Tag: academic integrity

Creating a Safe Space for Conversations on Academic Integrity 

Musings on Teaching a Difficult Topic

Stepping into the classroom of an academic integrity session has a distinctively different energy than a regular university classroom. For one thing, almost no one in the room is there by choice – and you can feel it. The body language, the facial expressions, and the overall lack of enthusiasm or even outright hostility from the students makes for a very difficult environment to teach in, especially when you’re a newbie unconfident in your ability to command a classroom’s attention.

A few months ago I volunteered to help teach the academic integrity sessions at my university. Created and organized by the Student Success Centre, the sessions themselves are taught in part by librarians and cover topics relating to plagiarism and unauthorized assistance. Students can choose to take these classes, but more often than not they are required to when found in violation of academic integrity by their faculty. I volunteered to take on the challenge for two reasons: I think academic integrity is growing increasingly important, and I knew it would be an excellent learning experience. The thing about learning experiences however, is that they are not always easy. 

Academic integrity requires members of the academic community to act in a way that reflects fundamental values of trust, honesty, fairness, respect, and responsibility. It also requires courage for students to uphold the values for themselves and their peers  (Brickhill et al., 2024). As I learned from my teaching sessions however, this courage can be hard to come by, especially in the grey area students struggle with. Examples of these grey areas include:

  • A peer in a group project uses AI to write their section
  • An international student has different expectations of academic integrity from their home institution
  • A best friend asks to look over answers to an assignment they’re worried about
  • Someone is unknowingly added to a group chat where test answers are circulating

There are nuances to these situations that we need to be empathetic towards as educators; we don’t want to discourage students from supporting their peers or unfairly condemn them. But at the same time we need to arm students with the tools to navigate these situations and the understanding that they are responsible for upholding university values. It’s not always a simple conversation, and this can be especially hard to convey to an unwilling audience. 

Being accused of violating academic integrity usually carries with it the weight of embarrassment, anxiety, or even anger. In the short time I have taught these classes, I have already witnessed the whole spectrum. There are a lot of negative emotions associated with the topic so I have learned to approach these sessions with two main goals in order to make the most of the 90 minutes:

  1. To educate students on the importance of academic integrity. If they understand the “WHY”, they are more inclined to put into practice what they learn.
  2. To create a safe space to facilitate honest conversations on academic integrity. If they aren’t comfortable, they won’t ask or answer questions to engage in a meaningful way. 

How I Try to Create a Safe Space 

Language

I am not involved in any way in the disciplinary process of students – I just teach the sessions. This is something that I emphasize to them at the beginning of every session, with the lines: “I don’t know and don’t need to know why you are here. I volunteer to teach these classes because academic integrity is important. I don’t report back to your faculty; you can ask me any questions you might be worried about asking your instructors. There are no stupid questions.” These words set the precedent that I am not going to judge them for their actions – there is already too much negativity and shame associated with discussions of academic integrity. In a shocking turn of events, students react better when you treat them as human beings and act human yourself. I have found this level of honesty engages folks and motivates a frank discussion of their anxieties surrounding a topic that should not be taboo. If I respond to hostility with more hostility, nothing productive is accomplished. 

Also, I watch the language I use when teaching. I avoid accusatory or overtly negative language in discussions to maintain a level of neutrality. Academic integrity is not a neutral issue of course, but practicing intentional empathy without judgement is key to creating a learning environment. For example, in case you noticed in this blog post I avoided the phrase “academic misconduct”… academic integrity is much better because it places value on the goal, not the punishment. 

Environment

I have taught both online over zoom and in person, and I have noticed a vast difference between the two spaces, causing me to reflect on the pros and cons of each. 

On zoom, although I am greeted by a vast array of muted microphones and black screens, I find a lot more students engage in discussion and answering my questions. There is a sort of anonymity on Zoom – no faces can be seen and the ability to private message is used by students too shy to ask their question otherwise. Of course, I have no idea how engaged they actually are – there can be students cooking dinner while typing brief responses into the group chat for all I know! The burden of facilitating is higher as often I am the only person speaking out loud for the whole session, but at least I am given something to work with.

In person, it’s often the opposite. I get the advantage of being able to read the room, responding to inquiring faces and directing my questions…but I also get to actually witness the lack of engagement, which can be daunting to my confidence level (last week a student blatantly pulled out their phone and watched sports highlights on full volume). I am greeted with more long stretches of silence when I try to make room for discussion, but once one begins, it often grows to become more in depth and meaningful than the brief sentences and one-word answers I receive on zoom. Perhaps it’s a matter of quality over quantity?

Regardless of the space, I always stay for a few minutes after the session ends for students to individually approach me with their concerns. I have yet to have a class where no one stays behind to talk. 

There is no perfect environment to facilitate teaching academic integrity, so I try to make the most of what I can. There are a lot of long pauses, but through my persistent leading questions, encouraging comments, and intent to open the space for honest conversation, I often will have meaningful discussions with students on such an important topic. I won’t engage everyone (you never can!), but it’s enough. 

