Table 2 Characteristics of articles that described e-learning tutorials to promote academic integrity
From: Effectiveness of tutorials for promoting educational integrity: a synthesis paper
Reference | Student Characteristics | Institution/Course Characteristics | Educational Content | Teaching Methods, Strategies, or Activities | Quality Assessmenta | Level of Evaluationb and Evidence for Effectiveness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
*Belter and Pré (2009) | Intervention group = 200; Control group = 66 (75% female; 81% Caucasian) | United States (US); Abnormal psychology course | Plagiarism; avoiding plagiarism; consequences for academic misconduct | Web-based self-instruction module with a final 11-item mastery quiz; students wrote a short paper incorporating sources; academic integrity pledge | 15.0 | Level 3 & 4: Fewer plagiarized papers in intervention vs. control groups (6.5% vs. 25.8%); students who plagiarized earned lower final course grades than those who did not. (objective measurement) |
*Curtis et al. (2013) | Intervention group = 136; Control group = 143 | US; students enrolled in first-year psychology courses; Second year students | Plagiarism; university policies; APA documentation style | 18 online tasks (Blackboard™) and a mastery quiz completed over 9 weeks; modules were completed prior to submitting the major written course assignment | 9.0 | Level 1: The intervention group understood paraphrasing and seriousness of plagiarism better than the control group. (self-assessment) |
*Dee and Jacob (2012) | 697 (21% freshman; 33% sophomores) | US; 28 undergraduate social-science and humanities courses | Plagiarism; avoiding plagiarism | Online module with 18 sequential text screens and a 9-item quiz (Blackboard™); module completed before submitting course writing assignments | 15.0 | Level 3: Plagiarism by reduced by 10% among students with low SAT scores. (objective measurement) International students were more likely to plagiarize. No gender differences. Impact of intervention was larger in classes with female professors, professors below the rank of full professor, and in classes that did not include a plagiarism statement on the syllabus. |
*Gunnarsson et al. (2014) | 34 graduate students from Asia and Africa | Sweden; Engineering program, Research methodology course | Plagiarism; avoiding plagiarism; disciplinary measures for plagiarizing; plagiarism detection services | Web-based tutorial (Refero – An Anti-plagiarism Tutorial) includes screens with information and a quiz; course writing assignments | 7.0 | Level 1: Plagiarism was new to 18% of participants, 82% learned something new about plagiarism; 85% indicated that writing references was new information, 70% said that paraphrasing/citing was new, and 74% said that when to add a reference was new. (self-assessment) |
*Henslee et al. (2015) | Intervention group = 17; Control group = 16 | US; Science and technology university | Academic misconduct policies; paraphrasing; avoiding plagiarism and cheating | Web-based module (intervention) vs. Pre-recorded lecture (control); written course assignments | 13.0 | Level 3: No group differences in the number of students who plagiarized on course assignments. Significant correlation between the number of quiz attempts and incidents of plagiarism. (objective measurement) |
*Jackson (2006) | 3224 students (964 in upper-division courses, 467 in lower-division courses, 178 freshman, 1200 did not identify) (response rate = 87.7%) | US; various disciplines | Plagiarism; paragraphing; APA and MLA documentation styles; university policies; information about text-matching software | Web-based tutorial (Plagiarism: The Crime of Intellectual Kidnapping) included a pre-test, screens with text and animations, and a graded post-test | 10.0 | Level 2: Post-intervention test scores were 6% higher than pre-intervention test scores (descriptive analysis only). (objective measurement) |
*Kirsch and Bradley (2012) | 60 nursing and business students | US | Plagiarism, research process, paraphrasing, common knowledge, and citing | Basic and advanced versions of an tutorial (Blackboard™) consisting of videos, readings, pre- and post-tests, and multiple-choice paraphrasing activities | 9.0 | Level 2: Improvements in pre- and post-intervention tests were not seen as the tests were not comparable (post-test was more difficult) (descriptive analysis only). (objective measurement) |
*Liu et al. (2013) | 35 (14 males, 15 females); 16 students had < 10 years of English, 20 undergraduate and 10 graduate students | Taiwan; research-based university | Paraphrasing and citing in English | Tutorial (DWright) designed for Chinese speaking students (1 h) | 11.0 | Level 1: Students indicated that the tutorial increased their knowledge of how to avoid plagiarism and enhanced their paraphrasing and English writing skills. (self-assessment) |