Introduction

Academic Integrity Defined

Academic integrity is an important practice that commencing university students may be unfamiliar with. Indeed, the maintenance and practice of academic integrity is a growing concern at universities nationally and globally (Birks et al., 2020). Academic integrity can be broadly defined as the expectation that all members of the academic community, including students, educators and researchers, act in a way that reflects fundamental values of trust, honesty, fairness, respect and responsibility (TEQSA, 2022). Courage is also an important value of academic integrity (ICAI, 2021), as it allows students to follow their values and hold themselves and others to a high standard. The Exemplary Academic Integrity Project (2013) noted that all members of the academic community are responsible for academic integrity:

It is important for students, teachers, researchers and all staff to act in an honest way, be responsible for their actions, and show fairness in every part of their work. Staff should be role models to students. Academic integrity is important for an individual’s and a school’s reputation.

Institutional Approaches to Academic Integrity

In an institutional context, academic integrity is framed and enforced through both policy and curriculum. Exemplary academic integrity policies should carefully consider the elements of access, approach, responsibility, detail and support (Bretag et al., 2011a). Approaches applied towards academic integrity can be broadly categorised as either punitive or educative (Sbaffi & Zhao, 2022). Punitive approaches aim to deter students from breaching academic integrity through the threat and imposition of penalties, with emphasis placed upon the consequences of committing breaches (Richards et al., 2016). In contrast, educative approaches aim to reduce the likelihood of students committing breaches in the first place through provision and teaching of relevant academic skills and strategies (Richards et al., 2016). There has been a general shift in approach towards academic integrity from punitive enforcement to educative instruction that recognises students’ need for supportive processes of learning about academic integrity (Cullen, 2022; Fudge et al., 2022). This shift has occurred because research suggests punitive approaches are inadequate (Sun & Hu, 2020) and ineffective to safeguard academic integrity (Palmer et al., 2017).

While a dichotomous view could be taken towards punitive and educative approaches, contemporary academic integrity policies and procedures for universities can include both approaches. For example, some academic integrity policies may refer to the need to educate students about academic integrity practices (thus indirectly acknowledging educative approaches towards academic integrity in teaching, learning and assessment activities), but then also outline the use of punitive approaches when students are deemed to have breached academic integrity guidelines (Bretag et al., 2011b). Examples of penalties include loss of marks, resubmission of task(s) for maximum 50% Pass grade and failure of a task or unit. Barriers impeding students’ understanding and practice of academic integrity, such as fears of accidentally breaching academic integrity by “getting it wrong” (which in itself could be viewed as a punitive driver of students’ behaviour with respect to academic integrity) can be overcome through early intervention, driven by the provision of educative resources that have a supportive, non-punitive tone (Bertram Gallant, 2008), are based upon concrete examples (Sbaffi & Zhao, 2022) and extend beyond definition-driven statements about academic integrity breaches alone (Risquez et al., 2013).

Definitions of academic integrity have also focused on instilling motivation and self-efficacy in students around academic integrity processes in order for them to internalise positive values associated with academic integrity. Educative approaches have been discussed in terms of development of student autonomy and maintenance of institutional reputation (Ahmed, 2018; Nuss, 1984) and preparing graduates to contribute effectively towards communal socio-economic development (Muhammad et al., 2020) as citizens who behave morally (Amzalag et al., 2022). Thus, the main purpose of the educative approach to academic integrity is to foster a supportive and learning-oriented environment, based on personal motivation (Bertram Gallant, 2017). While these definitions provide a good foundation for the aims and intentions of instituting an educative approach to academic integrity, it is notable that the frameworks often focus on a top-down model of instructing students about academic integrity, where particular set values and policies are in place and students’ perspectives and voices are largely missing. Very few studies have investigated students’ views on how they learn about academic integrity in higher education settings or how the policies and approaches align with students’ diverse needs and values. This gap in the literature motivated the current research to explore how students might develop agency and positive approaches to academic integrity through a collaborative, multi-pronged educative approach.

Multiple factors impact on students’ adherence to academic integrity guidelines. For example, among international students in Australia, cultural differences in academic practices can lead to behaviour that is acceptable in their home countries but deemed unacceptable at their new institution (McGowan & Lightbody, 2009), and these differences can manifest in the form of academic integrity breaches (Song-Turner, 2008). This is an important in an Australian context given that international students are more likely to report engaging in contract cheating (Bretag & Harper, 2017) and are also likely to be reported for an academic integrity breach (Bretag et al., 2014), thus being over-represented within breach totals. Breaches of academic integrity can thus be intentional or unintentional, particularly if there is any misunderstanding or misinterpretation of policy and assessment task instructions (Fatemi & Saito, 2020). Breaches can range in severity from minor poor paraphrasing to major contract cheating (Brickhill et al., 2024).

Academic Integrity in Relation to Transition Pedagogy

Given that commencing students may lack a broad understanding of academic integrity, it is critical that academic integrity itself is effectively addressed during the transition process, as “failure to abide by the relevant standards may affect the students’ credits, and in the worst case they may even fail the entire course” (Fatemi & Saito, 2020, p. 1306). The transition to university during students’ first year is critical for students’ well-being, academic success, and retention. Many institutions endeavour to provide a first year curriculum that supports the transition process for diverse commencing cohorts (Kift et al., 2010).

