An Examination of Institutional Structures, Policy, Narratives and Professorial and Other Stakeholder Perceptions and Experiences vis-à-vis Academic Integrity
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
An Examination of Institutional Structures, Policy, Narratives and Professorial and Other Stakeholder Perceptions and Experiences vis-à-vis Academic Integrity Janet Joanne Shuh Doctor of Philosophy Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education University of Toronto 2020 Abstract This study explores the academic integrity mandate of a large multi-campus University in Ontario, Canada through the examination of faculty, staff, and administrator perceptions and experiences as well as the institution’s structures, policies and narratives. The study analyzed findings from three discrete data sources: institutional documents and structures; key informant interviews; and a faculty survey. The research questions and methodology drew from an emerging body of literature that has challenged researchers and practitioners to reframe their understanding of academic integrity from a “student” to an “institutional” (Bertram Gallant, 2016); “educational” (Bretag, 2016a; Fishman, 2016); and “academic literacy” (Howard, 2016) issue. Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four-frame model was used to explore the University’s approach to academic integrity through the structural, human resource, political, and symbolic “frames” as lenses for understanding organizational emphasis and leadership change vis-à-vis academic integrity. Faculty members’ experiences and perceptions were assessed, for the: prevalence of student dishonesty; salience of the underlying factors (individual student versus institutional/situational); and the impact of eroding integrity on core University functions, and the value of the four frames. The survey data were also analyzed for significant differences across the respondent characteristics of: academic discipline; primary campus of teaching; and length of teaching career.The study found that the University’s responses to academic integrity as well as the importance of approaches and considerations as assessed by faculty members were largely reflective of a structural lens. This was expected in that the structural frame (Bolman Deal, 2003) includes the central components of organizations, including “roles, goals, policies, technology, and environment” (p. 16) that are foundational to the post-secondary sector’s response to academic integrity concerns and/or opportunities. Key recommendations include creating more fulsome opportunities for academic integrity dialogue especially with students; acknowledging and mitigating inherent power imbalances; and incorporating symbolic and values-based strategies. The study also recommends aligning academic integrity more closely with the University’s quality assurance, research mandate, and institutional purpose; and fostering a commitment to continuous improvement of academic integrity policy, procedures, and governance.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».