Core elements of exemplary academic integrity policy in Australian higher education

This paper reports on one important aspect of the preliminary findings from the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) project, Academic integrity standards: Aligning policy and practice in Australian universities. Our project aims to identify approaches to the complex issues of academic integrity, and then to build on these approaches to develop exemplars for adaptation across the higher education sector. Based on analysis of publicly available online academic integrity policies at each of the 39 Australian universities, we have identified five core elements of exemplary academic integrity policy. These have been grouped under the headings, Access, Approach, Responsibility, Detail and Support, with no element given priority over another. In this paper we compare the five core elements identified in our research with best practice guidelines recommended by the Higher Education Academy (HEA) in the UK. We conclude that an exemplar policy needs to provide an upfront, consistent message, reiterated throughout the entire policy, which indicates a systemic and sustained commitment to the values of academic integrity and the practices that ensure it. Whereas the HEA created two discrete resources, the key aim and challenge of this project will be to develop exemplars that demonstrate a strong alignment between policy and practice

Taking action on academic integrity at one Australian university

Despite all the work put into writing policies to reduce academic misconduct, all the writing of guidelines for how to acknowledge, and all the declarations of how academic integrity is valued, few Australian universities could say with confidence that they have a holistic, integrated approach to dealing with academic misconduct and academic integrity. One Australian university, for example, has a well-written policy which clearly outlines lecturer responsibilities, yet that university has not monitored whether staff are aware of these responsibilities and if they are implementing them. Given the heavy workload of lecturers, why would lecturers seek out policy and/or bother to carefully read it when it seems peripheral to their research and teaching? Engaging lecturers in the topic of academic integrity requires more than a good policy and a check list. Through a distributed leadership initiative, an action research project in one faculty of this university was set up to engage lecturers in taking on their responsibilities in ways that are appropriate for their practice. In this paper I review the actions taken by the lecturers and reflect on the progress of the project

Taking Responsibility for Academic Integrity: A collaborative teaching and learning design

La Trobe University, like many Australian universities, states that it values honest academic endeavour (Academic Integrity Policy 2011), and it can provide examples of good teaching practice in the areas of academic integrity, proper acknowledgment and avoiding plagiarism. Rather than relying on the chance that individuals will just develop good practices, this university has recently taken a more systematic approach to teaching students and staff about academic integrity and providing resources to ensure a consistent message and application of acknowledgment conventions. This systematic approach was made possible through the University’s curriculum reform program, the Design for Learning. By positioning academic integrity and acknowledgment as issues of curriculum, La Trobe has created an educational opportunity and reduced the focus on punishment. Furthermore, the mandate to deliver academic integrity programmes to all commencing students and staff and to provide consistent guidelines supports the development of awareness that academic integrity is a whole of university responsibility – everybody’s responsibility. This paper reviews one university’s progress towards aligning academic integrity, with the intention to inform those who are interested in developing an integrated academic integrity education

Pluralizing plagiarism: Identities, contexts, pedagogies

Studies exploring understandings of plagiarism now make up a sizeable contribution to the study of academic literacy. Universities have increased efforts to reduce plagiarism, just as access to information has increased way beyond what was possible just a few years ago. The editors of Pluralizing plagiarism: Identities, contexts, pedagogies, Rebecca Moore Howard and Amy Robillard, acknowledge that much attention has been given to plagiarism, but they argue that the academy offers a monolithic definition of the problem of plagiarism and "one set of solutions in all circumstances" (p. 2). They point out that writing is no longer taught as the one generalised model of "good writing" and much is now known about how standards for writing are subject specific, yet plagiarism is responded to in generalised simplistic ways. Hence, they argue that responses to plagiarism need to be more nuanced, and plagiarism must be pluralised. View the PDF for the full revie

\u27Teach us how to do it properly!\u27 An Australian academic integrity student survey

The results of a large online student survey (n = 15,304), on academic integrity at six Australian universities, indicate that a majority of respondents reported a good awareness of academic integrity and knowledge of academic integrity policy at their university and were satisfied with the information and support they receive. Response varied across cohorts, with international students expressing a lower awareness of academic integrity and academic integrity policy, and lower confidence in how to avoid academic integrity breaches. Postgraduate research student respondents were the least satisfied with the information they had received about how to avoid an academic integrity breach. The results from this survey provide an opportunity to explore the student perspective and inform the higher education sector in relation to communicating with and educating students about academic integrity. The students have indicated that Australian universities need to move beyond the mere provision of information to ensure a holistic approach that engages students about academic integrity

Academic integrity standards project, Australia: The first year results

This presentation reports on the first year results of an Australian Learning and Teaching Council grant, Academic integrity standards: Aligning policy and practice in Australian universities. The paper provides a summary of the key findings relating to policy analysis, a student survey comprised of over 10,000 responses, and interviews and focus groups of academic integrity stakeholders. It is anticipated that the project deliverables (exemplars supported by teaching and learning resources) will build on international best practice and contribute to the development of a shared culture of academic integrity across the Australian higher education sector

'Teach us how to do it properly!' An Australian academic integrity student survey

The results of a large online student survey (n?=?15,304), on academic integrity at six Australian universities, indicate that a majority of respondents reported a good awareness of academic integrity and knowledge of academic integrity policy at their university and were satisfied with the information and support they receive. Response varied across cohorts, with international students expressing a lower awareness of academic integrity and academic integrity policy, and lower confidence in how to avoid academic integrity breaches. Postgraduate research student respondents were the least satisfied with the information they had received about how to avoid an academic integrity breach. The results from this survey provide an opportunity to explore the student perspective and inform the higher education sector in relation to communicating with and educating students about academic integrity. The students have indicated that Australian universities need to move beyond the mere provision of information to ensure a holistic approach that engages students about academic integrity

A review and definition of ‘usual care’ in genetic counseling trials to standardize use in research

The descriptor 'usual care' refers to standard or routine care. Yet, no formal definition exists. The need to define what constitutes usual care arises in clinical research. Often one arm in a trial represents usual care in comparison with a novel intervention. Accordingly, usual care in genetic counseling research appears predominantly in randomized controlled trials. Recent standards for reporting genetic counseling research call for standardization, but do not address usual care. We (1) inventoried all seven studies in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Consortium (CSER) about how genetic counseling was conceptualized, conducted, and whether a usual care arm was involved; (2) conducted a review of published randomized control trials in genetic counseling, comparing how researchers describe usual care groups; and (3) reviewed existing professionally endorsed definitions and practice descriptions of genetic counseling. We found wide variation in the content and delivery of usual care. Descriptions frequently detailed the content of usual care, most often noting assessment of genetic risk factors, collecting family histories, and offering testing. A minority included addressing psychological concerns or the risks versus benefits of testing. Descriptions of how care was delivered were vague except for mode and type of clinician, which varied. This significant variation, beyond differences expected among subspecialties, reduces the validity and generalizability of genetic counseling research. Ideally, research reflects clinical practice so that evidence generated can be used to improve clinical outcomes. To address this objective, we propose a definition of usual care in genetic counseling research that merges common elements from the National Society of Genetic Counselors' practice definition, the Reciprocal Engagement Model, and the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counselors' practice-based competencies. Promoting consistent execution of usual care in the design of genetic counseling trials can lead to more consistency in representing clinical care and facilitate the generation of evidence to improve it