PhD Research Proposal 28 Nov, 2013

‘On My Honour!’An Investigation into the Feasibility of Academic Honour Codes in the Australian University Context

Sonia SaddiquiSchool of Education

Department of Human SciencesMacquarie University

Today’s presentation: Research rationale, Definitions Associated factors Current responses to managing

Academic Integrity Theoretical framework Research questions, aims and

methodology

Research RationaleWhy research student academic integrity management?

Breaches are pervasive

Rates among students in the US have been as high as 64% (McCabe & Trevino, 1996)

70% of US college students self-reported breach behaviours (Whitley,1998)

Research RationaleWhy investigate student academic integrity management?

HE Sector Changes

Focus on consistent standards, benchmarking, increasing accountability and monitoring (Bradley Review, 2008)

Government commitment to addressing academic integrity issues 4 x Office of Learning & Teaching Priority Projects

(2012-2014)

Research RationaleWhy research student academic integrity management?

Breaches are harmful

Effects program efficacy Disrupt transmission of knowledge and the

assessment of student competencies

Undermines good scholarship Fails to recognise the contributions of past scholars

Creates culture of distrust Lack of faith in rules and policies leads to lack of

student satisfaction (AUSSE, 2008)

Perception of systemic unfairness

Research RationaleWhy research student academic integrity management?Breaches are harmful

Damage to reputation University reputation – institutions and/or programs

become less desirable options for students Less likely to attract talented staff and research

funding Personal and professional reputation costs

Future professional unethical conduct Breach behaviour in university linked to breach

behaviour in the workplace (Sims, 1993; Thompson 2000)

Associated FactorsWhat are the intrinsic and extrinsic factors commonly associated with increased likelihood of breach activity?

Impact of ICT

Lack of skills and knowledge

Differing pedagogical philosophies

Changing values and expectations relating to academia

Increasing competition and pressure

Peer influence

Associated FactorsPeer Influence/ Peer culture Significantly correlated with the likelihood

of breach activity (McCabe & Trevino, 1993; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; McCabe, Trevino & Butterfield, 2002).

Students who perceive that breaches are commonplace are more likely to commit breaches themselves.

Peer disapproval of cheating is associated with decreased cheating (McCabe and Trevino, 1993).

Examples of AI breaches Plagiarism Collusion Falsification Cheating in exams Ghost-writing Purchasing assignments Submitting the same assignment more

than once Sabotage Enlisting a proxy to take an examination Bribery

Definitions used in AI literatureWhy are definitions important?

Because language, tone and register is important.

Terminology in AI policies often places students in the role of potential offenders, and academic staff in a policing and judgment role (Sutherland-Smith 2010)

Definitions and processes should encourage inclusivity

Legalistic definitions with moral overtones are limiting and limited

Key Terms

Academic Integrity ICAI definition consists of 5

fundamental values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility (‘courage’ has been added to the latest draft) (ICAI, 2012, 2013)

Academic Integrity Breaches Behaviour that is incongruent with

these values (Gallant, 2008)

Common TermsSome synonymous concepts Academic misconduct Plagiarism Academic dishonesty Cheating

51% of Aust. university AI policies used ‘academic misconduct’ and ‘plagiarism’ as key terms (Bretag et. al. 2011)

41% of Aust. university AI policies used ‘academic integrity’ as the key term (Bretag et. al., 2011)

Defining ‘Academic Integrity Breach’

Any intentional or unintentional activity by a student that breaches the rules of an assessment task and/or the accepted standards of academic behaviour at an institution.

Current ApproachesWhat are the characteristics of current AI management systems at universities?

1)Punitive

2)Pedagogical

3)Process & Policy

Current ApproachesWhat are the characteristics of current AI management systems at universities?

Punitive Approaches

Basic Involves warnings, disciplinary outcomes Penalties as deterrence Emphasis on ‘catch and punish’ PDS (e.g. Turnitin) Can be devised and implemented quickly E.g. ‘academic misconduct penalties’

Current ApproachesWhat are the characteristics of current AI management systems at universities?

Pedagogical Approaches

Logical long-term strategy Acculturation to academia Supportive Deterrence through equipping students with

skills and knowledge Can be tailored to suit particular disciplines ‘Good customer service’ E.g. learning support programs, online

modules, embedding AI elements into curriculum

Current ApproachesWhat are the characteristics of current AI management systems at universities?

