International students’ knowledge and emotions related to academic integrity at Canadian postsecondary institutions

Abstract

This study investigated the knowledge of academic integrity and associated emotions of a small sample of international students studying at Canadian postsecondary institutions (n = 60) using survey methodology. Depending on the survey item, 25–60 participants provided responses. Many respondents appeared knowledgeable about academic integrity and misconduct and reported that expectations in their home countries and in Canada were similar. There was, however, disagreement on the concept of duplicate submission/self-plagiarism, indicating an important gap in educating students about specific aspects of policy in postsecondary education in Canada. In addition, more than a third of respondents provided neutral responses to a situation involving contract cheating, suggesting a lack of certainty in how to respond when witnessing peers’ engagement in outsourcing academic work. Many respondents reported feeling confident upon reading the academic integrity and misconduct policies of their Canadian postsecondary institution, although nearly one third indicated feeling fearful, anxious, and/or confused. These negative feelings were associated with reduced knowledge of academic integrity and misconduct. Future research should further explore the experiences and emotions of international students related to academic integrity and misconduct to better understand the successes and challenges that they face in their postsecondary studies in Canada. Our findings have important implications for the delivery of academic integrity education, enhancing supports and resources, and refining academic integrity policies and procedures to improve the experience of students who come from abroad to study in Canada.

Peer-Assessment Academic Integrity Scale (PAAIS-24)

“…In addition, this new research formula promotes a peer-assessment-oriented academic integrity testing approach in each item formulation [31][32][33][34][35][36] and complements encouragement as the latest indicator in measuring, assessing, and evaluating student academic integrity. The primary difference is the addition of encouraging factors in the construction of PAAIS-24 items, as has been recommended as an essential principle in training one's academic integrity [72][73][74][75][76]. Considering that in the latest learning trends, students are given more autonomy to develop their potential through peer-assessment, peer-assessment experiences can ideally shape students' academic integrity behavior while acting boldly to promote various proactive behaviors that support the development of peers' academic performance.…”

Mapping the Contours

“…These include "lack of support from administration (20% faculty, 16% TAs); lack of time to pursue suspected cases (20% faculty, 13% TAs); and the trivial nature of the offence (20% faculty, 24% TAs)" Christensen Hughes & McCabe, 2006, p. 12. Fifteen years later, when another study was conducted at Canadian universities that focused explicitly on international students, researchers similarly found that students were unsure of academic integrity concepts, with particular difficulties comprehending the topics of self-plagiarism and contract cheating (Sanni-Anibire et al, 2021). Yet another study at a Canadian university found that approximately half of students believed both that their instructors were more concerned with cheating, and that their peers committed more academic misconduct during the sudden shift to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic (Stoesz et al, 2023).…”

Contract Cheating and Student Stress: Insights from a Canadian Community College

“…A participant brings to the survey unique individual experiences and diverse cultural understandings of academic integrity and stress which checklists cannot capture. Previous research has pointed to the importance of considering international students’ knowledge and emotions related to academic integrity so that institutions may better respond to the challenges and supports of these students (Sanni-Anibire et al, 2021 ). Similarly, stressor checklists fail to capture individual perceptions of the severity of stress and assume all stressors produce negative consequences equally (Anderson et al, 2021 ).…”