Connecting generic academic integrity modules to professional integrity through curriculum design

Many higher education providers have introduced online, academic integrity modules to maintain academic standards, control risks to quality, and demonstrate that students are aware of fundamental principles of academic integrity. In Australia, these modules assist providers in meeting regulatory requirements and controlling risks to the credibility of qualifications and institutional reputation. Often developed by academic librarians, generic academic integrity modules demonstrate the expertise librarians contribute to broader educative approaches to academic integrity. They are generally one of a range of institutional strategies to address risks posed by academic cheating services and other emerging challenges to academic integrity. Students are generally required to complete them as a prerequisite to enrollment or within a set period following enrollment. Failure to complete modules can lead to consequences for students, such as preventing them from enrolling in their chosen course, accessing the learning management system or receiving assessment results, or limiting further progression. Providers may benefit from economies of scale derived from centralized online modules and compulsory completion supports compliance. However, a punitive approach to noncompletion may not lead to the outcomes intended when completion is mandated, especially where outcomes are framed in general terms related to increasing awareness of academic integrity, perceptions of misconduct, or, in more specific terms, related to engagement in misconduct. Taking a “carrot” approach, where students see the relevance to their chosen discipline and profession, can support meaningful engagement, connecting students with professional standards and values rather than completing modules simply to avoid consequences for noncompletion. As part of an educative approach to academic integrity at the course or program level, this can add value by strengthening or leveraging existing systems of social regulation rather than undermining them. Framing outcomes with reference to professional accreditation standards can support internal quality assurance, overcoming some of the limits of external quality assurance.