See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338763771

Managing Academic Integrity in Institutions of Higher Education

Article · January 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 168

1 author:

Amrita Kaur
Wenzhou-Kean University
63 PUBLICATIONS   355 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Project: A Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) project. View project

Constructing Predictive Persuasive Communication Model of Violent Extremist in Malaysia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amrita Kaur on 23 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

AMRITA KAUR
Senior Lecturer, School of Education and Modern Languages,
College of Arts & Sciences, Universiti Utara Malaysia.
amrita@uum.edu.my

Managing
Academic Integrity
in Institutions of Higher Education
South East Asia MANAGEMENT Review 2018 11

A
rizona State University describes integrity as, “a
character-driven commitment to honesty, doing
what is right and guiding others to do what is right”.
Applying the same principles to academic pursuits is
termed as academic integrity. Academic integrity refers
to accountability and truthfulness in scholarship which
is expected of all students, faculty and researchers alike,
as a foundation of scholarly work. Academic integrity is
damaged when individuals indulge in dishonest and unethical
behavior, such as falsification, plagiarism and fabrication
in producing scholarly output. Specific actions include:
• Cheating during tests or other forms
of academic evaluations.
• Plagiarizing (passing someone else’s work as one’s own).
• Not giving due credit to the source or an individual.
• Using copyrighted material without permission.
• Violating ethical boundaries or moral policies by
inappropriate collaborations (e.g., hiring ghost writers,
bribing) or acquiring unauthorized documents and materials.
• Fabricating data or information, grades or
lying to the authorities on the authenticity
of data, information or grades.
• Falsifying information using fake citations and
intentionally misinterpreting the information.
• Duplicating work by indulging in self-plagiarism or
submitting the same work for two different assignments.
WHO INDULGES AND WHY
Empirical evidences suggest that predominately, it is students
who indulge in these practices. For example, in a 2009 study
of higher education institutes, 82% of the graduate sample,
confessed to indulging in some form or other of academic
dishonesty (Yardley et al, 2009). A number of high profile cases
of academic dishonesty have made news headlines over the
past few years, noteworthy among them being the confession
of Karl-Theodor Zu Guttenberg in 2011, the defense minister
of Germany, who later resigned amid allegations of plagiarism
in his doctoral dissertation (The Guardian, 2011). Fareed
Zakaria, a well-known CNN TV journalist and foreign-policy
analyst, plagiarized an article on gun control in the August
20, 2012 issue of Time Magazine (Washington Post, 2012). In
the same year, Moon Dae-sung, a South Korean International
Olympic Committee member, an Olympic gold medalist and
a politician, was accused of plagiarism in his doctoral thesis
and was found guilty in 2014 (insidethegames.biz, 2014).
There are a number of factors attributed to this academic
misconduct. Besides demographic situations, personality
variables and students’ attitude towards cheating, most
students indulge in this misconduct to contest the
challenges confronted in their academic journey, such as the
submission of assignments within a deadline, accomplishing
12 South East Asia MANAGEMENT Review 2018
Managing Academic Integrity in Institutions of Higher Education
multiple assignments in a given time, fulfilling the quality
requirements and above all, competing for higher grades.
The issue of upholding the value of integrity has long been
the focus of educational institutions to generate information,
knowledge and ideas that are unwavering. However, with
the surge in technological advancements, the challenges of
promoting academic integrity in higher education institutions
have amplified. The ease of information access in the digital
era, where dishonest collaboration, fabrication, copying and
pasting information are just a click away, are riveting grounds
for the struggling candidates to indulge in deceitful conduct
to earn good grades for their assignments. A number of
preventive measures in the form of policies to institutionalize
academic integrity, code of conduct, surveillance, checks,
penalties and contracts, are being implemented in the
institutions of higher education in an effort to curb academic
dishonesty. However, the surging rates of academic
dishonesty in a number of unimaginable ways suggest that
those preventive measures are not effective enough.
The current challenge
of higher education
institutions is to
nurture an academic
environment, students
mindset and the
In higher education, way to academic
achievement in
educators can plan and such a way that it
implement a variety of requires reliance on
techniques to conduct ‘self’. The idea of self
encompasses creating
assessments that are opportunities for
meaningful, authentic and students to indulge in
informative of a wider range deep self-reflection
of students’ skills.” about their learning,
feeling self-efficacious
by trusting their own
Kaur, Noman & Nordin, 2017 ability and engaging
in an agentic manner
(self-determined
engagement).
To begin the effort of introducing that sort of climate, it is
helpful to evaluate the most common strategies put into
place to promote academic integrity in higher education
institutions. The most popular method relies on compliance
and controlling conditions (such as counseling, surveillance,
penalties, rules, etc.), which focus more on ‘what not to do’
rather than ‘what to do’. An example of the counseling-based
academic integrity approach is adopted by the University
of California, San Diego. It requires students to enroll in
academic integrity tutorials which highlight the message
on academic integrity; should students violate one of the
standards, they will be required to attend seminars on
academic integrity. These disciplinary approaches are more
like a cure to a problem and less of a prevention. The ultimate
goal of universities is to nurture an environment, whereby
students are inherently honest in their academic pursuits.
So what can universities do to nurture that environment?
Managing Academic Integrity in Institutions of Higher Education
A closer look into why students choose to indulge in academic
dishonesty indicates that for most, it is a defensive reaction
against the blizzard of assignments, that they are required
to submit for evaluative purposes, the pressure of meeting
high standards of rubrics set by the instructors and above all,
the desire to attain a high grade. Little do they realize that
academic dishonesty is equivalent to stealing while indulging
in it to survive and sometimes thrive. Tricia Bertram Gallant,
in a white paper on academic integrity, stated that “academic
integrity is a matter, first and foremost, of teaching and
learning rather than one of conduct or discipline”. Hence,
students’ personality-based factors are almost uncontrollable
and hard to transform to positively contribute to maintaining
academic honesty; however, university practices, especially
related to assessment, can be designed in such a way that
would contribute to nurturing that environment.
CREATING MEANINGFUL ASSESSMENT
Students receive evaluative assignments in a variety of forms,
such as writing tasks, projects, reports, presentation, fieldwork
reports or other relevant activities, to be submitted for
assessment purposes. The nature of these tasks, in terms
of its context, content, purpose and rubrics, influence the
direction and degree of effort students intend to invest in it.
A slight misalignment of the aforementioned characteristics
with students’ interests, goals and relevance, would hamper
their intrinsic interest in pursuing those tasks for the purpose
they were created. Hence, it is likely they would seek ways to
accomplish those tasks using unethical practices. Assessment
tasks that are not meaningful and relevant to students will also
fail to encourage deeper reflection among students in their
learning process. The solutions to those assignments are not
positioned in students’ intrinsic interests or in their personal
experiences and this is the reason they seek answers not within
themselves but in the works and thoughts of others. Creating
assessment tasks that are meaningful and relevant to students’
interests, goals and experiences, is a way to engage students in
deeper reflection of their learning. Tasks that require students
to think, reflect about what they have learnt and how it can
be applied in their real life settings, will provide an impetus to
make an original inquiry that is personal to them. For example,
in postgraduate research assignments, if students are asked
to conduct a field inquiry into the authentic issues they face
in their professional lives and propose solutions, it would be
a more meaningful task thereby reducing the temptation of
academic misconduct. Similarly, having students write open
book tests with complex and critical questions that require
reflection and analysis in their personal context, would alleviate
the pressure of exams and engage students in an intrinsic
way to accomplish the task. Creating meaningful assessments
may not be limited to efforts from individual courses; it is
a program-based group effort. The program instructors
should design assessment tasks in unanimity to prevent
redundancy in creating the assessment tasks, which in turn,
would discourage students in tweaking the same assignment
South East Asia MANAGEMENT Review 2018 13
 Managing Academic Integrity in Institutions of Higher Education

