. S. (2013). Salami publication: Definitions and examples. Biochemia Medica, 23(3), 237–241. Smolčić, V. S., & Bilić-Zulle, L. (2013). How do we handle self-plagiarism in submitted manuscripts? Biochemia Medica, 23(2), 150–153.

380

M. Roig

Sutherland-Smith, W. (2005a). The tangled Web: Internet plagiarism and international students’ academic writing. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 15(1), 15–29. Sutherland-Smith, W. (2005b). Pandora’s box: Academic perceptions of student plagiarism in writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 83–95. Sutherland-Smith, W. (2011). Crime and punishment: An analysis of university plagiarism policies. Semiotica, 187(1), 127–139. Tierney, R. J., & LaZansky, J. (1980). The rights and responsibilities of readers and writers: A contractual agreement. Language Arts, 57, 606–613. Tramer, M. R., Reynolds, D. J., Moore, R. A., & McQuay, H. J. (1997). Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: A case study. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 635–640. Vasconcelos, S. M., & Roig, M. (2014). Prior publication and redundancy in contemporary science: Are authors and editors at the crossroads? Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(5), 1367–1378. von Elm, E., Poglia, G., Walder, B., & Tramer, M. R. (2004). Different patterns of duplicate publication: An analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291(8), 974–980. Wager, E., Fiack, S., Graf, C., Robinson, A., & Rowlands, I. (2009). Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: Results of an international survey. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(6), 348–353. Walker, A. L. (2008). Preventing unintentional plagiarism: A method for strengthening paraphrasing skills. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35, 387–395. Yank, V., & Barnes, D. (2003). Consensus and contention regarding redundant publication in clinical research: Cross sectional survey of editors and authors. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29(2), 109–114. Yeo, S. (2007). First-year university science and engineering students’ understanding of plagiarism. Higher Education Research & Development, 26, 199–216. Zhan, Y., & Wan, Z. H. (2014). Dynamic nature of washback on individual learners: the role of possible selves. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(7), 821–839. Zhang, Y., & Jia, X. (2012). A survey on the use of Cross Check for detecting plagiarism in journal articles. Learned Publishing, 25, 292–307. Zigmond, M. J., & Fischer, B. A. (2002). Beyond fabrication and plagiarism: The little murders of everyday science. Commentary on “Six Domains of Research Ethics”. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 229–234. Zwick, M., Springer, M. L., Guerrero, J. K., DiVentura, D., & York, K. P. (2019). An activity to promote recognition of unintentional plagiarism in scientific writing in undergraduate biology courses. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 20(2) https://www.asmscience.org/ content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1751

Part III Supporting Students with Academic Integrity and Ethical Learning

Supporting Students with Academic Integrity and Ethical Learning: Introduction

24

Silvia L. Rossi

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Updated Chapters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapters with a Specific Disciplinary Lens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapters on Institutional Efforts to Support Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

384 384 384 385 386 387 388 388

Abstract

This section of the handbook puts the spotlight on students, exploring the many ways in which students learn about academic integrity and ethics and how educators and institutions can best support them. Some of the authors in this section highlight aspects of academic integrity education that still have not changed but need to, such as the persistent categorization of patchwriting as plagiarism and the continued expectation that students should already know how to write from sources when they enter higher education. Other authors discuss emerging aspects of academic integrity education, such as the need to support students’ understanding of attribution in multimedia assignments, and the increasingly stark difference between students’ attribution practices in their nonacademic lives and the practices expected of them in their academic lives. Readers of this section will revisit familiar ideas from fresh angles and encounter brand new ideas like the concept of creative order as the ultimate goal of holistic academic integrity development.

S. L. Rossi (*) Student Learning Services, Mount Royal University, Calgary, AB, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_98

383

384

S. L. Rossi

Keywords

Academic integrity · Academic misconduct · Student supports · Plagiarism · Academic writing · Creative arts and media · Patchwriting · Source use · Attribution · Authentic assessment · Moral disengagement · Moral agency · Academic literacies · Multilingual writers · Scientific writing · Indigenous knowledge · Writing from sources · Multimedia assignments

Introduction The first edition of the Handbook of Academic Integrity (Bretag, 2016) did not include a separate section devoted to supporting students’ learning about academic integrity, although there were certainly individual chapters that focused on students and their academic integrity development (e.g., Brimble on what motivates students to engage in academic misconduct, Blum on the complexity of higher education students’ contexts, and Wangaard on supporting secondary school students, to name a few). The fact that this second edition includes a special section devoted to how institutions and educators support students with academic integrity and ethical learning signifies a commitment to carving out a dedicated space where perspectives and approaches to student support can be collected and compared. The chapters in this section represent perspectives from a range of professional roles – scholar, educator, and educational developer – and a range of disciplines – history, creative arts and media, chemistry, applied linguistics, and writing studies. Readers will encounter practical ideas, ranging from single classroom activities to campus-wide initiatives, that they can adapt or use as creative springboards. Readers will also find a strong current of student advocacy; the section is student centered, but rather than shining a narrow spotlight on students’ choices and behaviors, it illuminates a broader network of contextual factors that impact students’ academic integrity and ethical learning.

Section Overview Updated Chapters Three authors have updated the chapters they contributed to the first edition of the Handbook of Academic Integrity. New Zealand–based education specialist Lee Adam, whose first edition chapter outlined a three-part framework for understanding students’ perspectives on plagiarism, has broadened the focus from plagiarism to academic integrity and misconduct, and added a fourth framing: the integrity of the academy. Thus, the revised chapter provides an overview of literature that reveals each of four understandings of academic misconduct in higher education: misconduct as (1) a moral issue, (2) a regulatory issue, (3) a phenomenon stemming from students’ journeys toward

24

Supporting Students with Academic Integrity and Ethical Learning: Introduction

385

becoming strong academic writers, and (4) a threat to the academy. For each of the four understandings, students’ perspectives are highlighted, and what is revealed, in many cases, are differences between how students view academic misconduct and how it is viewed by staff, instructors, and/or the institution. The chapter ends with an appeal to reframe emerging technologies as progress instead of a threat, and to place greater value on helping students become effective collaborators. US-based writing studies scholar Sandra Jamieson traces the history of patchwriting and its relationship to academic integrity, going back to the 1960s when the term first appeared. She analyzes the relationships between patchwriting and both intentionality and originality, and contends that patchwriting is evidence of students’ attempts to gain entry into disciplinary discourse communities. The fundamental argument Jamieson made in her first edition contribution has not changed: patchwriting, in particular cited patchwriting, should not be classified as plagiarism. When student writing exhibits inappropriate use of sources, educators should see an opportunity for pedagogy, not policing. And the pedagogical focus should not be limited to teaching citation or to teaching discrete writing skills; it must encompass helping students to learn to read and engage with the ideas in a text. In short, students need help developing rhetorical intertextuality. This updated chapter reveals that the argument for dissociating patchwriting from plagiarism is as relevant today as it was when the first edition of the Handbook was published. Applied linguist Diane Pecorari, based in UK, also frames plagiarism in student writing as a learning and literacy issue, but her chapter focuses on a specific population: multilinguals writing in a second or additional language (L2 writers). L2 writers deserve special attention in discussions of plagiarism because this type of academic misconduct is so tightly tied to language use (unlike other types of academic misconduct such as falsification), and the linguistic demands of academic writing from sources are highly complex. Pecorari suggests that educators need to critically examine their expectations of L2 writers in light of this complexity. The chapter includes an update on the ongoing debate surrounding the cultural explanation for plagiarism and ends with an entreaty: If institutions are serious about addressing plagiarism and patchwriting, they must only admit students who have certain foundational abilities in place, and they must devote more resources to helping students further develop the literacy skills they need for success in higher education.

Chapters with a Specific Disciplinary Lens Three chapters explore academic integrity from a unique disciplinary lens: history, creative arts and media, and chemistry. Canada-based historians Mairi Cowan and Andrew Nurse demonstrate how teaching history students about academic integrity is fundamental to good historical practice. History educators can weave academic integrity into their classes by focusing on the positive value of academic integrity, linking academic integrity to the guidelines issued by professional historical associations, using authentic

386

S. L. Rossi

historical illustrations to help students contextualize practices and norms from different times and places, and modeling academic integrity themselves. By contrasting the conventions of the popular history and academic history cultures, students may come to understand expectations more clearly, and case studies may be helpful in this endeavor. Using a classroom activity like the “Footnote Treasure Hunt,” in which students examine footnotes to identify different types of sources and discuss the value of citation systems, can guide students toward understanding not only how to use sources transparently, but also the deeper reasons for citation practices. Part of this deeper learning must involve conversations around respecting the knowledge traditions of Indigenous Peoples, and the authors include specific guidance on bringing these conversations into the classroom. Australia-based music and media scholar Sarah Keith notes that academic integrity in the creative arts and media is an under-researched area. Much of the scholarly conversation around academic integrity in higher education has revolved around text-based forms of expression, but creative arts and media disciplines involve many nontextual forms, such as performances, audiovisual works, and compositions, and these forms of expression have unique attributes, with unique implications for academic integrity. Since multimedia assignments (e.g., videos and infographics) are becoming increasingly prevalent across disciplines, these implications are far-reaching. Keith proposes a set of lenses for considering integrity in creative arts and media: academic, moral/ethical, professional, copyright, terms of use, and social/cultural. The chapter then turns to the complexities of attribution in creative arts and media, contrasting different systems of attribution, and noting the lack of consensus around what constitutes a breach of academic integrity. Finally, Keith explores the potential for staged and authentic assessment to contribute to assessment security. Canadian chemist Bronwen M. M. Wheatley advocates for a problem-solving approach to teaching scientific writing to undergraduate students. In science courses, students are typically shown, step by step, how to solve textbook problems, but it is frequently assumed that they should already know how to write, so they are less likely to experience direct instruction in specific writing skills. This can lead to the misuse of sources in research-based writing assignments. Wheatley suggests specific activities, including an “Encountering Academic Integrity” activity, that can be adapted for a variety of science courses to make a positive difference in students’ scientific writing abilities. The chapter includes a detailed description of a classroom demonstration activity in which the instructor treats the process of reading two primary literature texts as a kind of problem-solving task, modeling how to read and interpret information step by step, and showing students how to write about these texts in ways that align with academic integrity.

