Yet despite their significant financial returns, universities do not actually seem to prioritise the core aspect that generates cash flow: academic integrity.
When universities do not take academic integrity as seriously as they should, then every degree they award is devalued.
The current stance taken by universities is full of loopholes and ambiguity. This means that academics seeking to value the academic process when raising issues with student work routinely feel confused, undermined and frustrated.
Australian universities, ten of which are in the world’s top 180, have the opportunity to lead the world through their approach to academic integrity.
A continued failure to invest in it places cash before academic standards.
Incomplete mandatory training for academics
Academics receive various forms of mandated training. Compulsory training includes units on WHS, international collaboration and international engagement, cybersecurity, prevention of workplace bullying, fraud and corruption awareness.
Each of these units is assessed. All of these training units are important, however there is a significant unit missing from the list.
There is no mandatory training given to academic staff – lecturers and tutors – on academic integrity.
Somehow academics and tutors are supposed to know what the rules are, the standards of evidence accepted, the distinction between plagiarism and cheating and also how to defend academic integrity – all without any training at all.
The integrity unit in each university could be tasked with training all academic staff. Of course, this would require investment which would affect the university bottom line.
Whilst the revenue of some Australian universities exceeds $1bn, the surplus is somewhat lower.
Some universities state they have made losses. If universities trained academics and bolstered the value of their degrees through smaller class sizes, improved assessment practices and improved standards, then students may find the experience more rewarding.
Investment in an online training course for academic staff would be a small investment in the light of spending on expensive buildings, the salaries of VCs and monies wasted on consultancies.
Universities could do much better.
In addition to training, when academics raise concerns about academic integrity breaches, they could be far better supported. This would mean holding cheats to account and defending the core purpose of universities.
Ambiguous advice
Grammar tools such as Grammarly have been allowed until very recently where they have been disallowed with a caveat.
Grammarly also features paraphrasing support and text matching support. These added features allow students to create work that is not easily detectable by academics or text matching tools such as Turnitin.
Clearer rules would support the academic process more strongly. I have not seen updated training for students after the recent changes requiring the acknowledgement of the use of all AI tools.
This provides a loophole for students and undermines the new rules.
Outsourcing integrity to students
All universities outsource training in academic integrity to students. Examples can be seen from Sydney University and Monash, but they are common to all Australian universities.
This is flawed because it removes the onus from the university to have appropriate process and staff training in place. This is akin to outsourcing health care to patients instead of training doctors.
International students: a special case of being let down
The academic process in Australian universities generally focuses on critical thinking. In many countries, the academic process is focused on the acquisition of knowledge rather than skills.
At the very least, international students need to be supported through a period of enculturation into Australian academic processes.
A failure to do so is to take the money of international students without offering even the most obvious form of academic support.
Fewer international students – an opportunity to refocus on greater value
With the recent government decision to reduce the international student intake, there is a real opportunity for Australian universities to reimagine what is offered in the tertiary sector.
Allowing smaller class sizes so that each student is known would be a good start.
As would supporting students to understand what is required in assessment to reduce the numbers resorting to cheating because they do not know what to do.
Students feeling known
Class sizes of 300 do not make students feel known or valued. Anonymity in classes encourages academic dishonesty.
It also allows university lecturers and tutors time to see and assess student work so that they have a baseline of a student’s demonstrated ability against what is later handed in.
This is important as a first line for detecting instances of academic dishonesty.
Other critical investments
Universities need to make it easy for assessments to be changed annually or even each semester. To do so would discourage prior year students from assisting a current cohort to cheat on assessment they did in previous semesters.
Investing in time for academics to create multiple versions of the same task can also make cheating harder.
However, a significant investment would be in allowing academics to give fewer assessments and more support to interrogate each piece.
This could mean encouraging students to do vivas where they are asked questions about their work, what they understand, and what they would do differently.
Open book exams that focus on the application of relevant skills and knowledge to scenarios would also reduce opportunities for academic dishonesty.
TEQSA’s continual failure
An important piece in this issue is the failure of the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Authority (TEQSA) to assist in mandating the training of university staff.
TEQSA must know that academics will not routinely visit its website to self-teach how to defend assessment security without being given incentive to do so.
Additionally, TEQSA fails to ban sites, citing the issue of 'whack-a-mole'.
However, when a major newspaper features an article on freely available websites searchable through Google (without using any VPN) and two years later websites, such as Chegg, have not been banned, it looks as though TEQSA is not serious about limiting student cheating.
Students at a major Australian university have confided in me the routine use of Chegg to cheat on university assessments, years after it was raised by academics advising TEQSA.
Universities at a juncture
University leaders need to seriously reconsider the importance of academic integrity and the potential for it to continue to erode the value of the degrees they award.
The benchmark by which to assess a university’s commitment to academic integrity is in whether it trains all staff and supports them when they allege student academic misconduct.
At present, much is spoken about, but little is done.
Academics feel like they, and the academic process, are devalued when universities purport to support academic integrity but do not invest in simple initiatives to uphold it.