Transition pedagogy is “a guiding philosophy for intentional first year curriculum design and support that carefully scaffolds and supports the first year learning experience for contemporary heterogeneous cohorts” (Kift, 2009, p. 2). Transition pedagogy is ideally facilitated by academic and professional staff, to support increasingly diverse cohorts by fostering a sense of belonging, engagement and support (Kift, 2015; Kift et al., 2015; Nelson et al., 2012). In the first year, students engage not only with new course content, but they also learn about processes, procedures, strategies and practices deemed essential for students to ultimately succeed and thrive during their academic journey. Academic integrity is one area of practice where students must acquire proficiency as early as possible during transition. The six fundamental values of academic integrity (trust, honesty, fairness, respect, responsibility, courage) are expressed through actions and practice. Students learn about the importance of maintaining academic integrity, which includes understanding and acknowledging copyright and potential plagiarism; in addition, it is expected that academic integrity is inherent in educators’ teaching and research (Southern Cross University, n.d.). The adoption of the six fundamental values leads to the creation of scholarly communities with academic integrity at their core (Fig. 1.). This approach is holistic, and students, staff and institutions are all considered to be stakeholders instead of a student-focused approach towards academic misconduct (De Maio & Dixon, 2022).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The six fundamental values of academic integrity expressed through actions and practice of students and educators (International Centre for Academic Integrity, 2021)

Full size image

The shift towards a more holistic educative approach is reflected through (i) development and maintenance of a holistic whole-of-institution ethos of integrity, (ii) scaffolded instructional practices, (iii) formative opportunities for students to practice academic integrity for specific settings, (iv) embedded support, and (v) pro-active systems and feedback (Picard et al., 2018). To effectively advance students’ understanding of academic integrity, clear explicit instruction (Torgesen, 2018) with careful and considered embedment of academic integrity resources within curricula (Morris, 2015) is needed. This is ideally delivered using an educative approach (Bealle, 2017; Bertram Gallant, 2017) with provision of educative advice and resources. Robust decision-making systems and record-keeping for ongoing evaluation and review of relevant policies is also important for the practice of academic integrity (Bretag & Mahmud, 2016).

Student Agency Towards Academic Integrity

While it is important for students to learn about established academic integrity practices and processes, it must be acknowledged that all first year students are individuals with distinct learning identities, embarking upon individual academic journeys. As such they should develop their own agency towards, and with, accepted academic integrity practices and processes. Student agency is generally understood as the active and purposeful engagement of students with their learning, but multiple definitions and uses of the term exist (Vaughn et al., 2020). Biesta and Tedder (2007), for example, define agency as “resulting from the interplay of individual efforts, available resources, and contextual and socio-material factors” (p. 137). During transition, first year students may consciously or even subconsciously develop individual agency as they adjust to the environment and expectations associated with university life. Students who successfully subscribe to principles of academic integrity not only adopt a set of values (Löfström et al., 2015) like the six fundamental values listed above, but also view academic integrity practices as personally significant and beneficial to them, and in agreement with their developing identities as part of the academic community (Kaktiņš, 2019). This might include developing their own practices for learning about and ensuring academic integrity.

The concept of agency has been used in both psychological and sociocultural perspectives on learning (Nieminen et al., 2022). The psychological perspective views agency as a set of skills or competencies possessed by individuals that can be applied to learning processes, including decision-making and sense-making literacies (Nieminen et al., 2022). The sociocultural perspective expands this view to describe how social contexts and dynamics, including interactive processes like dialogue and resistance, impact on agency (Nieminen et al., 2022; Vaughn et al., 2020). In this perspective, contextual barriers to and enablers of agency must be considered, and the role of social and material factors are also significant in how students develop or experience agency.

Study Aims

While some quantitative research has been conducted into educative approaches towards academic integrity (e.g. Fudge et al., 2022; Khoo & Kang, 2022), students’ perceptions and experiences of these initiatives are still not widely understood, particularly in relation to how an educative approach promotes agency in students. Student voice in relation to academic integrity has largely been limited to interpretations and views of what academic integrity is (Richards et al., 2016). Student voice has been connected to agency by viewing students as “having a legitimate perspective and opinion, being present and taking part, and/or having an active role” (Cook-Sather, 2006, p. 362) in shaping education policies and practices. However, there is limited research on students’ perspectives, experiences and practices in relation to academic integrity when engaging with an educative approach, particularly in the way that students demonstrate agency in their approaches to academic integrity. While many quantitative studies have been conducted using surveys about academic integrity (e.g. Bretag et al., 2014), “[c]omparatively little work, […] has explored students’ opinions on academic integrity using more nuanced and conversational, but still rigorous, methodologies” (Packalen & Rowbotham, 2022, p. 353). Student voice can contribute towards educative approaches by tailoring associated teaching and learning strategies to students’ expressed interests and needs. Students thus have greater agency in shaping their learning processes and educators are better informed of which strategies are effective and resonate with students.

This study aims to address this gap in research by exploring students’ voice in relation to an educative approach to academic integrity, specifically via two research questions:

  1. 1.

    What are the experiences and perspectives of students engaging with the educative approach of academic integrity?

  2. 2.

    Do students reflect agency in relation to academic integrity practices when engaging with the educative approach?

