How Stressed are Students and What Can We Do About It? Findings from a Self-report Survey of Contract Cheating Behaviours and the Stressful Events College Students Experience

Empirical research on contract cheating in Canada has been limited (Eaton, 2022) and tends to focus on the university (Eaton, 2019; Stoesz & Los, 2019; Thacker, 2022) while there has been relatively little research on academic integrity and contract cheating in community colleges and other non-university higher education institutions (Bretag & Harper, 2020). To address this gap, in 2021, researchers collected data on student engagement in academic integrity violation behaviour and the stress they experienced as they were completing their programs at one Canadian community college. Using self-report survey methodology and utilizing students as partners in research, we found students engaged in a variety of contract cheating behaviours, and experienced a myriad of stressful events both in and outside the college context, including traumatic life events. In this presentation, we explore the link between stress and contract cheating behaviour and address how we can respond at all levels of our institutions to better support students and promote academic integrity.    &nbsp

Reflections on the Methodological Approach of Systematic Reviews

The concept of systematic reviewing of research literatures became influential in the second half of the 20th century, in the context of the longstanding, and challenging, issue of how to ‘translate’ research findings into reliable guidance for practical decision-making—to determine which policies, programs, and strategies should (and should not) be adopted (Hammersley 2014; Nisbet and Broadfoot 1980)

Building Community: Creating Faculty/Staff - Student Partnerships at a Canadian Applied Learning College

Building a community of integrity in educational institutions requires the support of all its members (Eaton, 2022). Inspired by Freeman et al. (2014) the students as partners (SaP) movement is one initiative toward building academic integrity community (as cited in Lancaster, 2022). The SaP practice seeks to “engage students and staff as collaborators on teaching and learning endeavours, establishing collegial working relationships based on reciprocity, mutual respect, shared responsibility, and complementary contributions” (Marquis, Black, & Healey, 2017, p. 720). Co-designing and co-facilitating in academic integrity endeavours has the immense potential to promote ownership, autonomy, engagement, and authenticity for learners, conditions that may lead to integrity violations when absent (Bretag et al., 2019). Cultivating partnerships among faculty/staff and students then is intended to prevent academic integrity breaches such as contract cheating (Lancaster, 2022) and other violation behaviours and through relationship building, may positively impact the sense of belonging, wellness, and equity for community members (McNeill, 2022). For institutions such as applied learning colleges the timeframe to engage learners in collaborations toward community building is noticeably short, ranging from 8 to 24 months, and programs are intense. In this poster presentation, learn how one Canadian applied learning college is forming faculty/staff-student partnerships to help build a community to support integrity in the classroom and beyond

Contract Cheating: A View from Three Calgary Post-Secondary Institutions

A comparative exploration of how contract cheating is addressed at three Calgary post-secondary institutions

Contract Cheating: An Inter-Institutional Collaborative SoTL Project from Alberta

Our project showcases perspectives from three Alberta post-secondary institutions, using a collaborative action research approach to reflect upon and then develop interventions to advance awareness of, and responses to, contract cheating. Contract cheating includes, but is not limited to essay mills, custom writing services, assignment completion services and professional exam takers. Contract cheating also occurs when parents, partners or another student do the work for a learner. In short, contract cheating happens when students have someone else complete academic work on their behalf, but submit their work as if they had done it themselves. Our project is framed as an action research project that extends SoTL beyond the individual classroom to a broader institutional context. Using narratives, observations and reflection-on-action as data sources, we use informal interventions such as hallway conversations and in-class discussions, designed to help both faculty members and students develop greater awareness about what contract cheating is and why it deserves attention from a teaching and learning perspective. We also discuss institutional action, such as taking part in the International Day of Action Against Contract Cheating, as a formal way to raise awareness about contract cheating in higher education more broadly. We conclude with preliminary practical and evidence-informed recommendations for practitioners, educational developers and decision-makers

