Can Online Academic Integrity Instruction Affect University Students’ Perceptions of and Engagement in Academic Dishonesty? Results From a Natural Experiment in New Zealand

Abstract

The problem of academic dishonesty is as old as it is widespread – dating back millennia and perpetrated by the majority of students. Attempts to promote academic integrity, by comparison, are relatively new and rare – stretching back only a few hundred years and implemented by a small fraction of schools and universities. However, the past decade has seen an increase in efforts among universities to promote academic integrity among students, particularly through the use of online courses or tutorials. Previous research has found this type of instruction to be effective in increasing students’ knowledge of academic integrity and reducing their engagement in academic dishonesty. The present study contributes to this literature with a natural experiment on the effects of the Academic Integrity Course (AIC) at The University of Auckland, which became mandatory for all students in 2015. In 2012, a convenience sample of students (n = 780) had been asked to complete a survey on their perceptions of the University’s academic integrity polices and their engagement in several forms of academic dishonesty over the past year. In 2017, the same procedures and survey were used to collect data from second sample of students (n = 608). After establishing measurement invariance across the two samples on all latent factors, analysis of variance revealed mixed support for the studies hypotheses. Unexpectedly, students who completed the AIC (i.e., the 2017 sample) reported: (1) significantly lower (not higher) levels of understanding, support, and effectiveness with respect to the University’s academic integrity policies; (2) statistically equivalent (not higher) levels of peer disapproval of academic misconduct, and; (3) significantly higher (not lower) levels of peer engagement in academic misconduct. However, results related to participants’ personal engagement in academic misconduct offered partial support for hypotheses – those who completed the AIC reported significantly lower rates of engagement on three of the eight behaviors included in the study. The implications and limitations of these findings are discussed as well as possible future directions for research.

Lack of ethics or lack of knowledge? European upper secondary students’ doubts and misconceptions about integrity issues

“…Fortunately, more training aimed at providing students with the appropriate knowledge has been developed during the last decade. The natural experiment by Dee and Jacob ( 2010 ) described above illustrates one form this training can take, but a number of similar online tools aimed at improving university students’ understanding and raising their awareness of academic integrity issues have recently been developed (e.g., Curtis et al 2013 ; Cronan et al 2017 ; Stephens et al 2021 ). Our results suggest that it might be fruitful to develop similar tools for the upper secondary level.…”

Academic dishonesty and trustworthy assessment in online learning: A systematic literature review

“…In general, it is divided into plagiarism, cheating (giving or receiving assistance), fabrication, falsification, misbehaviour, jockey, and collusion in solving improper problems (Farisi, 2013). AD has been observed for thousands of years (Stephens et al, 2021). Many studies have indicated the prevalence of AD in common assessments conducted in an online format (Kennedy et al, 2000).…”

Evaluating a pedagogical approach to promoting academic integrity in higher education: An online induction program

“…For example, researchers have demonstrated that educational initiatives, such as online modules that focus on academic integrity, can positively impact students’ attitudes, reducing potentially unethical behaviours ( Belter and Du Pré, 2009 ; Ballard, 2013 ; Bealle, 2017 ; Palmer et al, 2019 ; Sefcik et al, 2019 ; Du, 2020 ). Stephens et al (2021) argued, however, that online courses are only partially useful for students, but they can become much more effective within a comprehensive approach to promoting academic integrity. Boehm et al (2009) suggested that providing clear definitions with specific examples of what constitutes unethical behaviours can effectively prevent academic integrity breaches.…”