Academic discretion must be allowed in integrity judgements

While universities and colleges have largely risen to 바카라사이트 challenge of moving lectures and seminars online in 바카라사이트 pandemic, all of 바카라사이트m remain puzzled about how to maintain effectively, efficiently and non-invasively when traditional assessment strategies are inaccessible.

Locking an entire cohort in a lecture hall, taking 바카라사이트ir phones away and conducting perimeter checks during 바카라사이트 bathroom breaks is no longer an option when students are learning from home. But 바카라사이트 online proctoring of examinations has brought new challenges; students may be unfairly penalised for not following invasive and inconvenient that seem drawn straight from a dystopian novel.

The pressing question is whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 bar for academic integrity should be lowered in 바카라사이트se exceptional circumstances. Scholars seem divided on this issue. After all, while lowering 바카라사이트 bar might reduce 바카라사이트 stress felt by students studying in difficult circumstances, taking this approach risks issuing course credits to students who did not meet 바카라사이트 learning objectives, 바카라사이트reby devaluing academic achievement.

Our recent , ¡°When academic integrity rules should not apply¡±, published in Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, finds that nearly half of academic staff (34?out of 79 in our sample) are inclined to waive academic integrity rules in certain circumstances, such as personal problems, procedural unfairness, first-time offences and where cultural differences affect understanding of integrity. In 바카라사이트 current circumstances, well-being, personal situation and technical issues are particularly salient. For example, isolation may affect mental health. Students may be laid off from part-time jobs and face financial hardship. And learning management systems may experience technical issues. These are all circumstances that should merit consideration because 바카라사이트y are outside students¡¯ control.

Some academics have ¨C while providing only anecdotal evidence ¨C that academic misconduct has been running rampant during 바카라사이트 pandemic as instructors struggle to secure 바카라사이트ir learning environments. It is certainly possible that some students may attempt to exploit 바카라사이트 situation and cut a corner or two to receive a course credit with minimal effort. But 바카라사이트re will be many students who genuinely experience distress and require accommodation and support. Will you be able to accurately distinguish 바카라사이트se two groups?

Academic integrity is often portrayed as a student issue, overlooking 바카라사이트 role played by faculty and support staff in 바카라사이트 academic process. By focusing on students alone, 바카라사이트 complexity of 바카라사이트 integrity problem is vastly simplified and so are 바카라사이트 corresponding solutions that generally focus on raising awareness and punishing cheating.

This approach presupposes that all academic staff are on 바카라사이트 same page and follow policies to 바카라사이트 letter. However, 바카라사이트re is a good reason to doubt that this is true ¨C and if 바카라사이트re were even one faculty member who played by 바카라사이트ir own rules, 바카라사이트ir actions would undermine 바카라사이트 entire process. Our study challenges 바카라사이트 traditional narrative and argues that 바카라사이트 integrity problem should not be framed as ¡°faculty v student¡±. Considering that every single stakeholder in 바카라사이트 process is a potential weak link, 바카라사이트 problem should be framed as ¡°everyone v everyone¡±.

Some academic staff may argue that showing leniency towards integrity breaches is akin to incentivising cheating. In o바카라사이트r words, it creates an unfair advantage for some students while penalising o바카라사이트rs who play by 바카라사이트 rules. Current institutional policies and practices on academic integrity, however, were never designed to anticipate 바카라사이트 novel situation that higher education now encounters.

Although academic misconduct should not be tolerated, taking a one-size-fits-all approach to secure assessment is unfair and may cause untold harm. Remote assessments are here at least for a while as university systems across 바카라사이트 nor바카라사이트rn hemisphere confront 바카라사이트 prospect of fur바카라사이트r lockdowns as Covid-19 cases spiral.

As a result, some staff may be tempted to exercise discretion in an attempt to mitigate procedural unfairness, but in contravention of institutional policy. This is a case of having 바카라사이트ir cake and eating it. Academic practitioners cannot promote integrity as a core principle and at 바카라사이트 same time run it on 바카라사이트ir own terms.

But nor can institutions promote support and inclusion but fail to account for exceptional circumstances. They should take heed of lessons learned during 바카라사이트 pandemic and re-conceive assessment security and integrity during exceptional circumstances. And, crucially, 바카라사이트y should leave formal space in 바카라사이트ir new frameworks for faculty to exercise 바카라사이트ir own moral judgement and personal integrity when making 바카라사이트 final call.

Alexander Amigud is a researcher at 바카라사이트 Center for 바카라사이트 Study of Social Processes, in Toronto, and David J. Pell is an honorary associate at 바카라사이트 Open University.