Embracing community-building in online classes to promote academic integrity

Year 2021, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 5 - 33, 27.06.2021

Miranda Karjagdi Çolak , Irene Glendinning

https://doi.org/10.47216/literacytrek.901935

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Given that universities have transitioned to emergency remote teaching, academic integrity becomes a subject of ongoing inquiry. Students taking an English Preparatory Program (EPP) in universities aim to gain sufficient proficiency in English to continue with their courses in their departments. In an online teaching context, coping with requirements of the EFL (English as a foreign language) curriculum becomes a challenge for the students as students are deprived of their communities where they collaborate, interact and learn from each other. In this sense, teachers need to refocus not only on subject matter, but also ethical mores of academe and it is often simple day-to-day practices that build the community and establish a climate of integrity. While academic integrity has been researched extensively, more research is still needed about developing a learning community in online classes as a way to promote academic integrity. This investigation seeks to explore daily teaching practices towards community-building and analyse elements of the curriculum that work in favour of academic integrity in the context of emergency remote teaching. Six teachers and eighty EFL students (N=86) in an EPP of a state university in Turkey participated in the study. This case study drew upon an exploratory sequential mixed methods approach. The triangulation of the findings was carried out through a combination of various data sources. Qualitative data were collected through content analysis of course syllabi, assignment documents and policy statements, classroom self-observations; and focus groups with teachers and students. Quantitative data were gathered through a short survey with questions specifically designed for this context. Another aim of using the survey was to promote awareness on academic integrity among students. The results from multiple sources revealed that community-building not only facilitates positive collaboration in online classes, but also creates room for mutual trust and reduces chances of academic misconduct. Exploring results from the research can help faculty design measures to prevent academic dishonesty and eventually shape institutional policies. The positive implications for classroom practices of community-building towards academic integrity are discussed.

Keywords

academic integrity in EFL, online community-building, exploratory sequential mixed methods, online learning

