Research Findings

  1. Online Student Survey

    5538 Australian university students completed an online survey at Macquarie University (including Sydney Institute of Business and Technology [SIBT]), Australian Catholic University and University of Sydney between December 2012 and May 2013.

    Summary of demographic characteristics of respondents:

    • 65% of respondents were aged between 18 to 25
    • 65% of respondents were female
    • 75% of respondents were undergraduates
    • 79% of respondents were studying internally (i.e. not classified as distance learners)
    • 81% of respondents were studying full-time
    • 77% of respondents spoke English at home, with 81% having spoken English for most or all of their lives
    • 90% of respondents* were local students
    • 26.6% of respondents were still in their first year of university study, 15.9% had completed one year, 15.5% had completed two years, 13.4% had completed three years, and 28.6% had completed more than three years of university study.
    • 28.5% of respondents studied Arts, 20.2% Commerce, 18.1% Medical Science, 16.3% Social Science and 13.1% Science.
    • 54.7% of respondents engaged in paid outside work as their primary activity outside of academic work, followed by sport 15.1%, voluntary work 7.2%, carer duties 6.2% and other activities 16.8%.

    * n=1956, MQ students were not asked if they were local or international students

    Summary of attitudinal responses:

    Students indicated their level of agreement with the following statements about academic integrity (values):

    StatementLevel of Agreement
    Academic Integrity is about Honesty 92%
    Academic Integrity is about Fairness 85.8%
    Academic Integrity is about Respect 84%
    Academic Integrity is about Trust 75.8%
    Academic Integrity is about shared community values 69%

    Students indicated their level of agreement with the following statements about academic integrity (responsibility):

    Statement Level of Agreement
    Academic Integrity is about the shared responsibility of the entire university community 84%
    Academic Integrity is the responsibility of students 56%
    Academic Integrity is the responsibility of academic staff 27% (47.3% for SIBT)
    Academic Integrity is the responsibility of admin. staff 21%

    Students indicated their level of agreement with the following statements about academic integrity (rules, penalties, breaches):

    Statement Level of Agreement
    Academic Integrity is about following rules and policies 84%
    Academic Integrity is about penalties for dishonesty 61.2%
    Academic Integrity breaches are a serious problem 55%

    Are there any special circumstances where is it OK to be dishonest?

    69% of students felt there were no special circumstances where it was "OK to be dishonest", 26% felt there were very few circumstances where it was OK to be dishonest, 4% felt there were some circumstances, and 1% felt there were a lot of circumstances where it was OK to be dishonest.

    Contributing factors

    The main contributing factors for why students commit academic integrity breaches were identified as the following: time pressures, the pressure to succeed, other [competing] priorities, poorly-designed assessment tasks, lack of knowledge of policies and a lack of awareness of penalties.

    How prevalent are breaches?

    In terms of students' perception of the prevalence of breaches, 2% felt breaches do not occur at all, 75% felt that they were fairly uncommon, 38% felt they were fairly common and 3% felt they were extremely common.

    Perceived seriousness of breaches

    When students were asked to rank the perceived seriousness of breaches, from 1 (most serious) to 6 (least serious), 'cheating' and 'plagiarism' were selected as the most serious forms of academic integrity breach type. Students regarded 'sabotage', 'falsification' and 'collusion' as less serious breach types, perhaps demonstrating a lack of awareness of the actions that constitute such behaviours. This speculation is supported by the findings from the student focus groups component of this study, where the majority of students indicated familiarity with cheating and plagiarism respectively, but expressed uncertainly regarding what constitutes sabotage, fabrication and falsification.

    Breach Type Median Ranking
    Cheating 2
    Plagiarism 3
    Fabrication 4
    Sabotage 5
    Falsification 5
    Collusion 6

    How do Australian university students prefer to learn about academic integrity?

    Students currently acquire (and prefer to acquire) most of their information regarding academic integrity from unit outlines and course materials, and from lectures and tutorials. Additional sources of academic integrity information (which students provided via qualitative responses) included common/general knowledge, prior learning and general awareness of ethical behaviour. The most popular suggested forms of academic integrity information dissemination tended to involve modes that required more from students than simply being passive recipients of information. Students suggested activities that required engagement, reflection and interaction between students (e.g. interactive online resources, discussion forums, in-class exercises and orientation seminars).

    Were the students willing to join an academic integrity student group?

    1488 students (27%) said that they would be willing to participate in such a group. This number was much higher than anticipated by the project team. 27% selected 'academic integrity student society' as a 'preferred dissemination mode' for information and engagement.

    What activities should the academic integrity student group carry out?

