Staff perceptions of, and
responses to, academic integrity
A/Prof Eric Bouvet
2015 EHL Faculty Teaching and Learning
Forum
The Academic Integrity survey for staff
 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)
Q1: Which School
N = 78
34.62%
38.46%
26.92%
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%
If inadequate, in what way?
Comments
 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
Q6 Do you think that you are well supported
within your School in terms of AI procedures?
81.94%
18.06%
If no, what support would you like to see?
 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
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
Awareness of AI
Comments
 [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
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%
If yes, briefly explain how you promote /teach it
Comments

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
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%
Other methods
Comments
 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
Q14 If you use Turnitin, how useful at
detecting plagiarism do you find it?
50.00 % of staff find Turnitin useful
Q15 Do you systematically report all cases
to you Academic Integrity Coordinator?
51.94%
47.06%
If no, is there a reason why you don't report?
Comments
 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
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
Conclusion
 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