Saadia Mahmud

This paper analyses the perceived influence of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) on student engagement in online higher education using the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) framework. Drawing on qualitative data from 27 experienced academics across the Australian tertiary sector, the study investigates the perspectives of online educators on how GenAI may influence three core psychological needs that are considered central to student engagement: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The findings reveal that GenAI can enhance student autonomy through personalised learning opportunities, improve competence through real-time feedback and writing support, and support relatedness by enabling inclusive participation for linguistically diverse learners. Nevertheless, the study also identifies key risks, including over-reliance on GenAI, diminished critical thinking, reduced interaction with peers and instructors, reduced collaboration, and concerns around academic integrity. The paper argues that to harness GenAI’s pedagogical potential, higher education institutions must integrate GenAI literacy, student-centred instructional design, and actionable ethical frameworks. With such measures in place, GenAI can evolve from an emerging tool into a major driver of engagement, inclusion, and transformational learning in higher education.

Artificial intelligence offers the opportunity to revolutionise work and it is now ubiquitous globally. In higher education the use of generative artificial intelligence has raised concerns about the integrity of assessment and research. The current study analyses the academic integrity policy and practice at leading universities globally to assess the early response to the use of artificial intelligence. A sample of twenty universities (N=20) from four different countries—USA, UK, Australia, and Canada—were selected. Data was collected and analysed in May-June 2023. Fostering of academic integrity at the higher education institutions was assessed using the core elements of exemplary policy and framework for enacting exemplary academic integrity policy. A minority (45%) of the universities mentioned the use of artificial intelligence in their academic integrity policy. Higher education institutions globally need to update academic and research integrity policy and practice to facilitate the ethical use of artificial intelligence.

The discourse on honesty and dishonesty in academic work has seen considerable growth over the past two decades. This study empirically analyses the shifts in the literature over the past two decades in the research focus and most prolific authors, institutions, countries, and journals. A broad list of terms was employed from the Glossary of Academic Integrity to shortlist journal articles (n = 782) from Scopus. A bibliometric analysis was conducted for each decade and the results were compared. Research outputs and number of clusters were over two-fold in the second compared to the first decade indicating an increase in volume and complexity. The study found a continued focus on plagiarism and academic misconduct research, though academic integrity and contract cheating emerged in the second decade. Shifts were evident in the output signifying a diversification of the research base and perspectives. Further research and action are needed to develop integrity as the broadest defense against dishonesty in all spheres of academia.

There is a limited understanding of the student perspective of integrity in postgraduate research. This is of concern given that ‘research trainees’ may have a vulnerable position in formal investigations of research misconduct. This paper analyses qualitative data drawn from an Australian online academic integrity survey in a mixed methods research study. This analysis complements the quantitative survey data analysed earlier and sought to explore factors contributing to postgraduate research students’ satisfaction with policy and process, the ways institutions can support students’ understandings and practice, suggestions for improving breach processes, and students’ concerns. We found that integrity training and modelling of ethical behaviour by staff were key factors contributing to students’ satisfaction. Students would have liked more ‘hands-on’ integrity training, accompanied by consistent and transparent enforcement of policy. Respondents expressed concern about the credibility of research output and educational standards. We call for recommendations from the extensive literature on academic integrity policy and practice to be extended to the postgraduate research sphere.