    Students selected the following pre-provided options as being their preferred activities: advice, support, refreral, provide feedback and suggestions to staff, and run information booths during Orientation Week. Students were additionally asked to provide open-ended responses (n=610). 42% of these open-ended responses concerned various methods for raising awareness about academic integrity rules and issues. These methods included:

    • Provide handouts, posters, marketing campaign on campus, publications, social media
    • Organise workshops, seminars, presentations
    • Provide Advice, support, referral, advocacy
    • Provide peer-assisted mentoring
    • Unmasking the issue (i.e. provide examples of breaches, reporting on beach rates and outcomes)
    • Providing discipline specific information and advice
  2. Student Focus Groups

    Forty students from the three participating institutions (Macquarie University, Australian Catholic University and Sydney University) took part in focus groups from July to August 2013.

    What academic integrity 'values' did participants identify?

    'Honesty' was the most frequently mentioned academic integrity value. Students were more likely to talk about academic integrity values in terms of actions or behaviours or actions, rather than citing values (e.g. independent effort in assessments and ensuring proper attribution)

    What groups make up the 'university community'?

    Students readily identified students and staff as two primary components of the university community, but were less likely to mention employers, industry and the community in general. They nonetheless agreed that the latter were also stakeholders of the university and belonged to the wider university community.

    Academic integrity breaches - what is the harm?

    Students were well aware of the potential damage caused by breaches in terms of reputation, unfairness and the loss of trust that can affect all members of the university community. However, they were less likely to consider the negative impact it might have on their own learning in terms of breach activity undermining program objectives and making it more difficult for teachers to get an accurate indication of students' competencies.

    Are students aware of the different types of breaches?

    Students' responses indicated that they were aware of all six breach types listed in the survey (cheating, plagiarism, sabotage, falsification, fabrication and collusion), but were unsure about sabotage, fabrication, falsification and collusion. They were most aware of plagiarism, which seemed to be the major breach type that students perceive to be occurring frequently.

    Are there any 'at risk' student groups who would benefit from further assistance?

    Students identified commencing undergraduate students and mature-aged students as being in need of more support with regards to academic integrity information and advice. However, the group that was most consistently raised as an example of where more assistance and support was required was international students. Focus group participants were cognisant of the unique difficulties faced by international students who may be unaccustomed to Australian university academic writing conventions, and expectations regarding attribution.

    Experience with academic integrity breaches:

    The breach type that students described involved experiences with other students, and mainly concerned plagiarism, questionable group work activity that bordered on collusion, and in two cases, suspected exam misconduct. In every example mentioned, students had not been informed regarding how the issue was resolved, even in instances where students had reported witnessing breaches.

    Current sources of support and information

    Students stated they were currently seeking information and support mainly from speaking to lecturers, tutors and student services. They also expressed that some form of counselling or peer support could be made available to students given the sensitive subject matter that may be associated with academic integrity issues.

    Are current academic integrity information dissemination and support strategies sufficient?

    Opinions were split when students were asked if they were satisfied with how they currently received information about academic integrity. Some felt that their course outlines were the easiest, most direct place to look for academic integrity information, and felt that it was more likely to be discipline-specific advice. Others felt that written materials were not the answer, and wanted more practical and interactive forms of learning. This view is supported by student responses to a similar question in the online survey.

    Is a student academic integrity group a good idea?

    Focus group students were markedly more positive about the concept of an AI student society, compared to the survey respondents. This may be due to focus group participants being in a position to learn more about the proposed 'academic integrity student group' idea, and were able to ask questions regarding it, and also because focus group volunteers may be inherently more willing to participate in (or be supportive of) student engagement endeavours.

    Perceptions of the academic 'honour code' concept as a possible academic integrity dissemination model

    Academic honour codes, typically utilised in North American universities, were discussed with the students, as an example of an academic integrity student group movement. Students tentatively supported the concept of honour codes, but were hesitant about the possible requirement to report on their peers, and about the level of authority that students might have in the adjudication process. There was a preference for staff to be involved to provide guidance in case adjudication. In spite of these concerns, the students were very supportive of the more punitive aspects of the code. For more information about the viability of honour codes in the Australian higher education context, please see Nayak et al. (2013).

    Examples of Honour Code policies given to focus group students (for discussion)

    • All members of the university community agree to a code of ethical conduct.
    • May involve contracts, pledges or oaths signed by students who promise to commit to ethical personal and academic conduct.
    • The university website will contain a description of the honour code policy and procedures.
    • The responsibility for maintaining academic integrity can lie mainly with the students, or with students and academics.
    • Students are required to inform the university if they witness another student committing a breach of academic integrity.
    • Students may be granted unsupervised exams.
    • University disciplinary committees may consist entirely of student members, or a mix of students and academics.
    • Penalties for proven cases of honour code breaches are typically harsh

    A summary of structured interview findings will be presented in due course

    References

    Nayak, A., Richards, D., Saddiqui, S., Homewood, J., White F., Mcguigan, N., Meredith T., & Sureshkumar, P. (2013), Academic Integrity: Bottom up, Proceedings of the 6th Asia Pacific Forum on Educational Integrity, retrieved 23 October 2013 from:
    http://web.science.mq.edu.au/conferences/6apcei/Proceedings/6APCEI_Proceedings.pdf