Messaging to Support Academic Integrity

Last registered on March 22, 2021
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Messaging to Support Academic Integrity
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0007208
Initial registration date
March 19, 2021

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
March 22, 2021, 1:18 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Country
United States of America
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Steven Brownstone
Affiliation
UC San Diego
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Amanda Brovold
PI Affiliation
UCSD
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Tricia Bertram Gallant
PI Affiliation
UCSD
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Mia Minnes
PI Affiliation
UCSD
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2021-01-15
End date
2021-06-15
Keywords
Behavior, Crime, Violence, & Conflict, Education, Gender
Additional Keywords
cheating, nudge
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Abstract
This study seeks to determine the efficacy of different academic integrity messages for reducing cheating. We will rigorously test different academic integrity messaging designed for saliency and delivered at key times in the course. Compared to the current status quo of ad hoc messaging by professors, this study aims to create practical guidance for faculty.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Brovold , Amanda et al. 2021. "Messaging to Support Academic Integrity." AEA RCT Registry. March 22. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.7208-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We are sending messages about academic integrity at two strategic times during the quarter prior two major assignments. The messages also include a comprehension question.
Intervention (Hidden)
The control arm consists of the short formal of definition of cheating from the UCSD academic senate often linked on professors syllabuses. This treatment is supposed to capture the status-quo messaging while accounting for any effects of the study or survey platform itself. All second messages, including the control arm, will include a link highlighting UCSD academic support resources. Including these resources even the control group allows us to further isolate the impact of the messages themselves rather than resources they offer.

Message A provides quantitative information and on cheating enforcement in a classes department and links to the sanctioning guidelines.
Message B is a video that where students read other student testimonials of the consequences of being reported for cheating to the academic integrity office.
Message C are quotes from students who struggled academically but went on to medical school, a professional data science positions, and a biotech engineering job. These are all highly relevant jobs for the STEM courses we are running this steady in.
Message D Includes information from the baseline on other students self-reported probability of cheating and strong preferences that other students don't cheat.

These messages are combined across the 2 messages to form 6 arms:
1) Message A / C
2) Message B / C
3) Message A +B / C
4) Message D / C
5) Message A + B / D
6) Control + Control

If a participating student is enrolled in multiple participating classes, they will be sent a single survey for one participating class
Intervention Start Date
2021-02-01
Intervention End Date
2021-03-22

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Academic misconduct formally reported to the academic integrity office .
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
The academic integrity office will share the number of formal academic integrity reports for each treatment group in each class. All forms of cheating are weighted equally since the severity of each behavior is subjective from a both a student and instructor perspective making it impossible to assign a consistent weightage.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Students within classes are randomized to differences messages and combinations of messages. Students will receive two messages during the quarter prior to two major assignments. Students will also respond to a baseline and endline survey about their knowledge, attitudes, and practices with respect to cheating.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by a computer stratified by class.
Randomization Unit
Individual unit
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
5,362 students
Sample size: planned number of observations
5,362 students
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Message A + C 893, Message B + C 894, Message A + B + C 894, Message D + C 894, Message A + B + D 894, Control 893.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
UCSD Human Research Protections Program
IRB Approval Date
2021-12-13
IRB Approval Number
201910XX
Analysis Plan

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials