Encouraging Students Academic Integrity - Samuel Leung

This is one of a series of short case studies describing how academic tutors at the University of Southampton have made use of learning technologies to support their students.

Academic Integrity Resources - links and guides

an online tutorial, a pdf version, a powerpoint presentation, links to regulations.

Formal Technical Report Writing, Referencing and Academic integrity

How to present a technical report and maintain academic integrity - supported by a range of on-line activities

Academic Integrity Induction Slides

Start of year induction welcome slide set

Academic Integrity - choices

This interactive story enables you to explore the possible consequences of a breach of academic integrity

Academic Integrity and Senior Nursing Undergraduate Clinical Practice

Background: Academic integrity (AI) has been defined as the commitment to the values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility with courage in all academic endeavours. The senior years of nursing studies provide an intersection for students to transition to professional roles through student clinical practice. It is essential to understand what predicts senior nursing students’ intention to behave with AI so that efforts can be directed to initiatives focused on strengthening their commitment to behaving with AI. Research Questions: To what extent do students differ on Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) variables? What predicts intention to behave with academic integrity among senior nursing students in clinical practice across three different Canadian Schools of Nursing? Method: The TPB framework, an elicitation (n=30) and two pilot studies (n=59, n=29) resulted in the development of a 38 question (41-item) self-report survey (Miron Academic Integrity Nursing Survey—MAINS: α>0.70) that was administered to Year 3 and 4 students (N=339). Three predictor variables (attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control) were measured with students’ intention to behave with AI in clinical. Age, sex, year of study, program stream, students’ understanding of AI policies, and locations where students accessed AI information were also measured. Results: Hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed that background, site, and TPB variables explained 32.6% of the variance in intention to behave with academic integrity. The TPB variables explained 26.8% of the variance in intention after controlling for background and site variables. In the final model, only the TPB predictor variables were statistically significant with Attitude having the highest beta value (beta=0.35, p<0.001), followed by Subjective Norm (beta=0.21, p<0.001) and Perceived Behavioural Control (beta=0.12, p<0.02). Conclusion: Student attitude is the strongest predictor to intention to behave with AI in clinical practice and efforts to positively influence students’ attitudes need to be a focus for schools, curricula, and clinical educators. Opportunities for future research should include replicating the current study with students enrolled in other professional programs and intervention studies that examine the effectiveness of specific endeavours to promote AI in practice.

Acknowledging ownership: ethical behaviour & academic integrity

Slides for Academic Integrity. See also notes on ECS module page: https://secure.ecs.soton.ac.uk/module/1617/COMP1205/33423/

Towards (more) integrity in academia: transcending neo-liberal assumption of research and knowledge creation and the “rules” supressing academic freedom

European researchers across heterogeneous disciplines voice concerns and argue for new paths towards a brighter future regarding scientific and knowledge creation and communication. Recently, in biological and natural sciences concerns have been expressed that major threats are intentionally ignored. These threats are challenging Europe’s future sustainability towards creating knowledge that effectively deals with emerging social, environmental, health, and economic problems of a planetary scope. Within social science circles however, the root cause regarding the above challenges, have been linked with macro level forces of neo-liberal ways of valuing and relevant rules in academia and beyond which we take for granted. These concerns raised by heterogeneous scholars in natural and the applied social sciences concern the ethics of today’s research and academic integrity. Applying Bourdieu’s sociology may not allow an optimistic lens if change is possible. Rather than attributing the replication of neo-liberal habitus in intentional agent and institutional choices, Bourdieu’s work raises the importance of thoughtlessly internalised habits in human and social action. Accordingly, most action within a given paradigm (in this case, neo-liberalism) is understood as habituated, i.e. unconsciously reproducing external social fields, even ill-defined ways of valuing. This essay analyses these and how they may help critically analyse the current habitus surrounding research and knowledge production, evaluation, and communication and related aspects of academic freedom. Although it is acknowledged that transformation is not easy, the essay presents arguments and recent theory paths to suggest that change nevertheless may be a realistic hope once certain action logics are encouraged.

Admission as a lawyer : the fearful spectre of academic misconduct

Notwithstanding a cultural critique of the concepts that underpin the values of academic integrity, both the university, as a community of scholarship, and the legal profession, as a vocation self-defined by integrity, retain traditional values. Despite the lack of direct relevance of plagiarism to legal practice, courts now demonstrate little tolerance for applicants for admission against whom findings of academic misconduct have been made. Yet this lack of tolerance is neither fatal nor absolute, with the most egregious forms of academic misconduct, coupled with less than complete candour, resulting in no more than a deferral of an application for admission for six months. Where allegations are of a less serious nature, law schools deal with allegations in a less formal or punitive fashion, regarding it as an educative function of the university, assisting students to understand the cultural practices of scholarship. For law students seeking admission to practice, applicants are under an obligation of complete candour in disclosing any matters that bear on their suitability, including any finding of academic misconduct. Individual legal academics, naturally adhering to standards of academic integrity, often have only a general understanding of the admissions process. Applying appropriate standards of academic integrity, legal academics can create difficulties for students seeking admission by not recognising a pastoral obligation to ensure that students have a clear understanding of the impact adverse findings will have on admission. Failure to fulfil this obligation deprives students of the opportunity to take prompt remedial action as well as presenting practical problems for the practitioner who moves their admission.

Academic Dishonesty: A Guide for Digital Instructors

Academic dishonesty threatens the integrity of collegiate education and undermines institutional objectives. Nonetheless, many students willingly compromise academic integrity for higher grades and reduced stress levels. This literature review examines why students engage in academic dishonesty and addresses preventive measures and developing technologies.