References

• Reference 1: Ahmadi, A. (2012). Cheating on exams in the Iranian EFL context. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10(2), 151-170.
• Reference 2: Ahmadi, A. (2014). Plagiarism in the academic context: A study of Iranian EFL learners. Research Ethics, 10(3), 151-168.
• Reference 3: Ange´lil-Carter, S. (2000). Stolen Language? Plagiarism in Writing. Pearson Education.
• Reference 4: Bañados, E. (2006). A Blended-learning Pedagogical Model for Teaching and Learning EFL Successfully Through an Online Interactive Multimedia Environment. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 533-550. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24156354
• Reference 5: Bertram Gallant, T. (2016). Leveraging institutional integrity for the betterment of education. In Bretag, T. (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity (979-993). Springer.
• Reference 6: Bertrand, J., Brown, J., & Ward, V. (1992). Techniques for analyzing focus group data. Evaluation Review 16, 198-209.
• Reference 7: Bjelobaba, S. (2018). Academic Integrity Skill Development amongst the Faculty at a Swedish University. In Razı, S., Glendinning, I, & Foltýnek, T. (Eds.). (2018). Towards consistency and transparency in academic integrity. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/b15273
• Reference 8: Bretag, T. (2016). Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer.
• Reference 9: Bretag, T. (2017). Good Practice Note: Addressing Contract Cheating to Safeguard Academic Integrity. In edited by Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. Australian Government.
• Reference 10: Bretag, T., S. Mahmud, M. Wallace, R. Walker, C. James, M. Green, J. East, U. McGowan, & L. Patridge. (2011). Core Elements of Exemplary Academic Integrity Policy in Australian Higher Education. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 7(2), 3–12.
• Reference 11: Brimble, M., & Stevenson-Clarke, P. (2005). Perceptions of the prevalence and seriousness of academic dishonesty in Australian universities. The Australian Educational Researcher, 32(3), 19–44.
• Reference 12: Buranen, L. (1999). ‘‘But I wasn’t cheating’’: plagiarism and cross-cultural mythology. In: Buranen, L., & Roy, A.M. (Eds.), Perspectives on Plagiarism and Intellectual Property in a Postmodern World. (63–74) State University of New York Press,
• Reference 13: Carless, D. (2005). Prospects for the implementation of assessment for learning. Assessment in education: principles, policy & practice, 12(1), 39-54
• Reference 14: Cole, S., & Kiss, E. (2000). What Can we do about Student Cheating. About Campus, 5(2), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/108648220000500203
• Reference 15: Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed). Sage Publications Ltd.
• Reference 16: Deckert, G. (1993). Perspectives on plagiarism from ESL students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2, 131–148
• Reference 17: Dzekoe, R. (2017). Computer-based multimodal composing activities, self-revision, and L2 acquisition through writing. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 73–95. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2017/dzekoe.pdf.
• Reference 18: East, J. 2009. Aligning policy and practice: An approach to integrating academic integrity. Journal of Academic Language and Learning 3(1), A38–A51.
• Reference 19: Farrell, T.S.C. (2008). Reflective language teaching: from research to practice. Continuum Press.
• Reference 20: Farrell, T. S., & Ives, J. (2014). Exploring teacher beliefs and classroom practices through reflective practice: A case study. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 594–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541722
• Reference 21: Foltýnek, T., Dlabolová, D., Anohina-Naumeca, A., Razı, S., Kravjar, J., Kamzola, L., Guerrero- Dib, J., Çelik, Ö., & Weber-Wulff, D. (2020). Testing of support tools for plagiarism detection. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(46), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00192-4
• Reference 22: Fishman, T. (2009, September 28-29). We know it when we see it’ is not good enough: Toward a standard definition of plagiarism that transcends theft, fraud and copyright. [Paper Presentation]. 4th Asia Pacific conference on educational integrity: Creating an inclusive approach, University of Wollongong. http://ro.uow.edu.au/apcei/09/papers/37/.
• Reference 23: Gibbs, A. (1997). Focus groups. Social Research Update, (19). https://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU19.html
• Reference 24: Glendinning, I. (2013). Comparison of Policies for Academic Integrity in Higher Education across the European Union. http://www.plagiarism.cz/ippheae/
• Reference 25: Glendinning, I. (2014). Responses to Student Plagiarism in Higher Education Across Europe. International Journal for Educational Integrity. 10 (1), 4-20.
• Reference 26: Glendinning, I. (forthcoming). International comparisons of institutional policies for academic integrity, [Paper Presentation]. European Conference on Academic Integrity and Plagiarism. (2021, June 9-11).
• Reference 27: Hull, G. & Rose, M. (1989). Rethinking remediation: toward a social-cognitive understanding of problematic reading and writing. Written Communication, 6 (2), 139–154.
• Reference 28: Hyland, F., (2001). Dealing with plagiarism when giving feedback. ELT Journal, 55 (4), 375–381.
• Reference 29: International Centre for Academic Integrity. (2014). Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity. https://www.academicintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Fundamental-Values-2014.pdf
• Reference 30: Kirton, A., Hallam, S., Peffers, J., Robertson, P., Stobart, G. (2007). Revolution, evolution or a Trojan horse? Piloting assessment for learning in some Scottish primary schools. British educational research journal, 33(4), 605-627.
• Reference 31: Knight, P., & LTSN Generic Centre. (2001). A briefing on key concepts: Formative and summative, criterion and norm-referenced assessment. Learning and Teaching Support Network.
• Reference 32: Lemke, J.L. (1985). Using language in the classroom. Deakin University Press.
• Reference 33: Liao M-T., & Tseng C-Y. (2010). Students’ behaviors and views of paraphrasing and inappropriate textual borrowing in an EFL academic setting. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 187-211.
• Reference 34: McAllister, C. & Watkins, P. (2012). Increasing Academic Integrity in Online Classes by Fostering the Development of Self-regulated Learning Skills, The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 85(3), 96-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2011.642420
• Reference 35: Macfarlane, B., Zhang J., & Pun A..,(2014). Academic Integrity: A Review of the Literature. Studies in Higher Education, 39 (2), 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.709495
• Reference 36: Macdonald, R., & Carroll, J. (2006). Plagiarism—a complex issue requiring a holistic institutional approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 233 - 245.
• Reference 37: Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Reference 38: Marsden, H., Carroll, M., & Neill, J. T. (2005). Who cheats at university? A self-report study of dishonest academic behaviours in a sample of Australian university students. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57(1), 1–10.
• Reference 39: McCabe, D. L., & Bowers, W. J. (1994). Academic dishonesty among males in college: A thirty year perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 5–10.
• Reference 40: McCabe, D. L. (2005). Cheating among college and university students: A North American perspective. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 1(1).
• Reference 41: Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education. Jossey-Bass.
• Reference 42: Nunan, D. 1989. Understanding Language Classrooms. Prentice Hall
• Reference 43: Pandoi, D. (2020). The impact of internet on plagiarism: In context of western and non-western countries. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 9(2), 3832-3836.
• Reference 44: Park, C. (2004). Rebels without a clause: towards an institutional framework for dealing with plagiarism by students, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28(3), 291–306.
• Reference 45: Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing Others' Words: Text, Ownership, Memory, and Plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly. 30. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588141
• Reference 46: Pecorari, D. (2001). Plagiarism and international students: How the English-speaking university responds. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking Literacies: Perspectives on L2 Reading-Writing Connections, The University of Michigan Press, 229–245.
• Reference 47: Peters, M., & Cadieux, A. (2019). Are Canadian professors teaching the skills and knowledge students need to prevent plagiarism? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 15(1), 10.
• Reference 48: Price, M. (2002). Beyond 'Gotcha!': Situating Plagiarism in Policy and Pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, 54(1), 88—115.
• Reference 49: Robinson, A. J., Smith, B. K. (2019). Writing Across the Curriculum, Designing Activities and Assignments to Discourage Plagiarism. University of Wisconsin-Madison. https://dept.writing.wisc.edu/wac/designing-activities-and-assignments-to-discourage-plagiarism/
• Reference 50: Sá, M.J. & Serpa, S. (2020). The global crisis brought about by SARS-CoV-2 and its impacts on education: An overview of the Portuguese panorama. Sci. Insights Educ. Front. 5. 525–530
• Reference 51: Sherman, J. (1992). Your own thoughts in your own words. ELT Journal, 46(2), 190–198. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/46.2.190
• Reference 52: TEQSA (2017), Good Practice Note: Addressing Contract Cheating to Safeguard Academic Integrity, Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency.
• Reference 53: Thomas, E., & Sassi, K. (2011). An Ethical Dilemma: Talking about Plagiarism and Academic Integrity in the Digital Age. The English Journal, 100(6), 47-53.
• Reference 54: Trevin˜o, L. K., McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D. (2012). Cheating in college: Why students do it and what educators can do about it. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Project MUSE.
• Reference 55: Vandommele, G., Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K., & De Maeyer, S. (2017). In-school and out-of school multimodal writing as an L2 writing resource for beginner learners of Dutch. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 23–36.
• Reference 56: Vieyra, M., Strickland, D., & Timmerman, B. (2013). Patterns in Plagiarism and Patchwriting in Science and Engineering Graduate Students’ Research Proposals. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 9(1), 35–49.
• Reference 57: Walker, J. (2010). Measuring plagiarism: Researching what students do, not what they say they do. Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 41–59.
• Reference 58: Webb, M. and Jones, J. (2009). Exploring tensions in developing assessment for learning. Assessment in education, 16(2), 165-184.