Alberta Council on Academic Integrity (ACAI) 2019-2020 Annual Report

The Alberta Council on Academic Integrity (ACAI) was established in August, 2019. This report covers the period from the establishment of the Council in August 2019 to December 31, 2020. We provide background on the development and launch of the Council, and its activities. We also include copies of educational resources developed in print form, and a link to our first webinar. Key highlights from 2019-2020 include: • Background. We provide background on how the Council came into existence following the 2019 Canadian Symposium on Academic Integrity. • Governance, structure and activities. The Council operates with volunteers and receives no direct funding. Institutional hosts of provincial meetings provide financial and in-kind support to run the meetings. As per our draft charter, membership is institutional, not individual. Members of the Council of Post-Secondary Presidents of Alberta (COPPOA) are automatically included. Other institutions or organizations will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Leadership is provided by the Steering Committee, who operate on a coalition model of governance, with all members serving in an equal capacity. • Two (2) provincial meetings. The inaugural meeting was held on August 16, 2019, hosted by the University of Calgary. The second was held on October 25, 2019, hosted by NorQuest College, Edmonton. • Draft charter. A charter was drafted and feedback was received both in writing and through conversation at the October 2019 meeting in Edmonton. • Activities. A number of key activities of the Council are highlighted including participation in international events. • Working groups. We formed three working groups in 2020 to help us focus our efforts going forward: o Contract Cheating o Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion o Professional and Educational Development • Scholarship and knowledge mobilization. Contributions from Albertans are highlighted in this report including peer-reviewed publications, conference proceedings, book chapters and conference presentations, as well as keynote addresses, invited and edited contributions. • Impact. We highlight that since the Council was established, it has already received national coverage in the Globe and Mail and accolades from the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education. • Looking forward. We provide concrete activities and goals for 2021

Mammographic surveillance in women younger than 50 years who have a family history of breast cancer: tumour characteristics and projected effect on mortality in the prospective, single-arm, FH01 study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence supports a reduction in mortality from breast cancer with mammographic screening in the general population of women aged 40-49 years, but the effect of family history is not clear. We aimed to establish whether screening affects the disease stage and projected mortality of women younger than 50 years who have a clinically significant family history of breast cancer. METHODS: In the single-arm FH01 study, women at intermediate familial risk who were younger than 50 years were enrolled from 76 centres in the UK, and received yearly mammography. Women with BRCA mutations were not explicitly excluded, but would be rare in this group. To compare the FH01 cohort with women not receiving screening, two external comparison groups were used: the control group of the UK Age Trial (106,971 women aged 40-42 years at recruitment, from the general population [ie, average risk], followed up for 10 years), and a Dutch study of women with a family history of breast cancer (cancer cases aged 25-77 years, diagnosed 1980-2004). Study endpoints were size, node status, and histological grade of invasive tumours, and estimated mortality calculated from the Nottingham prognostic index (NPI) score, and adjusted for differences in underlying risk between the FH01 cohort and the control group of the UK Age Trial. This study is registered with the National Research Register, number N0484114809. FINDINGS: 6710 women were enrolled between Jan 16, 2003, and Feb 28, 2007, and received yearly mammography for a mean of 4 years (SD 2) up until Nov 30, 2009; surveillance and reporting of cancers is still underway. 136 women were diagnosed with breast cancer: 105 (77%) at screening, 28 (21%) symptomatically in the interval between screening events, and three (2%) symptomatically after failing to attend their latest mammogram. Invasive tumours in the FH01 study were significantly smaller (p=0·0094), less likely to be node positive (p=0·0083), and of more favourable grade (p=0·0072) than were those in the control group of the UK Age Trial, and were significantly less likely to be node positive than were tumours in the Dutch study (p=0·012). Mean NPI score was significantly lower in the FH01 cohort than in the control group of the UK Age Trial (p=0·00079) or the Dutch study (p<0·0001). After adjustment for underlying risk, predicted 10-year mortality was significantly lower in the FH01 cohort (1·10%) than in the control group of the UK Age Trial (1·38%), with relative risk of 0·80 (95% CI 0·66-0·96; p=0·022). INTERPRETATION: Yearly mammography in women with a medium familial risk of breast cancer is likely to be effective in prevention of deaths from breast cancer