Improving E-Assessment Systems With A focus On Adaptive Feedback And Marking

Institutions involved in the provision of tertiary education across Europe are feeling the pinch. European universities, and other higher education (HE) institutions, must operate in a climate where the pressure of government spending cuts (Garben, 2012) is in stark juxtaposition to the EU’s strategy to drive forward and maintain a growth of student numbers in the sector (eurostat, 2015).

In order to remain competitive, universities and HE institutions are making ever-greater use of electronic assessment (E-Assessment) systems (Chatzigavriil et all, 2015; Ferrell, 2012). These systems are attractive primarily because they offer a cost-effect and scalable approach for assessment. In addition to scalability, they also offer reliability, consistency and impartiality; furthermore, from the perspective of a student they are most popular because they can offer instant feedback (Walet, 2012).

There are disadvantages, though.

First, feedback is often returned to a student immediately on competition of their assessment. While it is possible to disable the instant feedback option (this is often the case during an end of semester exam period when assessment scores must be can be ratified before release), however, this option tends to be a global ‘all on’ or ‘all off’ configuration option which is controlled centrally rather than configurable on a per-assessment basis.

If a formative in-term assessment is to be taken by multiple groups of
students, each at different times, this restriction means that answers to each question will be disclosed to the first group of students undertaking the assessment. As soon as the answers are released “into the wild” the academic integrity of the assessment is lost for subsequent student groups.

Second, the style of feedback provided to a student for each question is often limited to a simple ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ indicator. While this type of feedback has its place, it often does not provide a student with enough insight to improve their understanding of a topic that they did not answer correctly.

Most E-Assessment systems boast a wide range of question types including Multiple Choice, Multiple Response, Free Text Entry/Text Matching and Numerical questions. The design of these types of questions is often quite restrictive and formulaic, which has a knock-on effect on the quality of feedback that can be provided in each case.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) are most prevalent as they are the most prescriptive and therefore most the straightforward to mark consistently. They are also the most amenable question types, which allow easy provision of meaningful, relevant feedback to each possible outcome chosen.
Text matching questions tend to be more problematic due to their free text entry nature. Common misspellings or case-sensitivity errors can often be accounted for by the software but they are by no means fool proof, as it is very difficult to predict in advance the range of possible variations on an answer that would be considered worthy of marks by a manual marker of a paper based equivalent of the same question.

Numerical questions are similarly restricted. An answer can be checked for accuracy or whether it is within a certain range of the correct answer, but unless it is a special purpose-built mathematical E-Assessment system the system is unlikely to have computational capability and so cannot, for example, account for “method marks” which are commonly awarded in paper-based marking.

From a pedagogical perspective, the importance of providing useful formative feedback to students at a point in their learning when they can benefit from the feedback and put it to use must not be understated (Grieve et all, 2015; Ferrell, 2012).

In this work, we propose a number of software-based solutions, which will overcome the limitations and inflexibilities of existing E-Assessment systems.

Regard sur la sécurité du processus dans les organisations utilisant ou non les TIC lors de l’évaluation

La malhonnêteté académique au cours d’épreuves présente des enjeux importants quant à l’intégrité des évaluations. La présence des TIC étant de plus en plus importante en cours de passation dans les épreuves, il est important avec ce mode de récolte de données d’assurer un niveau de sécurité égal ou même supérieur à celui présent lorsqu’un mode de récolte de données traditionnel, le papier-crayon, est utilisé. Il existe plusieurs recherches sur l’utilisation des TIC dans l’évaluation, mais peu d’entre elles traitent des modalités de sécurité lors de l’utilisation des TIC. Dans ce mémoire, treize organisations québécoises ont été rencontrées: six qui utilisaient les TIC dans la passation, cinq qui utilisaient le papier-crayon dans la passation mais qui désiraient utiliser les TIC et deux qui utilisaient le papier-crayon et qui ne désiraient pas utiliser les TIC. Les organisations sont des établissements d’enseignement (primaire, secondaire, collégial, universitaire), des entreprises privées, des organismes gouvernementaux ou municipaux et des ordres professionnels. Des entrevues semi-structurées et une analyse qualitative par présence ou absence de différentes caractéristiques ont permis de documenter les modalités de sécurité liées à la récolte de données en vue de l’évaluation en utilisant les TIC. Ces modalités ont été comparées à celles utilisées lors de l’utilisation du papier-crayon dans la récolte de données en vue de l’évaluation afin de voir comment elles varient lors de l’utilisation des TIC. Les résultats révèlent que l’utilisation des TIC dans la passation complexifie et ajoute des étapes à la préparation des épreuves pour assurer un niveau de sécurité adéquat. Cependant elle permet également de nouvelles fonctions en ce qui concerne le type de questions, l’intégration de multimédia, l’utilisation de questions adaptatives et la génération aléatoire de l’épreuve qui permettent de contrer certaines formes de malhonnêteté académiques déjà présentes avec l’utilisation du papier-crayon dans la passation et pour lesquelles il était difficile d’agir. Toutefois, l’utilisation des TIC dans la passation peut aussi amener de nouvelles possibilités de malhonnêteté académique. Mais si ces dernières sont bien prises en considération, l’utilisation des TIC permet un niveau de sécurité des épreuves supérieur à celui où les données sont récoltées au traditionnel papier-crayon en vue de l’évaluation.

Report Writing (or a few useful things about writing)

Lecture Slides on the topic of report writing which incorporate a few in class activities. These slides deal with IEEE format referencing.Also briefly discusses academic integrity.