Study Context

This study is situated within a regional university in New South Wales, Australia. Participants were enrolled in a foundational academic literacies unit, one of several offered by the university. This is a core unit in all the pathway diploma courses and an elective unit in several bachelor courses. Diplomas at this university consist of eight units. Students complete this unit in their first term of study. Students in diploma courses are introduced to academic integrity principles early in their course through embedded curriculum and pedagogy which takes a holistic educative approach. Students complete two modules on academic integrity: one mandatory university-wide module, and another within the foundational academic literacies’ unit. Unit information about academic integrity is also provided in guided self-access online learning materials within the unit learning site. academic integrity breaches are managed via an online Academic Integrity Management System, through which students have the opportunity to respond to breach allegations. If a breach is deemed to have occurred, the system is used to disseminate educative advice to students on how to address the breach, and to advise the unit assessor of any penalties determined by the Academic Integrity Officer. Through this holistic educative approach, as espoused by the university’s academic integrity policies, we aim to improve students’ agency in relation to their academic work and frame academic integrity as a positive and desirable aspect of students’ developing academic identities.

The academic literacies unit is completed over six weeks, and typically consists of guided self-assessed learning through interactive online learning material, and three hours per week of active learning in scheduled classes (Roche et al., 2024). One of the learning outcomes of the unit is to develop students’ understanding and practices around academic integrity. The unit thus includes a reflection on academic integrity as part of one assessment. In addition, activities within online learning materials and synchronous classes are designed to facilitate students’ understanding of academic integrity. For example, students are presented with the six fundamental values of academic integrity in a video and are subsequently invited to express their own perspectives, ideas and views on academic integrity, driving in-class dialogue which is based upon personal reflections (see Fig. 2.).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Activity on values in academic integrity based upon video by FutureLearn (2015)

Full size image

In another activity students are given a range of hypothetical situations that each present a dilemma in terms of academic integrity (Fig. 3.). Students consider the scenarios and choose an outcome aligned with their understanding of academic integrity and their personal values. This interactive activity provides feedback to help further develop students’ understanding of academic integrity and allows them to consider their choices in relation to academic integrity dilemmas.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Academic integrity dilemma activity in online module

Full size image

Agency in academic integrity can be promoted by activities described above, as they can encourage autonomy and confidence rather than constructing academic integrity in terms of punitive barriers to creativity, diverse literacies or self-expression. The classroom activities also encourage dialogue and reflection, which allows students to share knowledge or ask questions from peers or educators and to develop their understanding of and investment in academic integrity practices.

Methodology

Data Collection and Analysis

Students enrolled in the foundational academic literacies unit are introduced to academic integrity principles through embedded curriculum and pedagogy, using a holistic educative approach. Using purposive sampling, diploma students who were enrolled in the foundational academic literacies unit in Term 1 and Term 3, 2023, were invited to participate in a research project that aimed to investigate students’ perspectives and experiences of the educative approach towards academic integrity. This study employed a mixed-methods research design collecting quantitative and qualitative data to triangulate the data, integrating student voice (Seale, 2009). This allowed for an in-depth and rich description of students’ experiences and views (Creswell, 2013). Ethics approval was obtained from the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number 2023/043).

Potential participants were invited via email in Week 1 (Term 2 & Term 4) after the results for the foundational unit from the previous term were released. The quantitative strand comprised data collected via an online survey. This survey provided information on students’ perspectives on the University’s educative approach in addressing academic integrity. A total of 271 students were invited to participate in the survey in Term 2, and a further 53 students were invited in Term 4. Descriptive statistics were used to explore characteristics of participants and responses. The qualitative strand comprised four open-ended questions in the surveys and two interviews with students: one student in Term 2 and another in Term 4. Potential interviewees were recruited via a link at the end of the survey which then took students to a separate screen where they could leave their details, thus decoupling survey responses from interview responses.

The survey used in this study consisted of 23 questions. Six questions sought demographic information. Remaining questions were drawn from a survey by Mahmud and Bretag (2013), gauging students’ awareness of academic integrity, satisfaction with communication about academic integrity, and engagement with breach processes. For our study, questions 10–28 from Mahmud and Bretag (2013) were slightly amended to ensure questions are specific to our university’s educative approach towards academic integrity.

Furthermore, we gauged the extent to which students reflected agency towards academic integrity. Interviews were 45–60 minutes in duration and were held in Week 4 of both terms. The interviews and open-ended survey questions aimed to gain a better understanding of students’ perceptions and experiences of the educative approach towards academic integrity, following a semi-structured format. Open-ended questions enquired about: (i) details of students’ satisfaction with academic integrity policy and procedures; (ii) suggestions for how the university could improve students’ understanding of academic integrity; (iii) suggestions for improving how academic integrity breaches are dealt with; and (iv) further ideas or concerns about academic integrity. The interviews were recorded before being transcribed, and de-identified by assigning pseudonyms to the participants. NVivo 14 was then used to code the qualitative data from the interviews.

Qualitative data were coded and analysed through thematic analysis (Joffe, 2011) by one of the authors. A different author independently analysed the data and cross-checked the analyses of the first author to enhance the validity of the findings (Nowell et al., 2017).

Participants

In Term 2, 29 students responded to the survey invitation (response rate = 10.7%, completion rate = 59%). In Term 4, four students responded to the survey invitation (response rate = 7.5%, completion rate = 25%). The overall response rate was thus 10.1%. Ten survey responses were discarded (seven from Term 2; three from Term 4) as they were largely incomplete, leaving a total of 23 responses overall (Term 2: n = 22; Term 4: n = 1). The participants’ mean age was 28.5 and the majority of participants were studying full-time (74%) and on-campus (65%) (Table 1).

Table 1 Demographic characteristics information for complete student responses
Full size table

Two students were interviewed as part of the study. Alyssa (Term 2, age bracket 18–24) had completed a Technical and Further Education (TAFE) diploma before starting her Diploma of Information Technology at university. She studied full-time and on campus. Stephen (age bracket 35–44) was studying a Diploma of Civil Construction (Engineering and Management) full-time and on campus. He had completed an optional preparatory course offered by the university before starting his diploma. This non-award course introduces students to the academic skills needed for success at university.

Results

Survey Responses

Experiences and Perspectives of Students

In response to the question “What do you know about academic integrity?”, 22 students indicated they had heard of the term ‘academic integrity’ and thought they had a good idea what it meant, while one student did not respond. In addition, 22 students also indicated that they knew the university had an academic integrity policy, while one student did not respond. There was a roughly equal division amongst students in terms of when they first heard about the concept of academic integrity or plagiarism (between high school and university, Fig. 4). Once at university, a majority of students indicated they were first informed about academic integrity at orientation sessions prior to commencement of classes (Fig. 4.). Orientation is a series of events run on campus and/or online for new students. During Orientation sessions students are introduced to the university campus and/or online environment and learn key things to help students be successful in their studies.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Student responses to statements concerning when they first heard about academic integrity

Full size image

Most participants agreed that: (i) information received about academic integrity and how to avoid breaches was sufficient; (ii) academic integrity policy was clearly communicated; and (iii) academic integrity breaches were dealt with fairly (Fig. 5.). While most participants were satisfied with the university’s academic integrity policy and procedures, about 25% of the participants indicated they either did not know whether academic integrity breaches were dealt with fairly or disagreed with the statement altogether (as seen in Fig. 5.).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Student responses to statements concerning academic integrity, breaches and policy

Full size image

Survey participants noted in open-ended responses they had multiple opportunities to learn about academic integrity during their diploma studies. One participant explained: “The concept and meaning of academic integrity was clearly explained many times. There was an academic integrity module to complete in addition to the [introductory] unit… which clearly teaches students about academic integrity and also provides education on how to write and take notes which reduces the chances and likelihood of committing plagiarism.” Another participant noted: “I understand academic integrity and [am] well aware how to avoid misconduct … I also completed and understood the academic integrity module.”

Survey participants ranked the usefulness of teaching and learning activities, indicating the orientation sessions were most useful for learning about academic integrity (Fig. 6.).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Student responses ranking usefulness of teaching and learning activities associated with academic integrity

Full size image

One participant expressed frustration with the frequency of instruction on academic integrity: “The message is beaten to death you are reminded about [academic] integrity in almost every lesson … Your current policy treats students as children and not responsible adults who can understand you shouldn’t cheat.” The same participant’s open-ended responses indicated while they had a good understanding of academic integrity, they found multiple embedded resources overwhelming, with “[f]ar too repetitive messaging.”

However, another participant expressed dissatisfaction with the university’s academic integrity policy and processes, noting they had marks reduced in an assessment due to suspected academic misconduct arising from misunderstanding academic integrity guidelines through reliance upon prior knowledge of academic integrity processes from high school.

Suggestions for Improvement of Academic Integrity Instruction from Survey Responses

Some survey participants expressed fears they would unwittingly breach academic integrity policy. One participant explained: “I’m scared every time I submit regardless of the similarity percentage - this makes me feel anxious and I believe there should be more support on submissions.” Another participant noted: “I fully understand the importance of academic integrity and how serious the consequences can be. However, I still feel like I’m unsure of how to reference correctly and paraphrase etc and worried about accidentally plagiarising.” Another participant added that at times they did not understand why their work breached academic integrity.

Survey participants were asked to offer suggestions on how the university could better support students’ understanding of academic integrity. Some participants indicated communication was an important aspect of improving academic integrity procedures. One participant suggested support during the submission process would be beneficial: “Have a process that automatically directs you to a referral before final submission, so everyone has a clear understanding if content needs to be rewritten because I truly [believe most] people don’t intentionally write to deceive.” In response to the question of how the university’s response to breaches could be improved, this participant also noted: “If on submission there appears to be a breach - there should be an automatic referral appointment to discuss the issue…” thus highlighting a preference for first-time breaches to trigger a chance to correct any possible breaches without penalty. Another participant suggested “a dedicated email line” for academic integrity questions. It was suggested that novice students could benefit from closer monitoring and warnings for “learning mistakes” (a term indicative of academic integrity breaches): “I think keeping tabs on new people … and allowing learning mistakes … and then warn them before dealing in a more severe way.”

Interview Responses - Reflections on Academic Integrity Practices

Developing an Understanding of Academic Integrity and Integrating Prior Experiences

Both interviewees indicated that they had no understanding of academic integrity prior to university. Stephen stated he had never heard of academic integrity prior to commencing the preparatory course, and credited his understanding of academic integrity to modules he completed in that program. Alyssa noted: “This is actually the first time I’ve actually heard what academic integrity was.” While both interviewees had practised referencing and heard about concepts like plagiarism previously, Alyssa explained that an “ethical layer” was now added within discussions concerning academic integrity at university: “I didn’t know that ethical layer of academic integrity existed. It was just you, if you cheat … it was seen as cheating, not an ethical disruption.” Alyssa recalled her previous experiences with academic integrity featured punitive approaches but ignored acquisition of finding an academic voice through the practice of academic integrity: “At high school, and at TAFE, we used Turnitin which we use also here. So I knew that if you copied you would not pass. But that was my only thought …there was no other thought of, ‘this is not your ideas’.”

