04/14/2025

A Learning-Centred Reframing of Academic Integrity in the GenAI Context

by Christine Slade

Photo: The Palm House Adelaide. Credit: C. Slade

As an academic in a tertiary central teaching unit, with ten years of leadership experience in assessment and academic integrity, my research and practice has primarily focused on the growing ease with which students can cheat due to ready availability of online services. My work has aimed to provide a trustworthy assessment environment for students, protecting them from predatory practices and emerging threats. This approach was particularly relevant following the shock of the MyMaster contract cheating scandal in late 2014 (see Gniel, Treloar, Marcon & Maclan, 2024) which necessitated restrictions, detection vigilance, and harsher penalties to address regulatory risks, ensure compliance, protect institutional reputations, maintain award integrity, and mitigate the threat of sensational media coverage.

Adam (2024) categorises academic misconduct in Western literature into four overlapping frames: a moral issue, a regulatory issue, an academic writing challenge, and a threat to academia. Moral issues include the prevalence of cheating, identifying who cheats, and the surveillance and punishment of such behaviours. Regulatory concerns focus on policy and intentional cheating behaviours, emphasising education about academic expectations and a focus on good practice.  Students often struggle to master academic practices, leading to unintentional plagiarism. The threat to academia examines the widespread use of online opportunities, exploring why students use these services and how to prevent them. 

In early 2016, an investigation of scholarly literature and institutional practices led Slade, Rowland and McGrath  to publish the ‘Issues Paper for UQ Assessment Sub-Committee (ASC)’ that made eight recommendations for improving academic integrity in light of new misconduct opportunities. These recommendations formed the basis of my evidence-based institutional framework for academic integrity work (Figure 1) which has remained enduringly relevant and practical until now. The eight elements of this approach include all of Adam’s  (2024) frames, aiming for both institutional and student-focused outcomes and maintaining a balance among all elements, even if one becomes the focus for a while.

Figure 1: Academic Integrity Institutional-Focused Framework 2016-2024

The Framework was significantly innovative work in institutional academic integrity practices at the time. It involved managing multiple aspects simultaneously and breaking ground in communication within a distributed institutional model of academic integrity responsibilities. The increase in cheating across the sector during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the pivot to online assessment, reinforced the need for restrictions and penalties whilst also considering the student learning experience. As a result of these challenges over these years, the academic integrity discipline matured in its knowledge, research, and practices to address misconduct.

 As we approach mid-2025 with over two years of seeking to make meaning of the use of GenAI in education, I believe it is not about removing elements from the Framework, as they still serve a purpose in institutional life.  Rather, it is about reshaping and building on the elements to foster the learning opportunities provided by GenAI.  Therefore, returning to Adam (2024), I want to suggest a fifth framing, with the learner at the centre of concentric circles depicting the learning environment and the institutional context that influences students’ learning (Figure 2).  I have reused the eight elements of the previous model but through the learning lens, incorporating the connections that GenAI brings to professionalism, expectations and literacies, for example. A new element here is collaboration and codesign, which, while not new concepts or practices, were not included previously. Recent practice in the Australian tertiary sector has demonstrated a significant appetite for these activities in response to GenAI.

Figure 2: Learning-Centred Academic Integrity Framework 2025+

In summary, it is crucial to reshape our academic integrity thinking to embrace the learning opportunities provided by GenAI. By placing the learner at the centre and incorporating elements, such as professionalism, literacies, and collaboration, we can create a more holistic and effective approach to academic integrity. My preliminary depiction of transitioning from the Academic Integrity Institutional Framework 2016-2024 to the Learning-Centred Framework 2025+ aims to highlight this shift.

I hope this post encourages others to join the conversation and share their ideas about how to frame academic integrity and misconduct in the context of GenAI.

References

Adam, L. (2024). Framing students’ perspectives on academic integrity. In S. E. Eaton (Ed.), Second handbook of academic integrity. (pp. 503-521). Springer, Cham, Switzerland. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-54144-5_187

Gniel, H., Treloar, K., Marcon, R., & Maclean, A. (2023). Challenges and Solutions: a National Perspective from Australia. In S. Eaton (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity (online). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_118-1

Slade, C., Rowland, S., & McGrath, D. (2016). Addressing Student Dishonesty in Assessment Issues Paper for UQ Assessment Sub-Committee, Institute for Teaching and Learning Innovation. https://itali.uq.edu.au/files/1246/Discussion-paper-addressing-student-dishonesty-assessment.pdf

Dr Christine Slade is Associate Professor in Higher Education and Academic Lead: Assessment and Academic Integrity in the Institute for Teaching and Learning Innovation at the University of Queensland, Australia.

The author's views are their own.

Thank you for being a member of ICAI. Not a member of ICAI yet? Check out the benefits of membership and consider joining us by visiting our membership page. Be part of something great!