Chapters on Institutional Efforts to Support Students Two chapters consider broader institutional efforts to support students’ learning about academic integrity and ethics.

24

Supporting Students with Academic Integrity and Ethical Learning: Introduction

387

Educators Pablo Ayala Enríquez and Jean Gabriel Guerrero-Dib, both based in Mexico, draw on the mechanisms of moral disengagement from Alfred Bandura’s social cognitive theory to explore the connection between academic misconduct and the social acceptance of cheating. They first report on a study of Mexican university students which found that peer behavior and social rejection of dishonesty were important contributing factors to students’ academic integrity behavior – more important than the existence of a well-designed institutional program of academic integrity. The authors then describe five approaches used to teach ethics in Latin America, recommending that institutions use multiple approaches to promote the development of students’ proactive moral agency. The chapter includes examples of programming at two Mexican universities (e.g., learning units, awareness campaigns and student leadership initiatives), and the authors analyze how each example reveals a particular approach to teaching ethics and could inhibit specific mechanisms of moral disengagement. The chapter ends with a call for further research into these moral disengagement mechanisms since understanding them more deeply could be key to helping students develop moral autonomy. South African plagiarism and writing center specialist Zander Janse Van Rensburg and academic adviser Sonja Van Der Westhuizen introduce the concept of creative order as the ultimate goal of holistic academic integrity development. Creative order is a dynamic system in which proactive and reactive measures related to academic integrity are not only coordinated, but build upon one another in a cyclical fashion to the point where they may catalyze creative education. The authors present, as a case study, the North-West University’s efforts to push the horizons of holistic academic integrity development toward creative order. Some milestones on this journey have been the development of a new policy and standard operating procedures, and the creation of a community of practice for academic integrity. The authors describe the unique context of higher education in South Africa and highlight their university’s student supports, categorizing these supports according to six different factors which contribute to academic misconduct.

Summary Although this section includes a variety of perspectives, gaps inevitably exist. The needs of equity-deserving students are not prominently addressed, nor are the needs of students in educational contexts other than higher education. In the next edition of the handbook, chapters featuring students as coauthors would ensure that the student voice reaches readers more strongly and directly. By the time the next edition of this handbook is published, the landscape of education at all levels will have changed. The breakneck speed at which generative artificial intelligence is evolving may prove to be the most powerful catalyst. As educators and institutions strive to adapt, not only in superficial and temporary ways, but also in meaningful, lasting ways, we will need to prioritize including students not as objects of study, but as empowered partners.

388

S. L. Rossi

Cross-References ▶ Academic Integrity and Creative Order: A Case from South Africa ▶ Academic Integrity in Creative Arts and Media ▶ Framing Students’ Perspectives on Academic Integrity ▶ Modeling Scientific Writing as Scientific Problem-Solving ▶ Moral Disengagement Leading to Social Acceptance of Academic Misconduct: A Predictor of Behavior ▶ Patchwriting, Plagiarism, Pedagogy: Definitions and Implications ▶ Plagiarism, International Students, and the Second-Language Writer ▶ Teaching Academic Integrity as Good Historical Practice

References Bretag, T. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of academic integrity. Springer.

Teaching Academic Integrity as Good Historical Practice

25

Mairi Cowan and Andrew Nurse

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Misconduct in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Integrity as a Positive Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Authentic Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Methods of Research and Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

390 391 392 395 397 402 403 404 404

Abstract

This chapter examines why and how to teach academic integrity in history courses. It argues that issues of academic integrity are both important and multifaceted, but also shrouded in ambiguities that can subvert the best intentions of historical educators. Academic integrity is central to historical practice, and therefore should be taught as part of history courses. It should be presented with an openness to changes that extend beyond the historical discipline and notably in response to the decolonization of the academy. A historically informed and formative approach is a good way forward. Instruction should highlight the positive value of academic integrity within the ethical dynamics of historical practice, draw upon authentic historical illustrations, be based on techniques informed by the broader scholarship of teaching and learning generally and M. Cowan (*) Department of Historical Studies and Institute for the Study of University Pedagogy, University of Toronto Mississauga, Toronto and Mississauga, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] A. Nurse Centre for Canadian Studies, Mount Allison University, Sackville, NB, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_99

389

390

M. Cowan and A. Nurse

Indigenous academic integrity specifically, and model good practices on the part of the instructor. Teaching academic integrity as historical practice will enrich students’ understanding of history, its ethics, and how to engage responsibly with historical sources. Keywords

Academic integrity · Academic misconduct · Decolonization · Historical practice · History education · Plagiarism

Introduction Academic integrity is central to the pursuit of knowledge, whatever our area of scholarly specialization. It is a common endeavor with a diversity of expressions: while general principles of academic integrity are broadly shared throughout the academy, its praxis differs from one discipline to another. This chapter focuses on why and how to teach academic integrity in history courses as part of good historical practice. “Historical practice” here means a series of procedures, methods, sites, educational initiatives, and narratives that constitute the foundation of history as an academic discipline. Leaders in the field of academic integrity have called for more discipline-specific research and education (Bretag, 2016; Eaton & Ileh Edino, 2018) so that instructors can teach, and students learn, the norms and expectations specific to their fields. History constitutes an interesting case study of how important academic integrity is, yet how much more work remains to be done in understanding how to teach it well. On the one hand, ethics are central to the discipline. Professional historical organizations maintain codes of conduct and, increasingly, make public pronouncements on ethical issues directly connected to the study of the past (American Historical Association, 2019; Canadian Historical Association, 2022a, n.d.). On the other hand, little research has been conducted into how historians and history students think about the ethics they are supposed to teach, learn, and uphold. This paradox points to an odd and important ambiguity that lies at the heart of historical practice: as a discipline, history simultaneously makes strong statements regarding the ethics of researching the past, while it avoids a disciplinary and educational conversation that needs to happen about how to teach these ethics responsibly. In effect, faculty issue warnings against cheating and then police the boundaries of their students’ historical practice. In doing so, they (probably unintentionally) create a pedagogical relationship that builds distrust into classroom practices in spite of increasing evidence that such distrust serves little educational purpose (Curtis, 2021). This chapter looks to build on current studies of academic integrity and classroom practice by offering a different way to think about teaching and learning academic integrity in history courses. Open, intentional, and concerted teaching about academic integrity is not simply a way to stave off student cheating but is, in fact, central to history as a discipline. For history, academic integrity involves ethical principles

25

Teaching Academic Integrity as Good Historical Practice

391

and technical expertise that are intricately intertwined. What is more, ethical issues and integrity are linked to the decolonization of classrooms and efforts within the discipline to recognize the importance and legitimacy of Indigenous academic integrity. With such intertwined linkages, history, as a discipline, can make a broad contribution to the promotion of academic integrity and the decolonization of higher education (Battiste, 2013; Bell et al., 2019; Eaton & Christensen Hughes, 2022; Lonetree, 2021).

Academic Misconduct in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Research into academic misconduct is not new. As a field of study within the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), research on student academic misconduct is both advanced and international in scope. Taken together, SoTL studies of academic misconduct point to several important conclusions relevant to history education. First, many students come to college or university with a superficial understanding of what constitutes academic misconduct. If history students are like students in other courses (and there is no reason to suppose that, in this respect, they are different), they are usually not thinking much about why academic integrity matters, how it fits into a broader context of knowledge, or what procedures they can follow to avoid committing academic offenses (Locquiao & Ives, 2020). History students need, therefore, to be made aware of the importance of academic integrity in their academic work. A second point, which follows from the first, is that students frequently understand academic misconduct differently from their instructors, both in terms of discerning which behaviors constitute an academic offense and also of how serious any given offense can be (Childers & Bruton, 2016; Park, 2003; Wilkinson, 2009). For this reason, history instructors should remember that what may seem obvious to them in matters of academic integrity may well be unfamiliar to students. A third finding that history instructors should consider is that students engage in academic misconduct for a range of reasons (Ashworth et al., 1997; Colella, 2018). Factors that make some students more or less likely to commit academic offenses include their understanding of dishonesty, perspectives of their peer groups, prior education, the degree to which they understand assignments, family or cultural pressures, their standing in the course, and their attendance (Davies, 2022). Such a diversity of factors suggests that no one way of addressing integrity issues can fully address the problem of misconduct, and so history instructors, like instructors of other subjects, should consider the matter from more than one direction. Various methods have been used to curb academic dishonesty (Curtis & Clare, 2017), and some are more likely than others to be useful in the context of a history course. Research has shown that course-based instruction is an important venue for teaching both the technical and the moral or ethical dimensions of academic integrity (Bertram Gallant, 2017; Sefcik et al., 2020). History instructors can certainly teach these dimensions in their courses with examples particular to their field. These

392

M. Cowan and A. Nurse

instructors are already teaching history courses, and so course-based instruction is an obvious place to teach about discipline-specific facets of academic integrity. Providing instruction about academic integrity within a course not only tells students that academic integrity is important; it shows the importance of academic integrity by devoting time for the teaching of why it matters and the discussion of how to build a robust understanding of good historical practice. Most instructors want to move their students from mere compliance with the rules in a specific course toward a deeper understanding of why those rules are important and a broader appreciation for how knowledge is preserved, contested, developed, assessed, and shared. A teaching and learning approach to inculcating academic integrity within courses can be particularly valuable to that end (Bertram Gallant, 2017). Tricia Bertram Gallant (2008: 6) has suggested reframing the key question from “how do we stop students from cheating?” to “how do we ensure students are learning?” This reframing presumes that instructors can engage students meaningfully as partners in ethical learning (Eaton, 2021a, b). Because academic integrity, generally, and the presentation of sources, in particular, are so central to the discipline of history, framing the approach to one where teachers work with students to learn about the ethics of historical practice will help the students become better historians.

Academic Integrity as a Positive Value Teaching academic integrity well requires more than just telling students what not to do and issuing warnings; it involves helping students understand what integrity means, why it is important, and how they can participate ethically in their own learning. Teaching academic integrity effectively means thinking about the approach as educational rather than as policing. An instructor need not be naïve about the extent of academically offensive behavior in order to see the value in taking a developmental rather than punitive approach (Bertram Gallant & Stephens, 2020). Academic misconduct is complex and potentially growing in severity (Bertram Gallant, 2008; Christensen Hughes & Eaton, 2022), but simply telling students not to commit academic offenses can only do so much to end misconduct. Students cheat for a range of reasons, so warnings – especially those issued only at the beginning of courses – may have limited effects because they cannot address all the underlying reasons for misconduct. In a history course, for example, warning the students at the start of term that failure to cite sources correctly will result in a charge of plagiarism will not do much to help a student who has not been taught that conventions for citation in a history course differ from their other courses, nor is the warning likely to remain fresh in the memory of a student 8 weeks later when the time comes to submit their first postsecondary research paper. Students should take responsibility for accurate citation, but they need to learn something about when, where, how, and why to cite before they can exercise this responsibility. Many would benefit from guidance about why academic integrity really matters to help them remember the important points. Placing good conduct rather than misconduct at the center of an ongoing

25

Teaching Academic Integrity as Good Historical Practice

393

discussion is effective teaching. It will not dissuade someone who is determined to cheat, but it may change the minds of some who could be wavering, and, because it will help students understand not just the rules but the reasons behind the rules, it will almost certainly steer students away from unintentional episodes of academic misconduct. More fundamentally, and in a way that should resonate especially clearly for history instructors, teaching the positive value of academic integrity will help students deepen their understanding of the scholarly enterprise by showing them how to build on the work of others and simultaneously articulate their own original thoughts (Hendricks & Quinn, 2000). It will also communicate to students that the instructor is invested in their development and not just in catching misdeeds, which has been shown can decrease student cheating (Palazzo et al., 2010). History instructors who show interest in their students’ learning will help the students learn better and cheat less. A starting point for teaching the positive value of academic integrity is determining what academic integrity actually means. Such a determination can begin before the first day of any given course, with collegial discussions within departments about how often faculty should review departmental policies on academic integrity, where it should sit in curricular maps, and how to embed it within departmental culture. Then the discussions need to move into classrooms. Students can become confused by the different norms of academic integrity that prevail across different disciplines, and sometimes even from course to course within the same department (Bens, 2022; Borg, 2009). Definitions of academic integrity vary, but they tend to share a core of responsible truth-telling. The International Center for Academic Integrity’s (2021: 4) often-cited definition is “a commitment to six fundamental values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage.” In the context of history specifically, a commitment to these fundamental values demands thoughtfulness about how the researcher or teacher orients themselves to the past, and about how they can portray the past accurately and fairly with due credit to the research of others. Part of this orientation necessarily involves a recognition of, and commitment to, diverse perspectives, including those of Indigenous scholars who have their own principles of integrity rooted in Indigenous knowledge, traditions, and heritage that are connected to principles of wholism, respect, and interconnectedness (Maracle, 2020; Poitras Pratt & Gladue, 2022). Discussing what academic integrity is and why it is important in the context of a specific course at a specific institution can be an opportunity to explain what the rules are in that context and why they exist. It is important that this discussion become a conversation. Students should be asked to articulate their own views on misconduct, its causes, and responses. This conversation should also be focused. One possible option is to make learning about academic integrity an assignment. This can unfold in large class formats as a think–pair–share kind of exercise and in smaller classes as a group exercise. Students might be asked to discuss and report back on a series of questions: What do you know about academic integrity? Can you explain this institution’s policies regarding integrity? Can you think of any ambiguities or gray areas in how academic integrity might be interpreted in this course’s assignments? And what is one thing you still do not know about academic integrity? The precise

394

M. Cowan and A. Nurse

exercise can vary, so long as serious class time is devoted to it, students research the issue themselves, and then reflect on what they do not know as well as what they do (Nurse, 2021). For historians, discussing academic integrity in a history course means, at its foundation, explaining how to do good history. As one guide for undergraduate students puts it, “Historians have the responsibility of speaking for the past, and therefore it is essential that they report accurately on the people and events of the past. All scholars build on the work of others. Historians need to be able to trust that other historians have been faithful to their sources” (Storey & Cowan, 2019: 37). Students, scholars, and the public at large deserve to know that the history they read, see in museums, listen to online, or visit at heritage sites is accurate, and, moreover, that every effort has been made to ensure that accuracy. Such an assurance may be truer than ever in a time when knowledge itself has become intensely contested and politicized. Academic integrity is built into the ethics of historical work. Undergraduate students may not be aware of the rules and norms governing professional historical practice, and showing examples of guidelines issued by professional associations can help clarify the central and foundational importance of academic integrity to the wider community of historians (Dichtl, 2003). The American Historical Association’s (2019) “Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct,” for example, weaves elements of academic integrity through different areas of historical practice and lists “mutual trust and respect” among the core values for historians, explaining that “by practicing their craft with integrity, historians acquire a reputation for trustworthiness that is arguably their single most precious professional asset.” The AHA (2019) statement summarizes the core values of professional practice of history: “Historians should practice their craft with integrity. They should honor the historical record. They should document their sources. They should acknowledge their debts to the work of other scholars. They should respect and welcome divergent points of view even as they argue and subject those views to critical scrutiny. They should remember that our collective enterprise depends on mutual trust. And they should never betray that trust.” The core values listed in the Canadian Historical Association’s (n.d.) “Statement on Research Ethics” address the same underlying ideals: “1. our commitment to free and open inquiry, adhering to the ideal of academic freedom; 2. our commitment to preserving and honouring the integrity of the historical record, never fabricating, destroying, distorting or hiding sources or evidence; 3. our proper acknowledgment of all primary sources and the works of other scholars; 4. our openness to hear, with respect, divergent interpretations and views, even as we subject those interpretations to critical scrutiny.” Such statements are important for students to see because they highlight the ethical standards of the discipline as a positive value in, and an integral part of, historic practice. Students can be shown similar statements from whatever organization of professional historians operates in the region where they are studying or that supports research in the topic they are investigating, and they can analyze these statements to determine the core principles of academic integrity for historical work

25

Teaching Academic Integrity as Good Historical Practice

395

and how they as students of history can follow these principles in their own studies. These statements show students that historians do not just warn against academic misconduct; they accord it a positive value and make it part of their own professional education.

Authentic Illustrations Everything has a history, and discussions of academic integrity can be linked to the content of a history course by examining historical examples of integrity or of its breach. One of the most famous metaphors for how we build knowledge is that of dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants. It is especially well known as formulated by Isaac Newton, who used the metaphor to describe how his development of a theory of color built on the work of fellow scientists Robert Hooke and René Descartes. As Newton put it in a letter to Hooke in 1676, “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” This version of the metaphor can be traced back through the poet George Herbert, who wrote a few decades earlier that “a dwarfe on a gyant’s shoulder see further of the two.” Neither of these writers credited the idea to the philosopher John of Salisbury, who back in the twelfth century attributed it (with approval) to his contemporary Bernard of Chartres: “He pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic stature” (Cowan, 2020; John of Salisbury, c. 1159/1955: 167; Merton, 1993: 12–13, 31; Stock, 1979). This chain of thinking, although unacknowledged, did not bring down charges of academic dishonesty in medieval or early modern Europe, but it certainly would constitute something like plagiarism in most educational settings now. John of Salisbury – who did cite another teacher for this idea of dwarfs on the shoulders of giants – was not entirely above practices that would get him into trouble in a history course today in other ways: he probably concocted the “Instruction of Trajan,” a main source that he names in the Policraticus, one of his most famous texts (John of Salisbury, c. 1159/1990; Nederman, 2015). Examples can also be found of behaviors from the past that were regarded as academic misconduct in their own times too. For more than a thousand years in imperial China, candidates came up with a bewildering array of ways to cheat on their civil service examinations, including writing notes on their underwear in invisible ink, hiding notes in pens or in loaves of bread, hiring impersonators to sit the examinations, purchasing answers, and bribing officials (Elman, 2000; Miyazaki, 1981; Suen & Yu, 2006, cited in Blum, 2009 and Lang, 2013). Faculty and academic administrators have long found misconduct problematic, and they have also long found it confusing, particularly when committed by students who are otherwise seemingly honest and well-adjusted individuals. A professor at the University of Michigan in the 1920s tried to make sense of students “who are scrupulously honorable in other relationships in life” yet submit work that they have not written themselves and cheat on exams (Angell, 1928: 44). These are not idle illustrations;

396

M. Cowan and A. Nurse

they point both to long-standing concerns with academic misconduct and to changing perspectives on it. These perspectives can form the basis of class discussion to ask what has changed, why, and what might be the effects of the changes both over the long term and in the years that have passed since history instructors were history students. Student demographics have shifted over time, as has a reasonable expectation of what faculty in higher education can assume students learnt in high school. Technology, and in particular the Internet, is an obvious area of change. It provides mechanisms to facilitate helpful collaboration and offers an ever-increasing array of source materials accessible from anywhere in the world with an Internet connection, but it can also become a den of temptations. Some students have made use of online sites to facilitate dishonesty (Alessio & Messinger, 2021), but the exact relationship between new technologies and changes to academic misconduct remains unclear. Studies conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic did not show statistically significantly higher rates of dishonesty in online verse in-person teaching environments (Arnold, 2016; Gaytan & McEwen, 2007), and a later study of educational engagement across different delivery modalities did not show that student engagement in general is hampered by instructional delivery mode (Van Beselaere & Roberts 2022), yet there seems to be a fairly widespread perception that cheating increased during the pandemic (Alessio & Messinger, 2021; Lancaster, 2021). Students in the Internet age need to understand new ways of evaluating the reliability of sources, and they need to master a broader range of citation methods. There is some evidence, generated through SoTL more generally, that forms of misconduct are changing over time. Different disciplines report seeming increases in contract cheating or the use of authorized aids or unauthorized collaboration (Eaton, 2021a, b; Rogerson & McCarthy, 2017). Instructors should solicit their students’ perspectives. What do they consider unauthorized collaboration? What are the problems associated with it? Why do some students find it acceptable when others do not? Upon hearing their students’ responses, instructors should clarify their own perspectives in syllabi, assignment descriptions, and class discussions so that students are fully informed (Bens, 2022). Another important consideration for history teachers teaching academic integrity is the movement to decolonize higher education. Sometimes changes associated with this movement amount to a redefinition of acceptable conduct. For example, in the Canadian context, the ethics that characterize cross-cultural research, particularly but not exclusively focused on Indigenous Peoples, has shifted ground in notable and important ways. For a long time, non-Indigenous academics simply assumed their capacity to study First Peoples and adhered to their authority as scholars. Permission of the people they were studying was not required. Scholars felt equally at home in transferring Indigenous culture to museums (in some instances located in other countries), claimed that First Peoples could not manage their own cultural heritage, and dismissed Indigenous claims to authority over their own heritage (Cole, 1995; Nurse, 2006, 2007). It is equally disturbing that leading Canadian museums saw no problems loaning Indigenous artifacts to folk festivals, performers, and for tourism promotion (Slominska, 2008). The use of deception to complete research was also acceptable. The noted Canadian scholar Marius Barbeau, whose work formed a

25

Teaching Academic Integrity as Good Historical Practice

397

cornerstone of the National Museum (now Museum of History), secretly recorded materials that he knew First Nations did not want to share (Nurse, 2006). It is important not only that students see historians disavowing these practices, but that they understand how the specific context of colonialism led to unquestioned behavior and that they think about how ethically problematic actions can be avoided. Based upon this understanding, teachers can discuss the assumptions that inform historical teaching and research on Indigenous and other traditionally marginalized populations, and raise the issue of what can and should guide this type of research.

The Methods of Research and Writing Among the many reasons why students commit academic offenses are several connected with the process of research and writing (Bertram Gallant, 2008; Christensen Hughes & McCabe, 2006; Patrzek et al., 2015). With these processes being central to most history courses, instructors should think carefully about the design of their assignments, explain to students as clearly as possible how to do the assignments well, and reduce temptations to cheat as much as they can. They should craft directions with a student’s perspective in mind, providing enough information to be helpful but not so much as to be overwhelming. For students new to postsecondary history especially, instructors should consider including links to citation guides and advice on when citations are expected. Instructors should avoid reusing the same questions on tests or prompts for an essay year after year. For larger projects, they should consider scheduling scaffolded steps in such a way that students will not at any point be faced with so much work that they may feel the need to cut corners. They may ask students first to come up with a suitable research question, for example, then find appropriate sources to help them answer that question, followed by an outline or draft introductory paragraph, all to be shaped with feedback before the students submit a final project. And instructors should find means of assessment that are connected to the ways historians really work. Essays remain an excellent way to demonstrate understanding of a complex topic, and they are perfectly appropriate for many courses, but so may be podcasts, infographics, and presentations for a general audience. Podcasts, for example, can present research conversationally to talk not only about narrative but about source use, interpretive issues, and the ethical dynamics of historical work. Infographics can mobilize quantitative macro-level data to tell stories about, for instance, trade or population movements or the effects of disease. Presentations for a general audience, whether students in a different course or the wider public, can link academic coursework to community needs and interests. In each case, students need to learn how to cite information, credit sources, and develop a felicity with their materials. Assessment design will not by itself prevent academic misconduct altogether (Ellis et al., 2020), but a learning-oriented environment that focuses on mastery over performance and that fosters intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivation will reduce incentives to cheat by encouraging students to learn material rather than just earn a grade (Bertram Gallant, 2017; Lang, 2013).

398

M. Cowan and A. Nurse

However thoughtfully instructors design assignments, students may still become confused when they need to resolve ambiguities in what may seem like gray areas. Popular historians, for instance, do not always provide citations. Historical discourses on social or popular media function in a similar way, where a contributor makes a claim to veracity but neglects the historical apparatus that professional historians use to sustain their contentions. The cultural experiences of students may therefore run counter to the ethical imperatives of history as a scholarly discipline. It is quite straightforward for instructors to show how the culture of citation differs between popular and academic presentations of history, but this does not mean that they should not explicitly teach about the distinction. Such instruction will help clarify ambiguities in students’ minds and also help to illustrate the significance of good documentary strategies in history. It would show, for instance, why historical claims made on social media may turn out to be untrue yet still circulate because there is no need to cite sources, with the result that problematic conceptions of the past can enter quite deeply into public discourse. Students may find themselves in another grey area if they witness dishonest or misdirected behavior among their peers. Case studies can be especially valuable for illustrating the differences in expectations between different disciplines or different contexts within a discipline, and for helping students think through the complex web of personal and public concerns with academic misconduct (Bens, 2022; Trautner & Borland, 2013). Cases can be based on real-life examples of academic misconduct that the instructor or their colleagues have encountered, and presented in the form of short, fictionalized vignettes. These may include, for example, a student pressed for time who copies the exact wording from a source into their history essay without the correct use of quotation marks; a student who shares their paper with another student in the class to help them understand the assignment, only to find that the other student uses much of that paper in their own submission; a student who witnesses someone cheating on a test; and a student who submits the same paper for two different courses. Students read the cases alongside their institution’s code of behavior. Then, for each case, the students answer a series of questions about whether the behavior being described constitutes academic misconduct, why or why not, and, if so, what the student in the case could have done differently. By thinking through these questions, the students familiarize themselves with expectations at their institution, and, if the cases are designed to admit ambiguity, they start to think more critically about which behaviors are considered problematic in the study of history, why, and how institutions monitor and respond to academic offenses. When done in groups, the discussions of cases will additionally harness the power of peer instruction, which has been shown to engage more students in deep learning (Crouch & Mazur, 2001) and could be especially helpful in courses with a mixture of students specializing in different disciplines. When done effectively, the conversation between instructor and students will not simply indicate that academic misconduct is unacceptable, but will develop a culture and a cohort that supports integrity. To indicate the seriousness of the matter, participation should be a required element of the course and included in assessment and evaluation. To ensure that the conversation is honest, it needs to happen in a

25

Teaching Academic Integrity as Good Historical Practice

399

space free from recrimination and accusation. To leave students with good alternatives to misconduct, better choices must be highlighted, which might require a change in processes of instruction. For example, taking time to workshop papers in tutorials or seminars, discuss student concerns about assignments as a posting to a course site, or brain-storm problems and solutions to exam questions in class with a follow-up creation of an examination guide will give students options for honest work while nurturing supportive relationships and encouraging everyone to take increased responsibility for their own learning. Instructors may wish to set aside specific times for these lessons, whether within regular class times or as specially designated office hours, since academic integrity issues – like any other aspect of learning in a history course – are matters that need to be addressed through good learning strategies. These include returning to the subject with opportunities for discussion, reflection, analysis, and assessment. Citation practices deserve special attention in teaching about academic integrity as part of the research process in history. Students have reported that they lack knowledge of citation conventions, and they have expressed uncertainty about when citation is required as well as how to cite differently in different courses or disciplinary contexts (Adam, 2016; Gullifer & Tyson, 2010). It is therefore worthwhile to spend time teaching students how to read citations in historical research. Draw attention to footnotes and bibliographies in assigned readings. Help students to see that the citations are there to assist them – the readers – if they would like to check evidence for themselves or get more information. An in-class activity that can be used in just about any course is the “Footnote Treasure Hunt.” As a first step in this activity, students work together in groups to look through the footnotes in an article or book and find different types of sources (e.g., an unpublished manuscript, a published primary source, a journal article, a chapter in a book, and a monograph). The instructor guides the students if they require help, which may be likely if they have not yet become fluent in the conventions of footnoting. Once the students have found examples of different types of sources, they discuss why the system of citation is helpful to researchers. A reader interested in a researcher’s findings may want to know more, consult the evidence for themselves, and follow the researcher’s thought process; a clear system of citation helps with all of this. If the students are not yet accustomed to thinking of history as an evidence-based discipline, instructors can make a link to what students may have been taught about the scientific method. Just as the “methods” section in a scientific paper should provide sufficient detail for readers to repeat the experiment as closely as possible, so should academic history “present readers with enough information (in the form of data collected from sources and citations directing readers to these sources) that the reader can find the evidence and interpret it for themselves” (Cowan, 2019). Instructors then reassure students that it is perfectly acceptable to find sources for their own research through the citations of others – so long as they credit the sources appropriately. For all researchers, but perhaps with a resonance that is especially strong for historians, “citation connects us to other minds in other times” (Cowan, 2019). It acknowledges the work of our predecessors and guides those who will come after us to how we know what we think we know (Cowan, 2019). As Anthony Grafton (1997: vii) put it