Alignment of Academic Integrity with Academic and Professional Goals

Both interviewees noted their understanding of academic integrity was based on the value they placed on their studies and the benefits academic integrity could impart towards long-term goals. Stephen indicated academic integrity improved his understanding of learning materials, and that academic misconduct would devalue his studies:

You go to university, and you pay this money for your courses and stuff, and to sort of rip yourself off… I mean, even if you get away with it, you’re going to walk away and not understand what you’re trying to be there to learn.

Alyssa similarly noted the financial dimension of study and how misconduct devalued her learning: “We go to uni to learn. We pay for tuition to understand and have that information.” She also noted that misconduct impacted long-term success: “if I follow […] what people who are choosing to go against academic integrity [are doing], I’m not going to have that fundamental knowledge that I’m going to need for future study.” Alyssa recalled a previous situation where students had copied answers from an online source but then struggled to do well in a final examination since “[t]hey didn’t have that fundamental knowledge.” Stephen wanted to learn as much as possible and feel a sense of pride in his achievements at university, two goals supported by academic integrity. Alyssa also noted that academic integrity supported her professional goals, as misconduct would mean that she would lack requisite knowledge “…so that could be a big disadvantage [professionally].”

Alignment of Academic Integrity with Values

When asked to define academic integrity, both interviewees referred to the six fundamental values of academic integrity and their alignment with personal values. Stephen referred to honesty and respect, noting “they’re the two main things that I can relate to.” Stephen explained respect was important because “when you paraphrase stuff, and you use other people’s work, you’re showing them the respect by putting their name next to it.” In relation to responsibility, he felt that students facing penalties should take responsibility since they “got themselves into that position” and “they’re having to answer for it.”

Alyssa referred to the values of fairness and courage, noting: “If everyone follows it correctly, [academic integrity] puts everyone on an even playing field.” She added that academic integrity required “strength,” for example: “if you see an assignment, and you find that someone else has done the assignment online, it’s having the strength not to look at it and just copy that information, but to just figure it out on your own.”

Both interviewees indicated academic integrity now guided the way they approached academic work. Alyssa noted her “internal thinking” shifted in response to learning about academic integrity: “If I looked online [for answers], I’m hurting myself in the long run …that’s the internal thinking” and when working on assessments, academic integrity was now “always […] in the background, like when I write something …it’s like a checklist in my head.” Stephen noted similar internalisation of academic integrity within his academic identity and how he approached assessments: “What I know now about academic integrity is going to stay with me.” He also expressed confidence in his writing and that he could avoid academic misconduct because of his personal values, stating: “I haven’t had to worry about any of that sort of stuff, because I wouldn’t do it.”

Reasons for Academic Integrity Breaches

Alyssa listed multiple reasons for why students might breach academic integrity guidelines, including lack of confidence in work being prepared, so “…that’s the only way they believe they will be able to pass the course.” Alyssa also framed misconduct as a strategic decision, noting that those who cheated might achieve better grades. When reflecting on students who had engaged in misconduct, she was unhappy that students could benefit from misconduct. Stephen recognised that some students might “have just kicked off and don’t understand the importance of academic integrity” and offered a more nuanced understanding that “In the beginning, when you’re first learning about it, I can understand that [a breach] could be unintentional.” He wondered, however, about the honesty and lack of integrity of individuals who breach academic integrity intentionally.

Alyssa discussed some outwardly positive reasons for students breaching academic integrity guidelines, for example, an altruistic desire to help fellow students by sharing notes for an assessment:

I had some people asking me for help, because […] I’ve made a few websites, so I knew kind of what was going on in that circumstance. But I didn’t know how I could help them without going against academic integrity.

Such benevolent intentions challenge maintenance of academic integrity in some cases. Alyssa also recognised that at times students chose “the easy way out” in order to gain knowledge about a challenging topic: “The reason I believe that people would [breach academic integrity] is because they don’t understand the topic themselves.” From Alyssa’s perspective, academic integrity breaches could be viewed as being part of the learning process for some students.

Practices and Processes of Academic Integrity

Both interviewees were asked about their processes of learning about academic integrity and practices of ensuring academic integrity in their work. They were also asked to offer perspectives on processes followed when breaches were suspected. Responses indicated they used several strategies to ensure academic integrity. Alyssa explained that for Information Technology units, she avoided websites that could provide answers since “I know answers are going to be online.” She also explained that she meticulously researched academic integrity and asked for advice before submitting assessments as she feared the consequences of unintentional misconduct: “I didn’t want to do the whole course and then realise I made a fundamental mistake and have to retake the course.” However, in trying to find information about how to avoid breaches, she noted that the information sometimes lacked clarity. She ultimately approached library staff and her educators to clarify the limits of academic integrity, and noted:

Before I went to tutors, I did try to look at external websites and information, but nothing gave me like a solid answer. So like, you can do this… It was like a spectrum of the answer, and I didn’t exactly know where my case will fit in within them.

Alyssa felt that asking for assistance helped to set her mind at ease, but this could be challenging for other students: “Some students might not feel as confident to ask the teacher for help.”

In contrast, Stephen felt that the instructions and resources about academic integrity at university have “made it pretty black and white … easy to understand.” His only challenge with practising academic integrity was ensuring that references conformed to expected formatting styles. Stephen also summarised articles in his own words as he read them: “That’s my system, so that I know when I use them down the track I’ve already paraphrased from the beginning. I can’t come unstuck with plagiarism.” Additionally, Stephen used Turnitin to improve his paraphrasing during submission.