Conclusion

There is a reason academic integrity has shifted from punitive action to educational strategies; education is far more effective in giving students agency and understanding (Janinovic et al., 2024). Practicing empathy and intentional care with students gives them a space to learn and leads to positive change (Casey, 2024). Although these sessions are some of my most challenging classes to teach, I will continue volunteering for them because the learning experience truly goes both ways. The best I can do as a librarian instructing these sessions is to facilitate learning in a welcoming environment. 

References 

Brickhill, M., Andrews, G. & Nieuwoudt, J. Developing Student Agency Towards Academic Integrity Through an Educative Approach: Exploring Students’ Experiences and Perspectives. J Acad Ethics (2024). https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/10.1007/s10805-024-09567-y

Casey, J. (2024). An auto-ethnographic approach to academic integrity: experiences through the lens as a student, design teacher and academic integrity officer. Int J Educ Integr 20 (26). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00173-4

Janinovic, J., Pekovic, S., Djokovic, R., & Vuckovic, D. (2024). Assessing the Effectiveness of Academic Integrity Institutional Policies: How Can Honor Code and Severe Punishments Deter Students’ Cheating—Moderating Approach? SAGE Open, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241307430 

Generative AI & the Evolution of Academic Librarianship

During my first week as an academic librarian, many faculty discussions on campus were regarding the issue of generative AI software, such as ChatGPT. A majority of the faculty at a panel discussion held on campus about AI expressed concerns over plagiarism, copyright, academic integrity, etc. Those on the panel, however, commented on how beneficial using AI was. When asked more specifically on what faculty should do to combat potential cheating from using generative AI, the panel seemed in agreeance on an answer: educate your students on how to responsibly use AI.

I will admit; prior to starting my career as an academic librarian, I had never used generative AI. Of course, I saw generative AI blasted all over the news and saw updates on sites and apps like Snapchat, but I never understood what generative AI was. I did not have any interest in learning about it either. After attending the panel discussion, however, I was reminded of a book I read called Who Moved My Cheese? by Dr. Spencer Johnson. I was assigned to read Who Moved My Cheese? by a professor in graduate school and often refer back to it (I highly recommend reading it if you have not already done so). The book explains how change can happen unexpectedly, and when it does, it is better to adapt and move forward than be left behind. Feeling like I was being left behind while other faculty embraced generative AI, I decided to learn as much as I could about it.

Although I read numerous articles and watched hours of YouTube videos, I was still confused as to how generative AI worked. Near the end of August, my dean notified the library faculty of a course offered through ALA’s eLearning platform. The course was titled Exploring AI with Critical Information Literacy and taught by Sarah Morris. I enrolled in the course and learned about the development and usage of generative AI and machine learning, current discussions around AI, opportunities and challenges for AI usage in higher education, and how to engage AI as an academic librarian. Throughout the course, we examined AI through a critical lens and discussed strategies for AI to be incorporated at our own institutions. I enjoyed the course and found the lesson on prompt engineering to be the most intriguing.

One of the ways in which academic librarians can enter the generative AI realm in higher education is through teaching faculty and students prompt engineering. Prompt engineering is strategizing your generative AI input to obtain your desired output. While one can simply ask ChatGPT a standard question, prompt engineering recommends telling ChatGPT through what lens to answer the question. For example, if I was wondering how to craft a lesson for my class on implicit bias, I could plainly input:

“What lesson on implicit bias could I give my college class?”

Using prompt engineering, a better input would be:

“Act like an Academic Librarian teaching a college course on critical thinking. Design a lesson about implicit bias. Include topics for the class to discuss in small groups.”

While the results appeared similar, the detailed prompt elicited a result more applicable to my course by covering topics such as bias in information sources and media literacy.

Another way academic librarians can educate faculty and students on generative AI is on responsible use. More specifically, we can create lessons and workshops around copyright, academic integrity, and the reliability of the output. I tried this with my critical thinking class. I first introduced the university’s academic integrity policy, including definitions of cheating and plagiarism. Because the majority of my class was unfamiliar with generative AI, I briefly explained how generative AI worked. Afterwards, I had the students discuss the potential benefits and challenges of using generative AI. Using my personal account (my university does not support the use of ChatGPT), I asked ChatGPT and had the students read the output. I stressed that when used responsibly, ChatGPT can be a great resource for brainstorming; however, I cautioned my students from using it for writing assignments due to plagiarism, copyright infringement, and incorrect information. To illustrate this point further, I informed my students of the two attorneys in New York who acquired case law through ChatGPT. The attorneys did not fact-check the case law, and the judge discovered that the case law actually did not exist. The cases ChatGPT cited were made up. Overall, the lesson was a success. Many students chose to explore generative AI in more depth for the final projects.

By embracing generative AI, academic librarians can increase their skillset and become a useful resource for faculty and students navigating the rapidly evolving world of AI. It will be interesting to learn about how varying universities respond, if they have not done so already. I imagine we will see new policies implemented on campus, positions established, and roles altered.