In this article we report findings from a review of universities’ academic integrity policies in Ontario, Canada. The research team systematically extracted, reviewed, and evaluated information from policy documents in an effort to understand how these documents described contract cheating in Ontario universities (n = 21). In all, 23 policies were examined for contract cheating language. The elements of access, approach, responsibility, detail, and support were examined and critiqued. Additionally, document type, document title and concept(s), specific contract cheating language, presence of contract cheating definitions and policy principles were reviewed. Findings revealed that none of the universities’ policies met all of the core elements of exemplary policy, were reviewed and revised with less frequency than their college counterparts, lacked language specific to contract cheating, and were more frequently focused on punitive rather than educative approaches. These findings confirm that there is further opportunity for policy development related to the promotion of academic integrity and the prevention of contract cheating.

While the text-matching tool, Turnitin®, has traditionally been used to deter and detect plagiarism, more recently, instructors have started to use this tool for formative self-assessment. To describe Turnitin®’s use in practice and to explore perceptions of this tool, we surveyed 940 students, teaching assistants, and instructors at a Canadian university. Our findings indicate that Turnitin® was more commonly used for plagiarism detection than for formative self-assessment. The majority of respondents had positive views of Turnitin®, and 70% of students stated that they had no concerns about using this tool. Despite these positive findings, content analysis of open-ended responses indicate that students experience increased anxiety of being falsely accused of plagiarism and have concerns about their work being stored in the Turnitin® database. Our findings lead us to conclude that there is a need for more information and improved communication about Turnitin® for all three groups. Bien que l’outil Turnitin® de mise en correspondance de texte ait été traditionnellement utilisé pour prévenir et détecter le plagiat, plus récemment, les instructeurs ont commencé à utiliser cet outil pour l’auto-évaluation formative. Afin de décrire l’emploi de Turnitin® dans la pratique et d’explorer les perceptions de cet outil, nous avons réalisé une enquête par sondage d’opinion auprès de 940 étudiants, assistants pédagogiques et instructeurs d’une université canadienne. Nos résultats indiquent que l’outil Turnitin® est davantage utilisé pour détecter le plagiat que pour l’auto-évaluation formative. La majorité des répondants avaient une opinion positive concernant Turnitit® et 70 % des étudiants ont déclaré qu’ils n’avaient aucune inquiétude concernant l’emploi de cet outil. Malgré ces résultats positifs, l’analyse du contenu des réponses aux questions ouvertes indique que les étudiants avaient peur d’être accusés à tort de plagiat et étaient inquiets que leurs travaux soient sauvegardés dans la base de données de Turnitin®. Nos résultats nous conduisent à conclure que pour ces trois groupes, il faudrait avoir davantage d’information et améliorer la communication concernant Turnitin®.

Faculty members are crucial partners in promoting academic integrity at Canadian universities, but their needs related to academic integrity are neither well documented nor understood. To address this gap, we developed a mixed methods survey to gather faculty perceptions of facilitators and barriers to using the existing academic integrity procedures, policies, resources, and supports required to promote academic integrity. In this article, we report the data collected from 330 participants at four Canadian universities. Responses pointed to the importance of individual factors, such as duty to promote academic integrity, as well as contextual factors, such as teaching load, class size, class format, availability of teaching assistant support, and consistency of policies and procedures, in supporting or hindering academic integrity. We also situated these results within a micro (individual), meso (departmental), macro (institutional), and mega (community) framework. Results from this study contribute to the growing body of empirical evidence about faculty perspectives on academic integrity in Canadian higher education and can inform the continued development of existing academic integrity supports at universities.

In Canada, there is a national academic quality assurance framework—the Canadian Degree Qualifications Framework (CDQF) that guides quality assurance standards within universities across the provinces and territories. These standards exist to support the quality and consistency of postsecondary academic programming in Canada, and provide mechanisms for quality enhancement. The CDQF is supported by further quality assurance mechanisms at the provincial level. While 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. The ongoing support for a culture of academic integrity requires a holistic approach, which includes the alignment of various policies and processes. It also involves the inclusion of academic integrity best practices into quality assurance processes, such as curriculum development and program review. In this chapter we discuss several quality assurance tools used in Canadian universities, with a focus on Ontario institutions, and discuss opportunities to leverage them to support academic integrity. The CDQF and provincial/territorial quality assurance frameworks should be better utilized for a holistic response to academic misconduct, to strengthen teaching and learning, and develop a culture of integrity in higher education. Opportunities within cyclical program review, curriculum mapping and educational development are discussed to highlight opportunities for academic integrity specialists, quality assurance staff, faculty, and policy makers to raise academic integrity awareness and weave best practices across an institution. Implications for the community college sector are also included. Recommendations can be applied to postsecondary institutions across Canada and integrated with quality assurance practices promoted by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) and others academic integrity advocates around the world.

No abstract