Both interviewees were asked to reflect on how they would respond if they received a notice alleging academic misconduct or called to a meeting to discuss an alleged academic integrity breach. Alyssa stated: “I would be a little bit confused. […] I do try to make sure that I don’t cross any of those lines.” Stephen noted his reaction would depend on whether the breach was intentional or unintentional: “If you’ve like used [generative artificial intelligence] or something like that, and you’ve been told not to … and then you get a call up about it […] I’d be worried.” Both interviewees reflected that in the case of an unintentional breach, they would view any discussion as educative:

It’d just be a process that you sort of go through, and it was like, Whoops! I learned from that. I won’t do that again. (Stephen)

I’d first ask what I did wrong to see if maybe there might have been a misunderstanding. But if there wasn’t I guess I’d have to just sit through the procedures and learn from my mistake. (Alyssa)

Finally, when asked about how the university’s educative approach to academic integrity could be improved, Alyssa indicated some information “was really hard to understand from the website itself” and this led to her asking an educator for assistance. Stephen felt that the approach was adequate for his needs, and noted that repetition of academic integrity information in multiple forms was useful, although grating at times.

Discussion

The following section discusses how the data from the survey and interviews offer insights into university students’ experiences and perspectives of academic integrity in relation to an educative approach. The perceived impact of the educative approach on students’ agency is also explored.

Experiences and Perspectives of Students Who Have Engaged with The Educative Approach on The Topic of Academic Integrity

About half of the participants first heard of academic integrity when they were high school, while the other half of the participants have not heard about academic integrity prior to starting their university studies (Fig. 4). This generally echoed the findings of Bretag et al. (2014), who found that a majority of students had knowledge and understanding of academic integrity when they commenced university education. Therefore some students build upon their existing understanding of academic integrity while others commence university without much prior knowledge of academic integrity at all (Brickhill et al., 2024). Participants indicated they were satisfied with the information and support received at university regarding academic integrity, and the majority of participants had already heard about academic integrity during orientation sessions prior to the commencement of classes (Fig. 4). It appears that university students receive sufficient information about academic integrity, but may not know how to utilise the information available to them (Bretag et al., 2014; Gullifer & Tyson, 2010). It is thus important to provide students with varied and multiple learning opportunities.

In this study, participants noted they had multiple opportunities to learn about academic integrity during their studies. They ranked orientation sessions as being most useful for the acquisition of academic integrity knowledge, followed by unit information, unit classes (workshops and tutorials) and the compulsory academic integrity module (Fig. 6). Student-centred instructional activities within these settings took an active learning approach where students were not only required to complete said activities, but also had to reflect upon the content (Misseyanni et al., 2018). Reflection, combined with opportunities for problem solving and discussion within a group setting, resonated the most with students, thus contributing towards developing understanding of academic integrity, which is an important aspect of the overall transition process. Deliberate and purposeful scheduling of educative teaching and learning activities within students’ first term of study reflects transition pedagogy in practice, where activities are intentionally designed to scaffold and support student learning (Kift, 2009).

Survey participants’ and interviewee responses reflected a depth of engagement with the university’s educative approach towards academic integrity, which was both timely and reassuring to students given the importance of the transition process and institutional priority placed upon academic integrity. All except one survey participant indicated they knew of the university’s academic integrity policy and most agreed that information about academic integrity, avoidance of breaches, academic integrity policy and breach procedures was sufficient and clearly communicated. However, around 25% of participants either did not know or did not agree that breaches were being dealt with fairly (Fig. 5). This suggests that while academic integrity policies were effectively communicated to most students through teaching and learning activities within and beyond the classroom, there may be a need for greater transparency around details of breach procedures. In addition, students were still unclear at times as to when and how they breached academic integrity. This could represent a conflict between prior experience and understanding of academic integrity and the educative approach experienced at university. In this instance, the ‘conflict’ appeared to one interviewee as an added ‘ethical layer’ which they had not encountered before, signalling a deepening of understanding through the educative approach.

Some survey participant and interviewee responses reflected uncertainty and anxiety surrounding academic integrity, which may indicate that educative support should also consider psychological and emotional aspects of learning about academic integrity. Academic integrity may present a challenge or even a threat to transition, where students feel that if they commit breaches they could “lose everything”. This could be addressed through an educative approach that reconciles the value students place upon their studies with the emotional responses that Academic integrity may elicit, including anxiety and stress (Stone, 2023).

While most responses indicated satisfaction with Academic integrity policies and procedures and the information and support provided, there was some discord over the quantity and frequency of information provided. Some respondents indicated they would like to receive more information and instruction about Academic integrity, whereas one responder in particular felt that academic integrity was over-communicated and over-emphasised. This diversity of opinions reflects the diverse nature of first year cohorts and highlights the need for a range of teaching and learning approaches during transition as one approach will not necessarily fit for all students (Reynolds et al., 2019). In line with transition pedagogy principles (Kift, 2009), support in relation to academic integrity was put in place through a “whole-of-institution” ethos that focused on “whole-of-student” engagement. Picard et al. (2018) argue that education about academic integrity must be embedded in the curriculum and include scaffolded instructional practices. Provision of supportive and educative academic integrity resources and activities within units of study (e.g. Figures 2 and 3; within the classroom) and more broadly within an institution (e.g. library sessions, external workshops; beyond the classroom) is intended to reach and resonate with diverse cohorts of students. While the design of activities, assessments and resources provided to students was led by these transition pedagogy principles, the results suggest further self-directed, clear and simple resources might be required to complement this approach.