400

M. Cowan and A. Nurse

in his book The Footnote: A Curious History, “Footnotes matter to historians,” and “they offer the empirical support for stories told and arguments presented.” The American Historical Association (2019) maintains that bibliographies and annotations are “essential to the professional practice of history” because this apparatus “enables other historians to retrace the steps in an argument to make sure these steps are justified by the sources.” It “offers readers the opportunity to indicate gaps in the historical record that might cast doubt on a given interpretation” and “becomes a key starting point for subsequent investigations of the same subject, and thus makes a critical contribution to our collective capacity to ask and answer new questions about the past.” In sum, “historians pride themselves on the accuracy with which they use and document sources. The sloppier their apparatus, the harder it is for other historians to trust their work” (American Historical Association, 2019). To maintain accuracy and avoid sloppiness, students do need to learn how to cite correctly. But this correctness on a technical level need not be either the first or the last step in a discussion of citation. Students can begin to think of the deeper reasons why citation matters, then learn the details. Be clear about what the citation format is in your course and have students practice when and how to cite (Nurse, 2021). Put differently, tell students which method to use and have them use this method before submitting a significant assignment. Do not, however, feel that the discussion must end here. The complexities of intertextuality and knowledge creation should not be reduced to simple mechanics of how to document sources (Abasi & Graves, 2008; Chandrasoma et al., 2004). Citations are also important to determine voice. Written history involves the use of a range of different voices that include both the interpretive voice of the historian, the voices of other historians that are embedded in secondary literature, and the voices of the people about whom they write as found in what historians call primary sources. It is particularly important to disentangle these different voices and to be sure that readers understand the distinctions. References are a mechanism that allows historians to keep different voices separate and to clearly indicate the distinction between primary sources and the historian’s interpretation. This issue is complicated, but primary source citations allow the past to speak for itself. It is always interpreted, and examples are always selected by historians, but the inclusion of primary sources breaks from the historian’s voice to include the thoughts, feelings, perspectives, and aspirations of others. Clearly indicating whose voice is being presented is vital to good historical practice and addresses important questions about historical knowledge that are an inherent part of learning about the past. By learning why citation matters, students can come to see referencing as more than just a means of avoiding charges of plagiarism and instead embrace it as a way to develop “epistemological empowerment” (Hendricks & Quinn, 2000: 447). They may even come to accept the argument of Karin Wulf (2019), librarian and professor of history at Brown University, that footnotes, with their accountability and transparency, are a solution to the problems of weaponized disinformation, including the “fragmentation, polarization, cynicism, and distrust in institutions and expertise.” In the spirit of taking a critical approach to citation, encourage students to question and critique citation practices. Eve Tuck, K. Wayne Yang, and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández (2015),

25

Teaching Academic Integrity as Good Historical Practice

401

scholars of critical pedagogy and the politics of academics, issued a Citation Practices Challenge for “all of us” to pay closer attention to who gets cited, who gets erased, and who should not be cited. They called on readers to “reflect on the way you approach referencing the work of others in your own writing, presenting and thinking,” trace citation practices, and share what happens after a year of reflection. Sara Ahmed (2017: 15–16) has called citation “feminist memory,” writing that “citation is how we acknowledge our debt to those who came before; those who helped us find our way when the way was obscured because we deviated from the paths we were told to follow,” and she has shown how to point out sexism and racism in citational practice. Students can be encouraged to investigate the citation practices in the articles and books they have been assigned, and indeed in their own research papers, to deepen their critical awareness of who does and does not get acknowledged in scholarly conversations. Introducing students to the logic of citation, its power and its limitations, pushes them to think through the implications of their choices around when and how to cite, making students more conscious communicators of their research findings. The context of decolonization requires Settler society to respect Indigenous integrity protocols. Gregory Younging (2018: 38, 92) has provided a guide to writing by and about Indigenous Peoples, including direction that “writers, editors, and publishers should make every effort to ensure that Indigenous Protocols are followed in the publication of Traditional Knowledge and Oral Traditions,” and insisting that “authors, editors, and publishers need to establish permission” from “Indigenous Peoples who own them as their cultural property” before using “materials contained in archives, or already published in works about Indigenous Peoples.” Students need to understand that Indigenous oral traditions, culture, heritage, and values are not a public resource controlled by Settler society. Some Indigenous scholars such as Thomas King (2012) have made a point of according permission to use stories he has written (with due attribution), but the fact that he accords this permission suggests that it needs to be obtained. All students should be interested in the history of colonialism, decolonization, and Indigenous Peoples, but part of that interest needs to lie in respecting the knowledge traditions of those very Peoples, working within their protocols, and respecting their decisions. A useful starting point for considerations of Indigenous academic integrity is the work of Keeta Gladue that has been made available by the Taylor Institute of Teaching and Learning at the University of Calgary (2020). The video of Gladue’s workshop is an accessible entry to the subject. For Gladue, Indigenous academic integrity is equally committed to truthtelling but operates through a different set of principles that include • Honoring elders, knowledge keepers, family, and friends (as opposed to simply citing them) and the key role others have played in one’s life, culture, values, and knowledge. • Locating one’s self in place (which establishes a connection between knowledge and place) and within a network of relationships that are actually constitutive of the self. • Accepting a reciprocal relationship with others and nature that carries responsibilities with it.

402

M. Cowan and A. Nurse

Working with Indigenous communities, Gladue notes, involves full and complete disclosure of the nature of one’s research and project, and respecting Indigenous rights to Indigenous knowledge, culture, and values. For Settler society, she explains, this means accepting the fact that working with or citing Indigenous knowledge does not create a claim on it. Work with Indigenous communities should also benefit the community (and not only the scholar), and it should help empower the community. A decolonized relationship with Original Peoples is one of partnership, as opposed to treating the Peoples merely as the object of study (Gladue, 2020; Taylor Institute for Teaching Learning. 2020). A similar ethics guides community-driven research. As educator Kristina Llewellyn explained (Canadian Historical Association. 2022b), community-driven research involves the co-creation of research projects with specific communities so that the research agenda is, in fact, set collaboratively. Such a project design can be used to address subjects dealing with “difficult knowledge,” such as the effects of racism or oppression where communities seek to redress power imbalances in society and scholarship by developing mechanisms to tell their own stories in their own ways (Canadian Historical Association). The objective of this kind of study is to produce historical knowledge that contributes to social change. It is also the kind of project on which students at different levels can work. Students at Huron College in Ontario, for instance, have worked with local communities to develop a range of projects over time. Some of the projects include mapping publications of primary sources related to Indigenous languages, researching a university’s connections to First Peoples, and teach-ins (Bell et al., 2019). There are heightened integrity considerations in both these kinds of projects and in learning about and working with Indigenous academic integrity that go beyond addressing student misconduct. But they are part of the same conversation. In seeing academic integrity as a matter of integrity that underscores a commitment to truth-telling, documentation, and effective inquiry in connection with “honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage” (International Center for Academic Integrity, 2021), students can learn ways to a different, richer, and more ethical historical practice.

Modeling Students are more likely to consider cheating an acceptable strategy if they think instruction is poor (Bertram Gallant, 2017). It is therefore incumbent on instructors to demonstrate their competence not only as subject specialists in the content of the course, but also as teachers. They can do this by showing interest in the material, communicating clear expectations, ensuring that learning objectives are aligned with assessments, remaining responsive to student inquiries, emphasizing that they take academic integrity seriously, and, perhaps most fundamentally, modeling good behavior (McCabe et al., 2012; Murdock et al., 2007). Whatever the course, for history instructors modeling academic integrity probably includes introducing historiography, providing sources for the information being

25

Teaching Academic Integrity as Good Historical Practice

403

conveyed, and indicating provenance of works of art. For the very conscientious, it can extend to using language such as “I want to give credit to . . .” in order to show respect for the scholarship of others and to highlight how colleagues and past students have helped (Nurse, 2021). These practices model for students how to gather and convey information responsibly, and show what kind of ethical practice is the social norm (Hutton, 2006). Instructors can also model good practice by working responsibly with others. The complexities and multidimensional factors contributing to academic misconduct have led to an emphasis on the importance of cooperation among different groups to help students avoid offenses: instructors of individual courses, librarians, educational developers, writing instructors, and administrators all have roles to play (Morris, 2016; Saddiqui, 2016). Instructors in history courses can and should consult with these colleagues as they think through their courses, and then they can and should follow through by acknowledging the expertise they have drawn upon. Modeling integrity should involve other considerations too. Students can benefit from hearing about why particular projects or subjects are matters of interest, about the ethical issues that instructors have experienced, about the different types of research and dissemination in historians’ projects, and about opportunities for student involvement in faculty projects. It can also involve matters such as training teaching assistants to reflect on academic integrity and its significance in history. Perhaps most of all, modeling integrity requires instructors to meet standards that demonstrate sincerity, commitment, concern, and respect. At times that respect can lead instructors to decide not to speak about certain subjects or, better, explain why they should not speak about them, or to suggest different lines for student research. Many historians look for ways to build into their classes diverse voices from historically marginalized communities. This can illustrate important points about ensuring that learning history includes different perspectives. It also provides a concrete illustration about how one should not assume the right to speak for and about different people. These actions all convey important lessons and provide space for students to think about their next steps, to resist misconduct, and to grasp the ethical unpinning of the historical discipline.

Summary Academic integrity is an important matter for postsecondary education in all disciplines, and its implications in history are multifaceted. They include general concerns about the honesty and conduct of students, then extend into the very foundations of historical practice. This is why leading historical societies maintain ethical standards for the conduct of historical research and dissemination, and why more attention should be directed to teaching academic integrity in history courses. The teaching of academic integrity as historical practice begins with classroom conduct, but reaches into the foundation of the discipline of history and its methods for understanding the world.

