Academic Integrity

Normally I start with a blog post that I then convert that into a podcast. But this is a podcast first, and I'm going to turn it into a blog post later. I don't have a script that I'm reading from. This is all sort of off the cuff. There's something that I've been meaning to talk about. To speak out loud. And I hope you find it interesting.

I've been thinking a lot about academic integrity lately.

I've started university, and one of the first courses that they get you to do is all about academic integrity. Of course, in this age of artificial intelligence, academic integrity is more vital than ever. The university puts a lot of emphasis on AI in this academic integrity course. They call it the other kind of AI. You've got Academic Integrity (AI) and the other kind of AI: Artificial Intelligence.

The rule is simple. Don't use AI, unless your course specifically allows you to. Not even for grammar checks, not even for proofreading. Unless your course work specifically says you can. Which, I mean that's a different blog post isn't it?

So back to academic integrity. What is it? We all know the basics right? It's about plagiarism, referencing your source material, and giving credit where credit's due.

That's what we typically think about when we're talking about academic integrity. But there was something different that came up in my last assignment, a research report on ADHD in junior secondary education.

And as part of that report, I had to discuss "what are the recommendations for schools, teachers, and students", in the context of ADHD research. What's beneficial for managing ADHD in the classroom. And for the first time I encountered this different kind of academic integrity because, well, my first response looked like this:

Specialised ADHD training is an important first step for supporting classroom teachers. The ADHD Australia Education Survey Report (2024) revealed that 55% of teachers are unsure or do not know how to support students with ADHD.

Porter et al. (2023)¹ found that after participating in targeted ADHD training, teachers reported a significant increase in confidence in supporting students with
ADHD. It was noted that teacher attitudes, understanding, and compassion toward ADHD students improved, as well as the implementation of learning strategies and
supports. A study by Ohan et al. (2008)² showed that teachers with average to high levels of ADHD knowledge reported more supportive behaviours toward students with
ADHD, and held more positive views of intervention strategies.

And I provide the sources for that. It's all true. Well, it's all technically true. If I just submit what I've written here, I'm confident I'll get marked pretty well.

But it's missing an important nuance.

The truth is that we don't have any good answers for how to deal with ADHD in the classroom.

Teacher training, for example, is effective at making teachers feel confident, but no study has linked that to better outcomes for students with ADHD. And in the end, that's what matters. In terms of engagement with the school, in terms of post-school success, none of the research points to better outcomes. In fact, some research shows that teachers with more knowledge of ADHD differentiate less in the classroom.

So, I feel that it's disingenuous of me to leave that part out. There's a lack of Academic Integrity.

However, according to the assessment criteria of my research assignment, if I don't provide any good recommendations, then I'm not going to get marked well.

So, how does academic integrity apply to me here? What's the right answer? What should I do?

Should I write according to my assessment criteria? Say things that are true, that have research backing them up, but essentially are disingenuous?

Or, should I tell the truth and, in so doing, not directly answer the question I'm supposed to answer?

Because the truth is, in this case, there isn't a good answer.