Editing Openai/685c0d4c-c498-800c-a453-8e1a327151d8 (section)

===== #### =====
* My finding: A notable number of syllabi specifically mentioned unauthorized materials (e.g., calculators, smartwatches, phones) in the context of cheating.
* Your study’s focus: You broadly discuss how some syllabi list examples of cheating, but the distinction of technology-related violations as a separate theme was not highlighted.
* Implication: This suggests that instructors are particularly concerned about technology-facilitated cheating, which may warrant further investigation (e.g., whether references to unauthorized materials increased post-COVID).

====== - My finding: There were very few explicit mentions of faculty responsibilities in fostering academic integrity (e.g., discussing integrity proactively, providing resources to help students avoid misconduct). ======
* Your study’s focus: Your study primarily examines what syllabi communicate to students, but it does not explicitly analyze whether instructors discuss their own role in enforcing and promoting integrity.
* Implication: This raises the question of whether faculty perceive integrity policies as solely disciplinary rather than educational—an area worth further research.

====== - My finding: Syllabi rarely framed academic integrity in a way that emphasized student growth, learning, or ethical development. Instead, most statements were rule-based and punitive. ======
* Your study’s focus: You mention ethical responsibility as a minor theme, but my coding found that explicit discussions of integrity as a value system were largely absent.
* Implication: This suggests that syllabi may be missing an opportunity to frame integrity as a developmental skill rather than just a set of restrictions. This aligns with research suggesting students benefit from more holistic conversations about ethics in learning.

====== - My finding: There were subtle shifts in how academic integrity was discussed over the years, with recent syllabi tending to: - Provide more references to university-wide policies (instead of course-specific rules). - Include mentions of digital/AI-related misconduct (in some cases). ======
* Your study’s focus: Your study analyzed data from the last five years but did not explicitly discuss whether integrity statements changed over time.
* Implication: A longitudinal analysis of how language around cheating, plagiarism, and technology use has evolved could provide further insights into shifting institutional concerns.

====== - My finding: Lower-level (100-level) courses were more likely to include both examples and consequences of cheating, while upper-level courses often assumed students already knew the rules and provided minimal discussion. ======
* Your study’s focus: While your study categorized syllabi by course level, it primarily examined how often syllabi included integrity statements rather than whether different levels framed integrity differently.
* Implication: This suggests that first-year students receive more explicit integrity guidance, but upper-level students might not be receiving enough reinforcement of ethical expectations, which could be problematic for research-intensive or capstone courses.