404

M. Cowan and A. Nurse

Cross-References ▶ Academic Integrity Through Ethical Teaching and Assessment: Overview and Current Trends ▶ Comprehensive Academic Integrity (CAI): An Ethical Framework for Educational Contexts ▶ Integrating Academic Integrity: An Educational Approach ▶ The Integrity of Good Relations: Indigenous Approaches to Respect, Relationality, and Reciprocity in Higher Learning ▶ Supporting Students with Academic Integrity and Ethical Learning: Introduction

References Abasi, A. R., & Graves, B. (2008). Academic literacy and plagiarism: Conversations with international graduate students and disciplinary professors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.10.010 Adam, L. (2016). Student perspectives on plagiarism. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 519–535). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_67 Ahmed, S. (2017). Living a feminist life. Duke University Press. Alessio, H. M., & Messinger, J. D. (2021). Faculty and student perceptions of academic integrity in technology-assisted learning and testing. Frontiers in Education, 6, 1–8. https://doi.org/10. 3389/feduc.2021.629220 American Historical Association. (2019). Statement on standards of professional conduct. https:// www.historians.org/jobs-and-professional-development/statements-standards-and-guidelinesof-the-discipline/statement-on-standards-of-professional-conduct Angell, R. C. (1928). The campus: A study of contemporary undergraduate life in the American university. Appleton & Company. 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 Ashworth, P., Bannister, P., Thorne, P., & Students on the Qualitative Research Methods Course Unit. (1997). Guilty in whose eyes? University students’ perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 187–203. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03075079712331381034 Battiste, M. (2013). Decolonizing education: Nourishing the learning spirit. Purich Publishing. Bell, A., Cameron, S., & Peace, T. (2019, November 28). Historical pedagogies & the colonial past at Huron University College – Part 1. Active History. https://activehistory.ca/2019/11/historicalpedagogies-the-colonial-past-at-huron-university-college-part-1/ Bens, S. L. (2022). Helping students resolve the ambiguous expectations of academic integrity. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge (pp. 377–392). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1_19 Bertram Gallant, T. (2008). Academic integrity in the twentyfirst century: A teaching and learning imperative. Jossey-Bass. 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 Bertram Gallant, T., & Stephens, J. M. (2020). Punishment is not enough: The moral imperative of responding to cheating with a developmental approach. Journal of College and Character, 21(2), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/2194587x.2020.1741395 Blum, S. D. (2009). My word! Plagiarism and college culture. Cornell University Press. Borg, E. (2009). Local plagiarisms. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(4), 415–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802075115

25

Teaching Academic Integrity as Good Historical Practice

405

Bretag, T. (2016). Discipline-specific approaches to academic integrity: Introduction. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 673–675). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978981-287-098-8_78 Canadian Historical Association. (2022a, July 7). The CHA endorses the joint OAH-AHA statement on the Dobbs v. Jackson decision. https://cha-shc.ca/news/the-cha-endorses-the-joint-oah-ahastatement-on-the-dobbs-v-jackson-decision-2022-07-07 Canadian Historical Association. (2022b, July 18).Oral history and the ethic of learning [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼9FBePUOxmhs Canadian Historical Association. (n.d.). Statement on research ethics. https://cha-shc.ca/english/ about-the-cha/statement-on-research-ethics.html Chandrasoma, R., Thompson, C., & Pennycook, A. (2004). Beyond plagiarism: Transgressive and nontransgressive intertextuality. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 3(3), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327701jlie0303_1 Childers, D., & Bruton, S. (2016). “Should it be considered plagiarism?” Student perceptions of complex citation issues. Journal of Academic Ethics, 14(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10805-015-9250-6 Christensen Hughes, J. M., & Eaton, S. E. (2022). Student integrity violations in the academy: More than a decade of growing complexity and concern. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hugues (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge (pp. 61–79). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1_3 Christensen Hughes, J. M., & McCabe, D. L. (2006). Understanding academic misconduct. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 36(1), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v36i1. 183525 Cole, D. (1995). Captured heritage: The scramble for Northwest Coast artifacts. University of Oklahoma Press. Colella, J. (2018). Plagiarism education, perceptions, and responsibilities in post-secondary education [Doctoral dissertation, University of Windsor]. Electronic theses and dissertations. 7509. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article¼8510&context¼etd Cowan, M. (2019, September 16). Teaching about academic integrity by making citations meaningful. Canadian Historical Association Teaching/Learning Blog. https://cha-shc.ca/teaching/ teachers-blog/teaching-about-academic-integrity-by-making-citations-meaningful-2019-0916.htm Cowan, M. (2020, June 1). A more optimistic way to teach academic integrity: Standing with honor on the shoulders of giants. The Teaching Professor. https://www.teachingprofessor.com/topics/ classroom-climate/academic-integrity/a-more-optimistic-way-to-teach-academic-integritystanding-with-honor-on-the-shoulders-of-giants/ Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1374249 Curtis, G. (2021, December 16).Can negative emotions increase students’ plagiarism and cheating? On Society Blog. https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-society/2021/12/16/can-negative-emo tions-increase-students-plagiarism-and-cheating/ 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805017-9278-x Davies, W. (2022, February 24). How many words does it take to make a mistake? London Review of Books, 44(4) https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v44/n04/william-davies/how-many-wordsdoes-it-take-to-make-a-mistake Dichtl, J. (2003). Teaching integrity. The History Teacher, 36(2), 367–373. Eaton, S. E. (2021a, May 30–June 1). Academic integrity in Canadian higher education: The impact of Covid-19 and a call to action [Conference session]. In Canadian society for the study of higher education annual conference, virtual. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/113463 Eaton, S. E. (2021b). Plagiarism in higher education: Tackling tough topics in academic integrity. Libraries Unlimited.

406

M. Cowan and A. Nurse

Eaton, S. E., & Christensen Hughes, J. (2022). Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge. Springer. Eaton, S. E., & Ileh Edino, R. (2018). Strengthening the research agenda of educational integrity in Canada: A review of the research literature and call to action. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0028-7 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 Elman, B. A. (2000). A cultural history of civil examinations in late imperial China. University of California Press. Gaytan, J. & McEwen, B. C. (2007). Effective Online Instructional and Assessment Strategies. American Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08923640701341653 Gladue, K. (2020). Indigenous academic integrity. University of Calgary Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning. https://taylorinstitute.ucalgary.ca/sites/default/files/Content/Resources/ Academic-Integrity/21-TAY-Indigenous-Academic-Integrity.pdf Grafton, A. (1997). The footnote: A curious history. Harvard University Press. Gullifer, J., & Tyson, G. A. (2010). Exploring university students’ perceptions of plagiarism: A focus group study. Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03075070903096508 Hendricks, M., & Quinn, L. (2000). Teaching referencing as an introduction to epistemological empowerment. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(4), 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 713699175 Hutton, P. A. (2006). Understanding student cheating and what educators can do about it. College Teaching, 54(1), 171–176. https://doi.org/10.3200/ctch.54.1.171-176 International Center for Academic Integrity. (2021). The fundamental values of academic integrity (3rd ed.). https://academicintegrity.org/images/pdfs/20019_ICAI-Fundamental-Values_R12.pdf John of Salisbury. (1955). The metalogicon of John of Salisbury: A twelfth-century defense of the verbal and logical arts of the trivium (D. D. McGarry, Trans.). University of California Press. (Original work published ca. 1159). John of Salisbury. (1990).Politcraticus: Of the frivolities of courtiers and the footprints of philosophers (C. J. Nederman, Ed. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published ca. 1159). King, T. (2012). The inconvenient Indian: A curious account of Native Peoples in North America. Anchor Canada. Lancaster, T. (2021, February 16). Has the pandemic driven more students to cheat? On Society. https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-society/2021/02/16/has-the-pandemic-driven-more-stu dents-to-cheat/ Lang, J. M. (2013). Cheating lessons: Learning from academic dishonesty. Harvard University Press. Locquiao, J., & Ives, B. (2020). First-year university students’ knowledge of academic misconduct and the association between goals for attending university and receptiveness to intervention. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 16, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979020-00054-6 Lonetree, A. (2021). Decolonizing museums, memorials, and monuments. The Public Historian, 43(4), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1525/tph.2021.43.4.21 Maracle, I. B. J. (2020). Seven grandfathers in academic integrity. University of Toronto: Student Life. https://studentlife.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/Seven_Grandfathers_in_Academic_ Integrity.pdf McCabe, D., Butterfield, K. D., & Treviño, L. K. (2012). Cheating in college: Why students do it and what educators can do about it. The Johns Hopkins University Press.

