Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of articles that described face-to-face workshops to promote academic integrity

From: Effectiveness of tutorials for promoting educational integrity: a synthesis paper

Reference

Student Characteristics

Country/Institution/Course Characteristics

Educational Content

Teaching Methods, Strategies, or Activities

Quality Assessmenta

Level of Evaluationb and Evidence for Effectiveness

*Barry (2006)

Intervention group = 28; Control group = 33

United States (US)

Paraphrasing, APA documentation style

6 weekly homework assignments involving paraphrasing and citations practice

10.5

Level 2: Intervention group showed improved scores on a knowledge test of plagiarism post- intervention, and had higher post-intervention test scores than controls. (objective measurement)

*Elander et al., 2010

364 undergraduate, postgraduate psychology students (response rate = 77%); 19 in a focus group

United Kingdom; 3 large universities with diverse student populations

Authorial identity, avoiding unintentional plagiarism

Direct instruction, discussion; adapted for small and large groups; integrated into existing modules with different forms of assessment (e.g., essays, case studies, critical reviews) (1 session)

11.5

Level 1: Students’ reported greater confidence in writing, understanding authorship, avoiding plagiarism following the intervention. 90% of those surveyed would attend a future session. (self-assessment)

*Estow et al. (2011)

Undergraduate psychology students (Intervention group = 27; Control group = 17)

US; Southeastern liberal arts college with an honor code; Research methods courses

Plagiarism, institutional policies

Direct instruction, syllabus with academic integrity statement; Intervention group completed 7 assignments with a plagiarism theme; Controls completed the same assignments without the plagiarism theme (across 1 semester).

12.0

Levels 1 & 2: Intervention group scored higher than Controls on a post-intervention paraphrasing test. (objective measurement)

Post-intervention, students were more likely to report that plagiarism is unethical and should be avoided than controls. (self-assessment)

*Fenster (2016)

185 students (86.5% graduate students; 13.5% undergraduate) students)

US; Main campus and two branch campuses; Social work

Academic honesty, social work ethics, writing, citing sources, penalties for academic dishonesty, avoiding plagiarism, patch-writing

Discussion and practice in paraphrasing correctly with feedback; pre-workshop and post-workshop tests (1 h session)

11.0

Level 2: Post-intervention test-scores were higher than pre-intervention test-scores. (objective measurement)

*Ford and Hughes (2012)

Academic staff (n = 20); 1st year (n = 110) and 5th year (n = 78) students of the Bachelor of Oral Health and Dental Science programs

Australia; Dental school of a large research-intensive university

Importance of academic integrity, institutional policies, strategies for reducing plagiarism

Direct instruction (duration details unclear)

7.0

Level 1: The majority of participants agreed that the workshops had improved their understanding of academic integrity and plagiarism. (self-assessment)

*Froese et al. (1995)

Intervention group = 27 (response rate = 96%); Controls = 20

US

Purpose of a literature review; common citation errors, consequences for plagiarism, paraphrasing correctly

Direct instruction (one class), worksheets and readings, students wrote a short essay about literature reviews (4 weeks)

16.0

Levels 2 & 4: Intervention group’s performance on a test of citation knowledge improved significantly. Control group’s scores did not improve. GPA was not correlated with scores on the pre- or post-intervention test scores or change in scores. (objective measurement)

*Landau et al., 2002

94 (39 men, 55 women) in a control condition and three experimental conditions (feedback only, examples only, feedback/examples)

US; York College; freshman-level research course

Plagiarism

All participants completed a 10-min plagiarism knowledge survey (PKS) plus 20–40 min for intervention

Control condition: no feedback, no examples

Feedback only: feedback on PKS answers

Examples only: examples of plagiarized work shown; feedback on the PKS not provided

Feedback/examples: feedback provided and examples shown

14.0

Level 2: Participants in the experimental conditions detected plagiarism better after the intervention. Controls did not.

Participants in the ‘examples’ conditions wrote fewer overlapping words and word strings than those who did not see examples.

Experimental groups were more confident than controls in understanding of plagiarism. (objective measurement)

*Morgan and Hart (2013)

Intervention group = 62/177; Control group = 47/169

US; postsecondary institution offering online programs

Plagiarism, appropriate/inappropriate collaboration, fabrication of information, and examination security

Academic integrity discussion board (first week of term); reminders of academic integrity before exams and throughout 8-week course

10.0

Level 1: No difference between groups in terms of self-reported cheating behaviour, and no differences in how they viewed seriousness of academic misconduct. (self-assessment)

*Schuetze (2004)

Intervention group = 40; Control group = 36

US

APA documentation style, forms of plagiarism

30-min presentation and handout; 2 (<  20 min) homework assignments to identify plagiarised text and where citations are required

14.0

Level 2: Students who completed the homework assignments had significantly fewer errors in citation than students in the control group. (objective measurement)

*Trautner and Borland (2013)

Criminology students (n = 80); applied sociology students (n = 16)

US; a large research-intensive state university and a smaller liberals arts college

Academic integrity policies, why students cheat, consequences for academic misconduct

Direct instruction, discussion of personal problems thought of as public issues, academic dishonesty case studies (two 80-min sessions; one 180-min session)

10.5

Levels 1 & 2: Sociological imagination test scores improved significantly from pre- to post-intervention. (objective measurement)

Students felt they learned more about academic integrity, and the lesson was useful. (self-assessment)

  1. Note. aMethodological quality score based on the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument (MERSQI; Reed et al., 2007). MERSQI scores range from 5 (lowest quality) to 18 (highest quality). bLevel of evidence for intervention effectiveness was defined as: (Level 1) Response - the learners’ immediate reactions to or perceptions of the program; (Level 2) Learning - changes in knowledge, skills, or attitudes; (Level 3) Behaviours - changes in behaviour or application of the acquired knowledge in practice; and (Level 4) Results – changes in graduate school admission, alumni career success, service to society, and personal stability (Kirkpatrick, 1996; Praslova, 2010)