Process & Policy Approaches

Refers to the larger systems within which AI is managed

Policies – definitions, rhetoric & language, formulation, dissemination

Processes – Policies in action, informal processes

E.g. Training and induction for staff

A holistic response is recommended(Devlin 2002; Freeman, et al., 2007; JISC, 2011; MacDonald & Carroll, 2006 and Park, 2003)

AIManagement

Punitive

Pedagogical

?

Process&

Policy

The missing ‘P’? Participation!

AIManageme

nt

Punitive

Pedagogical

Participation

Process&

Policy

Participatory Approach to AI ManagementWhat does it entail?

Establishing an academic integrity community Articulating common values Engaging students - more meaningful

involvement of students in AI processes and info. dissemination

Promoting shared ownership and shared responsibility of academic integrity

Students gain knowledge and experience through participation

More likely to create longer-lasting, positive cultural change in AI

Participatory Approach to AI ManagementAre there existing models we can refer to ?

Academic Honour Codes

Provides an existing framework to refer to, adapt and build-upon.

Their effects and implementation processes have been studied.

Participatory Approach to AI ManagementWhat are Honour Codes?

Honour Codes

Formalised codes that require students (and in some cases, staff) to abide by certain rules of ethical academic and personal conduct.

Most commonly associated with US institutions

Strong emphasis on community, trust and mutual responsibility.

Participatory Approach to AI ManagementHonour Codes Types

Traditional Contracts, pledges, oaths Responsibility lies mainly with students Disciplinary committees may consist entirely of

students Students may be required to report breaches

and may be permitted unsupervised examinations

Modified Adapted from the traditional format to suit the

campus culture AI responsibilities are more likely to be shared

with staff

Honour CodesUniversity of Virginia

Image source: http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1369399/thumbs/o-UNIVERSITY-OF-VIRGINIA-facebook.jpg

Honour CodesUniversity of Virginia – Quotes from students & staffhttp://www.virginia.edu/honor/benefits-of-honor/#sthash.bShLksXL.dpuf)

“Honor empowers students to take ownership and responsibility for their community. Students do not pass through this University, they shape it.” - UVA student

The tangible meaning is obvious-no cheating, lying, stealing, etc. But I think on a more abstract level it has a general meaning of attempting to hold both yourself and the community to a desirable standard.”

- UVA student

“I would not want to teach anywhere a community of trust did not exist. It is an honor in itself to be accepted as a student or faculty member into this community.”

- UVA Professor

Dan Ariely: ‘Why we think it's OK to cheat and steal (sometimes)’

<video removed due to size restrictions>To see the video, please visit youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUdsTizSxSI

Reference:

Dan Ariely. (2009, March 18). Why we think it's OK to cheat and steal (sometimes) [Video file] Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUdsTizSxSI

Participatory Approach to AI ManagementHonour Codes

But can they work HERE?

Yes…provided there is:

‘Buy in’ from students

Endorsement by the university community

Embedment and institutional support

Effective dissemination

(McCabe, Trevino & Butterfield, 2002; Dufresne, 2004)

Theoretical FrameworkPsychological Sense of Community (Sarason, 1974)Further developed by Chavis et. al., (1986) into4 Sense of Community Elements: Membership Influence Integration and fulfilment of needs Shared emotional connection

Aim? To assess presence, impact and evidence of Sense of Community elements in HC

Research Questions

1. What are the main elements of Honour Codes?

2. How are Honour Codes created and maintained?

3. What do student and staff think of honour codes (or similar student-led model) in terms of: purpose, application, effects and viability (in the Aust. HE context)

4. (Maybe) How would an Honour Code (or similar) Society be implemented at an Australian university?

Research Aims Create categories & classify

‘types’ of honour codes Identify honour code stakeholders

and their respective roles Identify honour code processes,

dissemination & application Ascertain staff & student attitudes

about honour codes Assess feasibility (Maybe) Develop guidelines for

implementation

Research Method

This PhD research is attached to a current OLT Academic Integrity Study led by MQ: Academic Integrity in Australia – Understanding and Changing Culture and Practice (Oct 2012 – April 2014)

Ethical clearance (for OLT project + PhD) was granted by MQ HREC for the following: Focus groups (Ethics no. 5201300429) Interviews (Ethics no.5201300430)

Research MethodResearch Questions 1& 2: Content analysis of honour codes using

Grounded Theory approach, informed by the 4 Sense of Community elements

Honour Codes will be sourced from the list of institutions cited by the ICAI (n=360)

Research Questions 3 & 4 Focus groups (n=26 students) Interviews (n=40 students + staff) who

play advisory, advocacy and administrative roles in AI, at approx. 20 unis.

Maybe…. Evaluation of pilot Honour Code Society

(part of current OLT study)