and submitting it for a number of

course requirements. Redundant
and meaningless assignments function
merely as an obligation to fulfill them.

CREATING ALTERNATIVE/
DIFFERENTIATED ASSESSMENTS

Another potential condition that may trigger

students’ intention to indulge in academic
dishonesty is having ‘one size fits all’ assessment
tasks. Students have their preferences in which
they would like to demonstrate their knowledge
and understanding. When students are coerced into
undertaking a task which is not aligned with their goals,
readiness and interests, it may lead to experiences
of pressure and disengagement. Along with the
meaningfulness and relevance of assessment tasks, it
is essential to consider if the assessment tasks are
aligned with the learning outcomes. Negligence
or inaccuracy in aligning the task with learning
outcomes also inhibits instructors from creating
alternative forms of assessment. They tend to stick
to one form of assessment to measure a variety of
learning goals, and it is likely that one measure may not be
preferred by all the students. This is where students indulge in
misconduct to accomplish their tasks, as long as the learning
objectives are met, as Kaur et al. (2017) stated, “in higher
education, educators can plan and implement a variety of
techniques to conduct assessments that are meaningful,
authentic and informative of a wider range of students’
skills”(p.758). In this way, students will have an opportunity
to showcase their abilities and knowledge, which would
further enhance the belief in their own abilities.