While educative support and content was provided within and beyond classes, some responses still expressed a lack of understanding of academic integrity and concerns about unintentional breaches and proposed greater communication and dialogue surrounding breaches, the provision for close monitoring and/or warnings during the submission process, and waiver of penalties for first-time breaches. This already occurs within the university’s Academic Integrity Management System, with breach classifications communicated to students when allegations are made. For example, first-time breaches tend to be classified as being Minor and as such attract no penalty, with students being given the opportunity to correct the breach and resubmit with no loss of marks. For Moderate and Major breach allegations, students are given the opportunity to engage with an Academic Integrity Officer and discuss the breach itself before a determination is made. Given communication and dialogue was raised in several responses, increasing the diversity of communication strategies concerning academic integrity to cater for diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds and communication preferences could address this potential barrier to learning about academic integrity. For example, engaging students in courageous conversations about academic integrity breaches before investigations commenced into suspected breaches (Ellis, 2022) could assist in bridging gaps in understanding and address misunderstanding, especially in cases where academic practices deemed acceptable in students’ prior educational settings no longer align with practices expected at their new institution (McGowan & Lightbody, 2009). The disconnect between educators’ provision of support and content and students’ understanding and concerns about academic integrity evident in some responses reinforces the need for universities “to move beyond the mere provision of information to ensure a holistic approach that engages students about academic integrity” (Bretag et al., 2014, p. 1150).

Do Students Reflect Agency in Relation to Academic Integrity Practices After Engaging with The Educative Approach?

Students’ responses to the survey and interviews indicate that they practice various forms of agency to learn about and ensure academic integrity. The definition of agency by Martin (2004), namely “the capability of individual human beings to make choices and to act on these choices in ways that make a difference in their lives” (p. 135), is applicable. This definition recognises that students who successfully subscribe to principles of academic integrity need to view academic integrity practices as personally significant and beneficial to them, and in agreement with their developing identities as part of the academic community (Kaktiņš, 2019).

In line with the sociocultural and constructivist perspectives (Nieminen et al., 2022), academic integrity is understood as an active process that students creatively and purposely engage in rather than a static set of values that students possess or restrictions that students abide by. There is ostensibly a tension between enculturation into established academic integrity values and procedures with the concept of agency around academic integrity, but this tension is arguably necessary as enculturation is required to build students’ understanding of academic integrity to then create the conditions for students to be able to exercise agency within an institution’s prescribed academic integrity framework. The multiple students who request greater dialogue and communication around academic integrity demonstrate this inherent tension, and show that students would like their voices to be valued. Dialogue is an important part of cultivating and shaping agency (Vaughn et al., 2020; Nieminen et al., 2022), and students’ sense of feeling constrained in terms of dialogue around misconduct allegations or procedures might inadvertently echo punitive approaches where students’ voices were not taken seriously. Students’ suggestions for improving processes also show that they have a desire for greater agentic engagement with academic integrity policies and procedures at universities.

Students demonstrated agency in their strategies to learn more about academic integrity. The diversity of responses in the survey to the usefulness of different teaching and learning activities showed that students were agentic in how they engaged with different activities, including a few who found digital media and the website as among the most useful sources of information while most others did not find these tools useful. These results indicate that diverse methods of instruction are important in academic integrity, giving students the opportunity to engage in ways that match their interests and individual learning approaches. This aligns with Bretag et al. (2011a) model for exemplary academic integrity policy through increasing access to information about academic integrity. In designing the unit under discussion, the authors included multiple class activities that promoted dialogue and reflection about academic integrity, including incorporating reflective writing about academic integrity in an assessment, which helped to foster greater understanding and agency in relation to academic integrity.

Furthermore, students developed their own strategies to ensure academic integrity, exhibiting agency around the processes involved. As Emirbayer and Mische (1998) note, agency involves the employment of prior knowledge and understanding in new contexts. Students try new strategies, such as how Stephen employed a strategy he had learned in class to ensure good paraphrasing. Alyssa tried to find information online as well as consulting with educators and library staff to learn more about academic integrity, and used different strategies in different disciplines. The holistic educative approach arguably enhanced students’ sense of agency as students felt enabled to make their own decisions and use available resources due to the supportive and resource-rich environment that was developed (see Biesta & Tedder, 2007). The inclusion of multiple resources and ways to access information about academic integrity, including on the unit learning site, within modules and through the compulsory academic integrity module, as well as directing students to resources like the library and the university mentor program, meant that students could reinforce their learning and seek clarity in ways that suited their needs and their schedules.

Students demonstrated their agentic engagement with academic integrity in the tutorial activity where they learned about the six fundamental values and were given the opportunity to provide their own values that were meaningful to them and that helped them to practise academic integrity (Fig. 2). In response to this activity, some students in class listed their personal values like tenacity, independence, cultural sensitivity and sacrifice, ideas that go beyond and enrich the six core values. Giving students the opportunity to engage creatively with academic integrity principles and to link academic integrity to their personal goals and values in class activities created the space for students to gain a broader and more personalised understanding of academic integrity. The activities were embedded within the curriculum and informed students about other services that they could use to learn more about academic integrity, creating the holistic approach to academic integrity (Bretag et al., 2014) that supports whole-of-student engagement (Kift, 2009). Institutions thus could consider incorporating more diverse strategies to learn about academic integrity, such as the interviewee Alyssa’s suggestion of dedicated web resources for each discipline of study to reflect how academic integrity practices might differ in various disciplines.

