How to Talk About Academic Integrity so Students Will Listen: Addressing Ethical Decision-Making Using Scenarios
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The field of academic integrity in higher education has made significant gains in exploring the proliferation of integrity issues, the frequency of student misconduct behaviours, and in identifying strategies for embedding academic integrity education more broadly into the curriculum. Regardless of calls for institution-wide approaches which focus on preventing academic misconduct, those of us engaged in the field can attest that there will always be a need to address academic misconduct behaviours and support the development of those students who engage in them. As student affairs practitioners in a Canadian post-secondary institution, we present our approach to creating meaningful teaching and learning experiences that enable students with misconduct violations to critically explore potential misconduct situations and practice the skills needed to make alternative decisions. Utilising existing work that frames academic integrity as ‘standards of practice’, this chapter demonstrates our application of key themes from the academic integrity literature within our teaching and learning practice. Recognizing that mandated academic integrity education can be a challenging learning experience, we discuss our approach to engaging these students in analyzing the common situational factors that post-secondary students face that pose potential academic integrity conflicts and the way ethical decision-making frameworks can support their ability to navigate academic integrity concerns in the future. We conclude the chapter with our key learnings and recommendations for implementing an engaging experience with students who are mandated to attend instruction following an academic integrity violation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.090 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it