PARTNERING WITH STUDENTS

IN CREATING ASSESSMENT

The skewed distribution of power in the creation of

assessment tasks and rubrics is another way to dissuade
students to engage proactively and in an agentic manner.
While creating the assessment tasks and rubrics, the
sole authority rests with the instructor and often,
students are unaware of the details and relevance of
the rubrics and performance standards. Students’
active involvement in designing assessment tasks
and creating assessment rubrics would not only
enhance their understanding of the standards
required for assessment; it will also develop a
sense of ownership and accountability for undertaking
those tasks, thus empowering them. Very often, students
have a feeling of little or no control over doing things in
the classroom, especially for assessment. Thus, they fail to
demonstrate any accountability or ownership for those tasks
and act in an irresponsible way to accomplish them. However,
by listening to students’ perspectives, such as, how do you
think this learning outcome can be measured the best, having
them contribute proactively in designing their assessment
tasks and gaining in-depth understanding of assessment

14 South East Asia MANAGEMENT Review 2018

 Managing Academic Integrity in Institutions of Higher Education
criteria, can nurture agentic engagement among students.
The central characteristic of agentic students is that they
function in a transactional manner; they work collaboratively
with the teachers and the classroom environment (Reeve,
2013). This in turn, lets them experience volition and control
over their evaluative assignment; they engage in deep
reflection and feel capable of accomplishing it on their own.
Another condition to facilitate agentic engagement is to
support students’ need for autonomy, wherein students
experience choice and volition for the task to be performed.
To discourage academic misconduct, it is best to avoid
creating controlling conditions and coercion as much as
possible because whenever students are confronted with the
conditions that are beyond their control and the pressure
to excel which are external to their sense of self, they are
likely to disown those tasks and act in an obligatory manner.
Further, when students perceive themselves as a significant
part of their assessment and experience interpersonal
cordiality and bond with the instructor, they are less likely to
indulge in academic fraud (Murdock, Hale & Weber, 2001).
FORMATIVE AND MASTERY
ORIENTED FEEDBACK
While the modification in design and implementation of
assessment task have been discussed, it is also important to
handle the outcomes of assessments. Two additional causes
that would trigger students to indulge in academic misconduct
are poor self-efficacy belief (I do not have the ability to do it)
and performance goal orientation (intense desire to compete
with others). It is likely that both these causes have their origin
in instructors’ feedback of the assessment outcomes. Most
evaluative assignments are summative in nature and provide
performance feedback in the form of a grade or numeric score.
A score which sometimes may be an ambiguous representation
of someone’s ability, positions students in some form of ranking
to compete with others. Eventually, solely on the basis of
score, students form a belief about their capacity and their
intention to act. If students’ assessment feedback is formative
in nature, they are likely to obtain detailed information about
their learning and progress. Furthermore, if the feedback is
constructive and timely, it provides a sense of self- assurance
to students to undertake the task and succeed. There is an
established link between the quality of feedback and students’
self-efficacy beliefs, in that their low self-efficacy beliefs
are linked to academic misconduct (Finn & Frone, 2004).
Furthermore, instructors’ feedback of assessment outcomes
which compare a student’s performance with other students,
instills performance-oriented goals among students and they
feel pressured to perform for competing and not for learning,
which leads them to resort to unethical ways. An appropriate
classroom environment can nurture intrinsic interest among
students to pursue their academic tasks for internal reasons
and motivate them to preserve academic integrity.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Contextual factors have a significant role in determining
students’ intention to preserve academic integrity. Besides
View publication stats
other initiatives towards nurturing integrity in academic
pursuits, institutions of higher education can prevent academic
misconduct by creating a conducive environment that
encourages self-reliance. We propose that it can be achieved
by promoting deeper self-reflection, self-efficacy beliefs and
agentic engagement among students. The contextual factors
that we propose for consideration are intertwined and
their overall affect will yield positive results for promoting
academic integrity. In summary, evaluative assignments, if
experienced as coerced, meaningless and external to students’
interest and goals, are most likely to provoke students to
seek unethical ways to accomplish them. On the other
hand, assignments that are meaningful, flexible and aligned
with students’ needs, developed in partnership and convey
formative information for efficacy beliefs and mastery of
goals, are the ones that would facilitate self-assurance and
self-reliance, thus discouraging academic dishonesty.
REFERENCE
Finn, K.V., & Frone, M. R. (2004). Academic performance and
cheating: Moderating role of school identification
and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Research, 97,
115-122.
Insidethegames.biz (2014). Moon Dae-sung facing IOC
investigation after being “found guilty of plagiarism”.
Retrieved from https://www.insidethegames.
biz/articles/1018650/moon-dae-sung-facing-ioc-
investigation-after-being-found-guilty-of-plagiarism
Kaur, A., Noman, M., & Nordin, H. (2017). Inclusive
assessment for linguistically diverse learners in higher
education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
42(5), 756-771.
Murdock, T. B., Hale, N. M., & Weber, M. J. (2001). Predictors
of cheating among early adolescents: Academic
and social motivations. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 26, 96-115.
Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally
supportive learning environments for themselves: The
concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 105(3), 579-595.
The Guardian. (2011). German defense minister resigns in
PhD plagiarism row. https://www.theguardian.com/
world/2011/mar/01/german-defence-minister-resigns-
plagiarism
Washington Post. (2011). Fareed Zakaria suspended by CNN,
Time for plagiarism. https://www.washingtonpost.
com/lifestyle/style/fareed-zakaria-suspended-by-cnn-
time-for-plagiarism/2012/08/10/f6315e96-e335-11e1-
ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_story
South East Asia MANAGEMENT Review 2018 15