Interviewee responses linked academic integrity with academic goals, professional goals and values, thereby developing an individual relationship with academic integrity that made it significant in their lives, allowing them to be internally motivated to practise academic integrity. There was a recognition that perceived short-term advantages of misconduct could lead to long-term professional disadvantage through requisite knowledge and understanding not being acquired. Internalisation of fundamental values associated with academic integrity was also noted, with both interviewees indicating that academic integrity and its associated values now guided and influenced their approach towards assessments and that they were not tempted to take “the easy way out.” However, these values were not adopted in a uniform manner, and both interviewees noted that different values resonated with them and informed their approaches. Alyssa, for example, noted that her value of altruism was something she had to negotiate in terms of avoiding collusion, thus showing agentic engagement with multiple and at times conflicting values around academic integrity.

When asked to reflect upon likely reasons for academic integrity breaches, interviewees linked breaches to a range of possibilities, including a lack of personal investment in study, lack of understanding of academic integrity, lack of confidence in the work being prepared, the desire to achieve better grades, taking shortcuts when faced with challenging content and assisting other students to the point of collusion. Amigud and Lancaster (2019) broadly categorised the reasons why students cheat within themes of academic aptitude, perseverance, personal issues, competing objectives, and self-discipline. Academic integrity breaches, thus, can also be better understood within a framework of student agency and how students make strategic decisions that they believe will benefit them or that are based on constraints they face. This could include linguistic, time and resource constraints, as well as conflicts of values. Deeper critical engagement and dialogue could strengthen students’ investment in academic integrity and allow them to consider how academic integrity aligns with personal values and goals. Activities that promote dialogue around academic integrity dilemmas (Fig. 3) could be expanded to include a broader range of reasons why students might breach academic integrity and further reflect students’ agency in their decision-making processes.

Implications for practice

Considering a noticeable proportion of participants in this study signalled a desire for greater communication and dialogue around academic integrity, and the diverse nature of first year cohorts generally, it is recommended that the quantity, variety and tone of content and messaging surrounding academic integrity are considered in the design and rollout of all communications concerning academic integrity. A diverse range of synchronous and asynchronous activities (in class and external to classes) set within a holistic educative approach should be developed to ensure academic integrity-related information will reach and resonate with as many students as possible, and encourage students to respond and engage in academic integrity-driven conversations within and beyond class settings. The current research has demonstrated that student voice is an important component of the educative approach to academic integrity, and students should be given multiple opportunities for dialogue around academic integrity to understand policy but to view it as aligned with their personal goals and values. Furthermore, encouraging dialogue which enables and allows students to express developing agency towards academic integrity could give educators valuable insight into the effectiveness of curriculum design and messaging surrounding academic integrity. Activities could also be purposefully designed to develop student agency in relation to academic integrity (e.g. academic integrity forums, peer-assisted learning about academic integrity, academic integrity ambassador programs, or consultation times about academic integrity with educators). Such activities would provide first year students with several spaces for dialogue around academic integrity processes to expand on the holistic educative approach.

Limitations and Future Research

It is acknowledged that this research has several limitations. Firstly, the small sample size from a population of students at a single regional university in New South Wales, Australia, may limit the generalisability of the findings. The low response rate could potentially lead to non-response bias and self-selection bias as respondents might not have been representative of the overall sample (Fosnacht et al., 2017). In particular, there was low representation of international students in the study, which did not allow us to draw any meaningful comparisons between the experiences and perspectives of this cohort and domestic Australian students. Response rates might be impacted by participants’ interests (Saleh & Bista, 2017), and it is notable that the survey by Bretag et al. (2014) had a similar response rate of 10.8% while having a much larger sample, which could indicate the challenges with obtaining representative responses to online surveys on academic integrity. In this study, we did not define academic integrity. Rather, we asked questions about students’ experiences of learning about academic integrity. Non-response bias is thus possible, if students with a limited understanding of academic integrity did not participate in the study. A further limitation in terms of participants might be that those who were involved with academic integrity breach processes might have been reluctant to participate, potentially losing these valuable voices in the data. This study is also limited by its cross-sectional design. Future studies could collect data from the entire university cohort and at multiple points, to capture the voices of students throughout their studies. This can enable universities to determine if and how students’ perspectives of academic integrity change and how agency towards academic integrity develop throughout students’ university studies. Another limitation of this study is the small number of interviews. In this research only two students volunteered to be interviewed, and both students were domestic students. While generalisability is not typically the goal of qualitative research (Patton, 2002), it is acknowledged that the views of the two interviewees are not generalisable to all students. Future research, with a larger number of interviews or focus groups, is needed to gain a better understanding of students’ perceptions and experiences of the educative approach towards academic integrity, specifically including international students.

Conclusion

This study investigated whether academic integrity can be strengthened through a holistic educative approach that combines compulsory modules on academic integrity, pedagogy that challenges punitive approaches, and an embedded curriculum. Findings indicated participants appreciated the approaches in building understanding of academic integrity. They valued opportunities to discuss academic integrity, and asked for more opportunities to engage in dialogue. The diverse perceptions of the usefulness of different teaching and learning activities indicated agentic engagement with these activities, highlighting the importance of diverse learning and teaching activities. Participants suggested improvements of processes relating to academic integrity, signaling students’ desire for agentic engagement with academic integrity policies and procedures. This research contributes to the understanding of university students’ perspectives and experience of a holistic educative approach towards academic integrity, and the value of the development of students’ agency in relation to academic integrity.