ACADEMIC INTEGRITY ISSUES IN A LARGE TOPIC IN THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION Dr Pam Bartholomaeus 10/11/15 EHL Faculty Scholar program 2015

The context EDUC students EDUC students = 257 students 12 classes teaching shared with 5 casual academics Assessment tasks for this topic include 3 extended prose assignments. Students are required to submit each of these assignments to Turnitin.

How did it work? Tutors were similar to the students in needing to understand that the amount of matching was not a good indication of academic integrity. For each assignment work I was asked to look at the work of several students. A conversation with one tutor led to the realisation that four students had worked together to plan their first assignment. Despite hoping tutors would take note of students in their classes who had not submitted their work to Turnitin I needed to do this.

But… A common problem with students’ work was the failure to enclose quotations in inverted commas. The quality and consistency in managing Academic Integrity could have been better. A recent audit of the first assignment in Turnitin has indicated several assignments were not questioned that should have been: In particular, one assignment has matching with the work of a student from several years ago that was not noted. Another student failed to use quotation marks where appropriate. She was interviewed about her work for Assignment 3. An interview about her first assignment would have been better.

Most tutors spent time carefully checking Turnitin reports for the first assignment. One tutor did not look at Turnitin reports at all for the second assignment! Another tutor spent about 10 mins checking reports for Assignment 2 (for approximately 70 students) ‘Junk matching’ was problematic, particularly for Assignment 3 For Assignment 3 I decided to withhold some results until I had interviewed the students. In most cases these were students whose Turnitin reports I decided warranted further exploration.

Academic Integrity in a small topic Nested assignments 1. Oral presentation of a literature review (not assessed, but some feedback to students at the end of the class) 2. A literature review submitted for assessment 3. A poster prepared drawing on the literature review which is then presented to an audience and submitted for assessment. Where a student changed her topic after the oral presentation I spoke with her, ascertained the reason for the change, and gave her a short extension for her written submission. This process enabled me to monitor students’ progress towards the final assessment task, the poster.

SACE and Academic Integrity Students are expected to meet the same levels of Academic Integrity in the senior secondary schooling SACE policies for Academic Integrity are similar to the Flinders University policies Student are required to acknowledge the work of others: including the words of others and direct quotations in inverted commas; referencing sources accurately; and ensuring that paraphrasing is of high quality. Guides are provided for referencing. Reading guides are provided as possible templates for students to use as they collect information. It is unclear how carefully Academic Integrity requirements are explained to students in their senior secondary years.

For further thought: Training for casual academics in the expectations we have of our students in relation to Academic Integrity and in the interpretation of reports from Turnitin will assist with consistency in Academic Integrity. Clearer guidelines for students on collusion and how it can be avoided. The Turnitin reports can be interrogated in a number of ways using the software. More training in ways to use the software would be helpful. More training for students in understanding Turnitin reports and using these reports to improve their writing and study habits. I shall give careful thought to including more focus in the topics EDUC3526/9133 on the importance of comprehension of sources and the role this can play in assisting students to maintain high levels of Academic Integrity.