1. Evaluating educational approaches to academic integrity in Australian universities' policies Ursula McGowan, Ruth Walker, Margaret Wallace Presentation for 5APCEI 26-28 th September 2011 UWA

2. background the ALTC project the ALTC team's preliminary analysis of Australian HE policies about academic integrity the ALTC team’s previous and ongoing work includes: 1. AuQF paper 2. 5APCEI paper: core elements of exemplary policy The focus of this sub-project is on evaluating the educational strategies found in AI policies

3. our research questions 1.To what extent do the polices suggest or promote academic integrity as something to be learnt, as opposed to something to regulate? 2. What kinds of educational approaches are suggested in the 39 Australian universities' academic integrity policies?

4. an additional question 3. What is the role of a university policy on academic integrity? purpose authorship audience tone

5. first impressions of policy keywords sample A Academic misconduct Faculty misconduct committee Misconduct Plagiarism Research misconduct Serious misconduct offence Serious misconduct tribunal Simple misconduct offences University community sample B Academic apprenticeship Academic integrity Academic misconduct Acknowledgement Bibliography Central database Collaboration Collusion Common knowledge Paraphrasing Plagiarism Procedural fairness Reference list Student advisor

6. methodology We revisited all 39 policies and looked for the following educational strategies about academic integrity: provision of information about academics integrity workshops individual consultations embedded assessment design education of staff We coded this information as: proactive (P) reactive (R) combination of proactive and reactive (P+R)

7. activity You have been given some sample extracts from policies. In small groups, read through one of the selected groups of extracts and discuss. Can you categorise these as reactive or proactive? You have 2 minutes! Hint: reactive = in reaction to a breach proactive = action taken to avoid breaches

8. our analysis 0 = no educative strategy mentioned in policy P = proactive R = reactive P+R = combination of proactive and reactive X = no AI policy to be found

9. educational principles constructive: learn by doing; mistakes as learning opportunities alignment: learning objective  learning activity  assessment for learning = constructive alignment (Biggs, 1999)

10. academic apprenticeship What needs to be learned: research ethics research skill development academic literacies academic cultures Embedding: curriculum planning assessment design scaffolding

11. institutional purpose What is the institutional purpose of academic integrity policy? Regulatory: o student compliance o student restraint Educational (AI something to be learnt): o student understanding meaning of research integrity o student competence in evidence-based writing

12. © U. McGowan, R. Walker, M. Wallace, September 2011

13. consider this Given that the university's core business is education… What kind of balance might be achieved across the 'educational drivers' associated with the 'institutional purposes'? Purpose Educational Driver learner compliance fear learner constraint skills training learner autonomy apprenticeship

14. concluding questions 1. Should an academic policy say something specific about *educational* approaches? If yes, why? If not, why not? 2. If it *does* say something about educational strategies, then What should it say? Why? At what level of detail?

15. footnotes 1.Sparrow (2000) The Regulatory Craft: Controlling Risks, Solving Problems and Managing Compliance, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC. 2.Carroll, J. (2007) A Handbook for Deterring Plagiarism in Higher Education, CSLD, Oxford p.33 3.Willison & O’Regan ((2007) Commonly known, commonly not known, totally unknown: a framework for students becoming researchers, Higher Educational Research and Development 26(4) pp 393-409 4.McGowan, U (2005) Plagiarism and Detection: Are we putting the cart before the horse? In A. Brew & C. Asmar (eds) Higher education in a changing world, HERDSA Conference Proceedings pp 287-293 http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/herdsa2005/paper_index.cfm McGowan, U (2010) Re-defining academic teaching in terms of research apprenticeship, in M. Devlin, J. Nagy, & A. Lichtenberg (eds) Research Development in Higher Education: Reshaping Education, 33 pp 481-489 http://www.herdsa.org.au/?page_id=1371#M

16. references Biggs, J. (1996) Enhancing Teaching through constructive alignment, Higher Education 32, pp 337-364 Bretag, T., Mahmud, S., East, J., Green, M., James, C., McGowan, U., Partridge, L., Walker, R. & Wallace, M. (2011). Academic Integrity Standards: A Preliminary Analysis of the Academic Integrity Policies at Australian Universities. Refereed paper presented at the Australian Universities Quality Forum, 29 June – 1 July, Melbourne, Australia. Bretag, T., Walker, R., Green, M., Wallace, M., East, J., James, C., McGowan, U., & Partridge, L. (2010). Academic integrity standards: Aligning policy and practice in Australian universities, Successful proposal to the Australian Learning and Teaching Council, Priority Projects, Round 2. Carroll, J. (2007) A Handbook for deterring plagiarism in Higher Education CSLD, Oxford Jackson, J, Fleming, K, Kamvounias, P, Varnham, S (2009) Student grievances and discipline matters project, ALTC project McGowan, U. (2010) Re-defining academic teaching in terns of research apprenticeship. in M. Devlin, J. Nagy, & A. Lichtenberg (eds) Research Development in Higher Education: Reshaping Education, 33 (pp 481-489) http://www.herdsa.org.au/?page_id=1371#M Sparrow M (2000)The Regulatory Craft: Controlling Risks, Solving Problems and Managing Compliance, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC