Staff perceptions of, and responses to, academic integrity A/Prof Eric Bouvet 2015 EHL Faculty Teaching and Learning Forum

 Aim  To collect information about staff perceptions of academic integrity across the Faculty The Academic Integrity survey for staff

 Design  17 questions on they following topics:  - Knowledge of AI policy and procedures  - AI support within Schools  - AI training for staff  - Promoting AI among students  - Number and types of AI breaches  - Methods of breach detection  - Levels of reporting  - Emotional involvement in AI cases  SurveyMonkey online survey sent to all teaching staff in the three Schools  Results: percentages and comments (Interviews of staff in Humanities to complement the survey) The Academic Integrity survey for staff

Q1: Which School 34.62% 38.46% 26.92% N = 78

Q2 How familiar are you with Flinders’ AI policy?  82.43% of staff surveyed declared to be familiar with Flinders’ AI policy

Q3 How familiar are you with the AI procedures in your School? 77.74% of staff are familiar with AI procedures in their School

Q4 How did you gain knowledge of Flinders’ AI policy and procedures? Multiple-choice question 60.81% 50.00% 18.92% 16.22% 29.73% 66.22% 12.16%

Q5 Do you think that Flinders' current AI policy is adequate? 84.72% 15.28%

 Needs to recognize the educative process part of academic writing  Too lenient; too much variation in its implementation across Schools  Does not deal adequately with serious or repeated breaches  The drafting needs to be refined, as parts of the policy are difficult to interpret  I don’t think it has kept pace with changes in technology and advances in access to essays-for-a fee If inadequate, in what way? Comments

Q6 Do you think that you are well supported within your School in terms of AI procedures? 81.94% 18.06%

 Workshops covering the topic, particularly for casual and contract staff  Consistent and clear, step-by-step procedure across all topics  I would prefer a process that takes the matter off the coordinator's hands once they have reported the issue (…)  Our School offers no induction for new staff, and so until recently, I didn't realize that there was a policy, and this survey is the 1st time I have heard of a University Academic Integrity webpage If no, what support would you like to see?

Q7 If you are a Topic Coordinator, how aware do you think your casual tutors are of the AI policy and procedures? 65.38% of staff believe that their tutors are familiar with AI policy and procedures

 [Casuals are] barely aware  I am a casual. I would like clarification and a step-by-step procedure  I am not a TC but work with a team of casual tutors; they are not aware  In previous experience teaching with casual staff, I have observed considerable lack of awareness Awareness of AI Comments

Q8 Do you think there should be formal Academic Integrity training for staff? 70.27% 29.73%

Q9 Do you overtly promote Academic Integrity to students? 87.84% 12.16%

Q10 Do you overtly teach Academic Integrity to students? 52.05% 47.95%

 The Topic Guide has links to the appropriate policies and sets out all the basic guidelines  I brief [students] at the beginning of each semester on what is/isn’t appropriate  By example, as part of written assignments briefing  I (…) set up assessment tasks so that it is hard if not impossible to copy other students’ work  I emphasise professional ramifications  Through assessment - any lapses in academic integrity are highlighted, commented upon, and students are shown the correct procedures  [By] setting an AI quiz  I put the fear of God into them re plagiarism If yes, briefly explain how you promote /teach it Comments

Q11 How many cases of Academic Integrity do you usually deal with in one year? 16.67% 22.22% 51.39% 6.94% 2.78%

Q12 What is the most common type of AI breach you have encountered? 66.15% 18.46% 9.23% 4.62% 1.54%

Q13 What is your method of detection of plagiarism? 89.66% 27.59%

 Being very familiar with the topic material [allows you]to see others' ideas used without citation  Comparison with other students' work  Recognition of inconsistent writing style and irrelevant material  High quality work where the student's overall quality of work is low  If the essay is too good to be true, it's probably plagiarised Other methods Comments

Q14 If you use Turnitin, how useful at detecting plagiarism do you find it? % of staff find Turnitin useful

Q15 Do you systematically report all cases to you Academic Integrity Coordinator? 51.94% 47.06%

 Because I only find it in first year essays and instead of reporting [students] I use it as an opportunity to train them in what not to do  I consider the most important issue to be about the student's learning, and the disciplinary consequences are secondary  The minor breaches are best dealt with by educating the FIRST years. I believe the process is too onerous on the academic. I am not prepared to devote hours to highlighting text to "prove" the case  I was concerned that I would end up wasting a lot of time and educational capital (i.e. it would destroy my relation with the students I suspected) and ended up deciding it wasn't worth the risk If no, is there a reason why you don't report? Comments

Q16 When you are involved with AI cases, do you deal with groups of students differently? 44.29% 31.43% 11.43% 48.57%

Q17 Do you find dealing with AI cases emotionally involving? 68.11% of staff feel that dealing with AI cases is emotionally involving

 Better promotion of AI is needed especially among non-permanent junior staff  Under-reporting appears to be fairly common practice  A number of respondents are more lenient to First Years  Turnitin is perceive negatively by half of the respondents  AI has repercussions on workloads and the emotional well-being of staff Conclusion