25

Teaching Academic Integrity as Good Historical Practice

407

Merton, R. K. (1993). On the shoulders of giants: A shandeanpostscript. University of Chicago Press. Miyazaki, I. (1981). China’s examination hell: The civil service examinations of imperial China. Yale University Press. Morris, E. J. (2016). Academic integrity: A teaching and learning approach. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 1037–1053). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981287-098-8_11 Murdock, T. B., Miller, A. D., & Goetzinger, A. (2007). Effects of classroom context on university students’ judgments about cheating: Mediating and moderating processes. Social Psychology of Education, 10(2), 141–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-007-9015-1 Nederman, C. J. (2015). John of Salisbury’s political theory. In C. Grellard & F. Lachaud (Eds.), A companion to John of Salisbury (pp. 258–288). Brill. Nurse, A. (2006). Marius Barbeau and the methodology of salvage anthropology in Canada, 1911–51. In J. Harrison & R. Darnell (Eds.), Historicizing Canadian anthropology (pp. 52–64). UBC Press. Nurse, A. (2007). The ambiguities of disciplinary professionalization: The state the cultural dynamics of Canadian inter-war anthropology. Scientia Canadensis, 30(2), 37–53. https://doi. org/10.7202/800546ar Nurse, A. (2021). Something other than catching cheaters, or why I like to teach about academic integrity and misconduct. Canadian Historical Association Teaching/Learning Blog. https:// cha-shc.ca/teaching/teachers-blog/something-other-than-catching-cheaters-or-why-i-like-toteach-about-academic-integrity-and-misconduct-2021-04-27.htm Palazzo, D. J., Lee, Y.-J., Warnakuloasooriya, R., & Pritchard, D. E. (2010). Patterns, correlates, and reduction of homework copying. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 6, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevstper.6.010104 Park, C. (2003). In other (people’s) words: Plagiarism by university students – Literature and lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 471–488. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02602930301677 Patrzek, J., Sattler, S., van Veen, F., Grunschel, C., & Fries, S. (2015). Investigating the effect of academic procrastination on the frequency and variety of academic misconduct: A panel study. Studies in Higher Education, 40(6), 1014–1029. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013. 854765 Poitras Pratt, Y., & Gladue, K. (2022). Re-defining academic integrity: Embracing indigenous truths. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge (pp. 103–123). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03083255-1_5 Rogerson, A. M. & McCarthy, G. (2017). Using internet based paraphrasing tools: Original work, patchwriting or facilitated plagiarism?. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 13(2), 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40979-016-0013-y Saddiqui, S. (2016). Engaging students and faculty: Examining and overcoming the barriers. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 1009–1036). Springer. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-981-287-098-8_18 Sefcik, L., Striepe, M., & Yorke, J. (2020). Mapping the landscape of academic integrity education programs: What approaches are effective? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1604942 Stock, B. (1979). Antiqui and moderni as “giants” and “dwarfs”: A reflection of popular culture? Modern Philology, 76(4), 370–374. https://doi.org/10.1086/390877 Storey, W. K., & Cowan, M. (2019). Writing history: A guide for Canadian students. Oxford University Press. Suen, H. K., & Yu, L. (2006). Chronic consequences of high-stakes testing? Lessons from the Chinese civil service exam. Comparative Education Review, 50(1), 46–65. https://doi.org/10. 1086/498328

408

M. Cowan and A. Nurse

Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning. (2020, November 13). Indigenous paradigms in practice: Relationships, story and academic. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch? v¼I0ZJl3dLmKg Trautner, M. N., & Borland, E. (2013). Using the sociological imagination to teach about academic integrity. Teaching Sociology, 41(4), 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055x13490750 Tuck, E. K., Yang, W., & Gaztambide-Fernández, R. (2015). Citation practices. Critical Ethnic Studies. http://www.criticalethnicstudiesjournal.org/citation-practices Van Beselaere, C. & Roberts, T, (2022). “Student Engagement and Pedagogy during COVID-19”. Paper Presented at the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Ottawa. Wilkinson, J. (2009). Staff and student perceptions of plagiarism and cheating. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 98–105. Wulf, K. (2019, August 29). Could footnotes be the key to winning the disinformation wars? The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/08/29/could-footnotes-bekey-winning-disinformation-wars/ Younging, G. (2018). Elements of indigenous style: A guide for writing by and about indigenous peoples. Brush Education.

Moral Disengagement Leading to Social Acceptance of Academic Misconduct: A Predictor of Behavior Pablo Ayala-Enríquez

26

and Jean Guerrero-Dib

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bandura’s Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moral Disengagement Mechanisms and Their Functioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moral Disengagement and Academic Dishonesty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perceived Peer Behavior and Social Rejection of Dishonesty Explain a Student’s Academic Integrity Behavior: Main Research Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Models and Approaches to Teaching and Learning Ethics in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tec Week (Semana Tec) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Integrity Induction Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Awareness Events and Campaigns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Engagement and Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Massive Online Open Course (MOOC) for Teaching Strategies for the Classroom . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

410 411 411 412 414 415 419 421 421 422 423 425 427 428 429 430 430

Abstract

Based on Bandura’s account of the mechanisms that trigger moral disengagement, the chapter explores the effect of the social acceptance of academic dishonesty on the behavior of university students. The findings emerge from a

P. Ayala-Enríquez Tecnológico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico e-mail: [email protected] J. Guerrero-Dib (*) Universidad de Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. E. Eaton (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39989-3_102

409

410

P. Ayala-Enríquez and J. Guerrero-Dib

study involving students from Mexican universities, in which social acceptance of cheating and perceived peer behavior were found to be the main factors predisposing students to act dishonestly. Based on the study results and on models and approaches to teaching and learning ethics, the chapter describes cases that practitioners have implemented in Latin American universities committed to academic integrity. Analysis of the cases focuses on the approaches used to teach ethics and how these approaches may deactivate the mechanisms of moral disengagement that trigger academic dishonesty. Keywords

Academic integrity · Academic dishonesty · Academic misconduct · Ethical behavior · Teaching and learning ethics · Moral disengagement · Socio-cognitive self-theory

Introduction Since the early 2000s, significant progress has been made toward understanding the personal, contextual, and institutional factors that trigger academic misconduct. Personal factors that influence a student’s decision to cheat include the pressure to be successful on an admission exam, to obtain a minimum grade point average to keep a grant or scholarship or to pass a course, peer pressure, knowledge and skills gaps, disinterest in the subject material, and the accessibility of offers from contract cheating sites. Some relevant contextual conditions are the proliferation of online learning, poor assessment design, unclear rules, a lack of faculty interest in academic integrity, and reluctance, on the part of some faculty members, to assume the discomfort that comes with assigning sanctions to students, especially when they are severe. Finally, institutional factors include the absence of programs to promote academic integrity, the lack of access to mechanisms and devices for preventing dishonesty, and inadequate training for educators. Because of this constellation of factors, cheating “has emerged as one of the most severe forms of academic misconduct; furthermore, it has become one of the most prevalent serious issues facing educational institutions today” (Wilkinson, 2009, as cited in Alvarez et al., 2022: 112). Why did cheating increase during online education (Walsh et al., 2021)? Why is its vitality increasing, even in school environments where moral and ethical values are systematically promoted to prevent it? Why is it that a student who is against the corruption, abuse, and injustice that afflict society may at the same time minimize and morally relativize their own academically dishonest actions? Is this moral myopia caused by the belief that “everyone else [is] cheating” (Jensen et al., 2002: 215) or because their actions are a product of the mechanisms that trigger moral disengagement (Bandura, 1999)? While plenty of studies have examined the factors mentioned above, they did not examine possible connections to moral disengagement. We know even less about

26

Moral Disengagement Leading to Social Acceptance of Academic Misconduct:. . .

411

whether moral disengagement is a predictor of tolerance for other moral transgressions (Jensen et al., 2002). If moral disengagement is such a predictor, then we should be particularly concerned about morally disengaged students who may go on to work in fields such as healthcare and engineering, where they could put coworkers at risk (Alvarez et al., 2022). McCabe’s (2016) influential longitudinal study illuminated students’ perceptions of what justifies academic misconduct. Considering McCabe’s results from the perspective of the mechanisms of moral disengagement may permit a new understanding of why students engage in behaviors that are inconsistent with their moral standards – even as they claim to adhere to these standards. Students may be avoiding guilt and self-censure (Bandura, 2016). Re-examining moral disengagement theory may allow us to identify the mechanisms that normalize and make academic misconduct socially acceptable and, consequently, invalidate the principles and other formative moral aspirations of the academic integrity programs that educational institutions promote. Thus, the initial section of this chapter describes Bandura’s social cognitive theory (SCT), which served as the theoretical basis for a study we conducted to determine whether social acceptance of cheating and perceived peer behavior are predictors of academic dishonesty. This research involved students from Mexican universities, so it may contribute particularly to the understanding of this phenomenon in Latin America. Later in the chapter, we provide a brief description of the models and approaches for teaching and learning ethics in higher education; these serve as the scaffolding for institutional academic integrity programs. Finally, we present cases and experiences that include key elements of success for promoting a culture of academic integrity and deactivating academic dishonesty.

Theoretical Framework Bandura’s Approach Bandura’s theoretical model, SCT, can be used to analyze the thoughts, motivations, and actions of a person, who is assumed to be a moral agent (Bandura, 2016). Rather than determining moral categories or concepts, the theory seeks to explain the processes that regulate an individual’s moral conduct: Moral reasoning is translated into actions through self-regulatory mechanisms rooted in moral standards and self-sanctions by which moral agency is exercised. The moral self is thus embedded in a broader, socio-cognitive self-theory encompassing self-organizing, proactive, self-reflective, and self-regulative mechanisms. These self-referent processes provide the motivational as well as the cognitive regulators of moral conduct. (Bandura, 1999: 193)

This process of moral self-evaluation and self-regulation allows individuals to “do things that give them satisfaction and a sense of self-worth. They refrain from

412

P. Ayala-Enríquez and J. Guerrero-Dib

behaving in ways that violate their moral standards because such conduct will bring self-condemnation” (Bandura, 2002: 102). It is through self-regulation that an individual enacts their moral agency: the decision-making power an individual has over their moral actions. According to Bandura (1999), moral agency acts in two different ways: by inhibiting or stimulating action. The first way prevents the person from acting inhumanely. The second leads the person to act humanely, even if this way of acting sometimes means paying a high personal cost. People who act according to the latter form of agency do as much good as they can and refrain from doing any harm to others. The first form only inhibits harmful action toward others. Unlike the automatic regulatory mechanisms that control some processes in our organism (e.g., breathing, digestion, or the immune system), the mechanisms associated with moral self-regulation are triggered consciously. People do not always act in accordance with their moral standards; sometimes, they employ specific mechanisms to disengage themselves from their moral standards, and they are not always aware that they are acting in a way that is morally wrong. This phenomenon allows “different types of conduct by people with the same moral standards” (Bandura, 1999: 102). Four types of disengagement were identified: The disengagement may center on (a) the reconstrual of the conduct itself so it is not viewed as immoral, (b) the operation of the agency of action so that the perpetrators can minimize their role in causing harm, (c) the consequences that flow from actions, or (d) how the victims of maltreatment are regarded by devaluing them as human beings and blaming them for what is being done to them. (Bandura, 1999: 194)

These four types of disengagement – in relation to the behavior, the agent, the results of the action, and the victim – are activated through eight mechanisms operating at the individual and/or collective levels (Ampuni et al., 2020; Bandura, 1999, 2016; Jensen et al., 2002), resulting in individuals and groups “committing small everyday acts and large-scale inhumane acts against their moral codes” (Tacaks Haynes & Rašković, 2021: 830).

Moral Disengagement Mechanisms and Their Functioning 1. Moral justification. Moral disengagement is activated by cognitive reconstruction whereby the person morally justifies actions that generate harm to others, without negatively modifying the moral perception they have of themselves. This form of moral disengagement is commonly found in professional contexts such as the military, tactical service performed by undercover agents, and in certain branches of scientific research, where self-censorship and moral standards are set aside. Harm to others is justified as part of a service performed to maintain peace, preserve societal values, or defend society from enemy evil. It makes ordinary and decent people capable of leading or perpetuating grave atrocities (Bandura, 1999). An example of this mechanism in the academic context would be a student

26

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Moral Disengagement Leading to Social Acceptance of Academic Misconduct:. . .

413

justifying a lie by thinking, “I lied to the teacher because the lie will help my friend” (Foster et al., 2020: 215). Euphemistic labelling. As Bandura (1999: 195) explained, “Euphemistic language is widely used to make harmful conduct respectable and to reduce personal responsibility for it.” Although people use euphemisms “to create the impression that a negative behaviour is acceptable” (Ampuni et al., 2020: 399), this form of moral disengagement, as Bandura (1999) pointed out, can be a tremendously harmful weapon. People who use euphemistic labelling attempt to sanitize the language of actions that are morally unjustifiable. For example, the death of innocent civilians in a war may be labelled “collateral damage,” “unintended casualties,” or “operational failure.” For a student, the mechanism might be reflected in this belief: “I’m not telling a lie; I’m keeping a secret for a friend because I’m a loyal friend” (Foster et al., 2020: 215). Advantageous comparison. This way of masking a harmful action as a good one uses the principle of contrast to justify reprehensible acts by comparing them with more serious ones. Thus, certain comparisons allow persons or groups to try to convince others that the moral transgression is not as serious as it seems. The use of violence, the denial of human rights, and certain forms of deception and theft are examples of actions this mechanism is used to justify. In the classroom context, a student might say: “This lie isn’t that bad; if I tell the truth, more people might get hurt, which is worse” (Foster et al., 2020: 215). Displacement of responsibility. This mechanism, as well as the next one, the diffusion of responsibility, belongs to the set of disengagement practices that try to diffuse the harm generated by an agent (Bandura, 2016). This is clearly seen at the moment a person breaks their own moral codes by shifting responsibility to a higher authority. The person argues that their actions respond to an order given by someone they cannot disobey, so they should not be held responsible for any consequences since in reality they are not the actual agent of their actions; they spare themselves any form of self-condemnation (Bandura, 1999). A student who lies might justify their actions this way: “So-and-so told me to lie, so I did what I was told” (Foster et al., 2020: 215). Diffusion of responsibility. When the person who carries out an action that generates harm to others is part of a group, they can transfer the responsibility to the group instead of acknowledging their personal accountability. As Bandura (1999: 198) put it, “when everyone is responsible, no one really feels responsible.” Group, corporate, governmental decisions, and collective actions, among other examples, are “ways in which a sense of personal agency gets obscured by diffusing personal accountability” (Bandura, 1999: 198). In the academic setting, a student might say, “We all cheated on the test. I’m not going to say anything because we all did it; someone else can admit to it, but I’m going to lie and say I didn’t do anything because we all did it. Everyone lies” (Foster et al., 2020: 215). Disregard or distortion of consequences. People may avoid the activation of selfcensure by discounting or minimizing the consequences of their harmful actions (Bandura, 1999). This is easier to do when the victims of these actions are not immediately visible or the actions are distant in space and/or time (Bandura, 1999).

414

P. Ayala-Enríquez and J. Guerrero-Dib

In the classroom context, a student might say, “No one got really hurt from my lie so it’s ok; it’s not a big deal” (Foster et al., 2020: 216). 7. Dehumanization. The degree to which someone censors their own behavior depends on how they view the victim of their actions. Dehumanization is activated when “someone looks at the people who are the object of violation as inanimate objects or animals with no feelings and expectations, allowing the offender to not feel guilty” (Ampuni et al., 2020: 399). A student might justify lying by saying, “So-and-so is a loser; nobody cares about him. Nobody will care if I spread lies about him” (Foster et al., 2020: 216). 8. Attribution of blame. The last mechanism Bandura used to explain moral disengagement is the attribution of blame to circumstances. People may “view themselves as faultless victims driven to injurious conduct by forcible provocation. Punitive conduct is, thus, seen as a justifiable defensive reaction” (Bandura, 1999: 203). A student might justify their actions by saying, “So-and-so said something about me that wasn’t true, so I’m going to spread lies about him. He deserves it” (Foster et al., 2020: 216). It should be clarified that, as Bandura (1999) pointed out, the disengagement practices do not instantly turn the person who engages in them into someone cruel. Disengagement tends to occur gradually as the person deploys the mechanisms to avoid self-censure.

Moral Disengagement and Academic Dishonesty It seems that lying in the early stages of life and academic misconduct in later stages may both be influenced by the activation of moral disengagement mechanisms. Since the early twenty-first century, there has been strong interest in investigating the social effects of the lies children tell to benefit themselves at the expense of others (Doyle & Bussey, 2018; Talwar & Crossman, 2011), but we know less about how individuals make ethical decisions beyond childhood. Tacaks Haynes and Rašković (2021): 825) noted that “the cognitive and behavioural mechanisms in ethical decision making, the cognitive workings of how individuals reconcile unethical behaviour and the social psychological processes behind corruption” are not well understood. We believe that SCT can provide us with valuable clues for understanding what underlies cheating behavior in academic contexts. Similarities exist between the findings from studies where SCT has helped explain lying in children and the few SCT-based studies on academic misconduct in older student populations. For example, in Jensen et al.’s (2002) study of 490 students aged 14–23, participants justified engaging in acts of academic dishonesty under 19 different circumstances, where copying, lying, and cheating behavior was not mediated by any self-regulatory mechanism even though the young people were aware of the academic integrity rules promoted by their respective institutions. More recently, Doyle and Bussey (2018) conducted a study with Australian pupils, and findings for

26

Moral Disengagement Leading to Social Acceptance of Academic Misconduct:. . .

415

this younger population showed that “in accordance with social cognitive theory predictions, greater proneness to using moral disengagement mechanisms was associated with children’s anticipated lie telling for both false allegations and false denials. These findings highlight the important role of moral disengagement in student’s lie telling” (91). Then, Ampuni et al. (2020) found a similar pattern in their study of 574 undergraduate and postgraduate college students: moral disengagement was associated with cheating, unauthorized collaboration, and plagiarism. Specifically, “less integrity and higher moral disengagement predict academic dishonesty; while the moral foundations of fairness/cheating and sanctity/degradation did not show meaningful contributions” (Ampuni et al., 2020: 412). What these studies show is that regardless of age, knowledge of existing rules, and ethical expectations, it is not possible to guarantee that student behavior will remain in line with the principles associated with academic integrity due to the important influence that the mechanisms of moral disengagement exert on students. As the eight mechanisms of moral disengagement are found to be positively related to unethical decision-making (Detert et al., 2008), it seems that passive moral agency gives way to a Machiavellian morality. Abdollahi et al. (2021) concluded that people with higher levels of moral disengagement are more likely to show Machiavellian behavior because the eight mechanisms deactivate self-sanction, causing people to act as if they have misplaced their moral compass: “In this way, individuals may achieve their own Machiavellian goals by manipulating others without concern over not meeting their own self-imposed moral standards” (Abdollahi et al., 2021: 2770). In order to learn about the way in which social acceptance of cheating is present, as well as the elements of an academic integrity program that could counteract it, the following section will summarize the results of a research study conducted with students from two Mexican universities.

Perceived Peer Behavior and Social Rejection of Dishonesty Explain a Student’s Academic Integrity Behavior: Main Research Findings To dig more deeply into the influence that perceived peer behavior and social rejection of dishonesty have on students’ academic integrity behavior, we used the results of a more ambitious research project, which sought to understand the relationship between the ethical behavior of people in their academic and professional environments (Guerrero-Dib et al., 2020). As will be explained later, the relationship between a person’s behavior in the academic setting and their behavior in the professional setting is significant and strong. This relationship is relevant to this claim: for breaches of academic integrity, arguing that “others do it too” or that “others accept it or, at least, do not reject it” activates the mechanisms of moral disengagement. The aforementioned study was carried out in two private universities in the state of Nuevo León, Mexico. Both have established academic integrity programs with

416

P. Ayala-Enríquez and J. Guerrero-Dib

their own nuances, as well as a public commitment to academic integrity. One has approximately 15,000 students, and the other has more than 91,000 students. The participants were 438 senior undergraduate and graduate students who also held professional jobs. The study explored the explanatory effect on academic integrity behavior of the following variables: • • • • •

Understanding of the concept of academic integrity. Quality of the academic integrity program, Teaching practices in relation to academic integrity (teaching culture). Peer behavior. Social rejection of academic dishonesty by students.

The hypothesis was that a student from a university with a robust academic integrity program will be more likely to act in accordance with its principles and reject cheating if they feel that faculty and peers at their institution have a clear understanding of the concept and implications of academic integrity. First, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed statistically significant differences between participants’ responses on certain independent variables. Students associate the concept of academic integrity more with acting in accordance with values (96%) and not cheating (95%) and less (p-value