Presenters : Kuselwa Marala (Ms)_ Director: Academic Administration (AA)

1. Developing academic administration systems to enhance academic integrity in a higher education institution in South Africa Presenters: Kuselwa Marala (Ms)_ Director: Academic Administration (AA) Happy Sibusiso Mantshi _Officer: AA Systems and Processes Institution: Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT)

2. PRESENTATION OUTLINE • Contextualisation: Who we are • Academic Integrity and Academic Administration • Approaches to enhance academic integrity • Institutional Level • Admission Policy and Governance Principles • Divisional Level • Application and Selection Scenario: Up to 2015 • Systems Conceptualisation, Development and Implementation: 2016 – 2018 • Online Application Eligibility Testing • Digital eSelection Pilot • Monitoring and Evaluation • System Impact Evaluation • Lessons learnt • Conclusion

3. CONTEXTUALISATION: CAPE PENINSULA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY ( CPUT)

4. INSTITUTIONAL LOGO

5. Meaning of the CPUT logo • The logo of the CPUT visualises the identifying characteristics of the University: higher learning and technology, as well as its location at the southern tip of Africa. • The logo comprises four distinguishing elements. • The wavessymbolise technology, development and the flow of information. They are also a reference to the location of the University: the marine aspect of a peninsula. • The two sections of the half shield encompassing the waves, illustrate a solid foundation of institutional integrity and excellence, supporting and encouraging dynamic forward movement, innovation and change, towards “Creating Futures”. • The shape of the shield subliminally evokes the outline of southern Africa and the traditional shape of a heart, emphasising the vision to be at the heart of technology education and innovation in Africa.

6. Academic Integrity and Academic Administration • Academic dishonesty defined as behaviour or set of behaviours that lead to misrepresentation of scholarly work.These behaviors include plagiarism, fabrication, deception, cheating, bribery and paid services, sabotage, and/ or impersonation (Jennifer Daranek & Cecelia Parnther, 2015). • Manifestations of academic dishonesty in academic administration with respect to applications and selection at CPUT • Central administration • Faculty administration • Heads of academic departments

7. Approach to enhance academic integrity MINDSET:Academic Integrity is an Institutional Issue. (Whitley, Jr., and Keith-Spiegel, 2001) • INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL: Revision of the Admission Policy to Formal Programmes • DIVISIONAL LEVEL: • Strategic Priority: Introduce innovative practices to improve management and administrative processes • Objective: Leverage Technology to Improve the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Academic Administration

8. INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL:GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES OF THE CPUTADMISSION POLICY TO FORMAL PROGRAMES • Uniform principles and practices for access and admission to the university to promote transparent, equitable and reasonable processes for admission to programme • Promote accountability within CPUT and responsibility amongst applicants and staff. • Align admission and access principles and practices with national legislation and requirements. • Align admission policies with other strategies and policies in the institution.

9. Divisional Level:Application and Selection Scenario: Up to 2015 • It had always been done manually with the risk of document mishandling • High cost implications and delayed turnaround and feedback • No integration with DBE’s matric database • External verification of manual matric certificates and fraud • Manual feedback communication with applicants

10. Divisional Level: Systems Development 2016 – 2018 CONCEPTUALISATION & IMPLEMENTATION • Implemented online application (pilot few quals) only RSA’s • Linked online application point score system • With strong validations from DBE and DHA’s database • Assists applicants with real-time eligibility testing • Piloted digital selections by selection committees in Jan 2019 • Complies with audit requirements

11. Systems Development 2016 – 2018: Online Application Eligibility Testing

12. Systems Development 2019 : Digital eSelection Pilot

13. Monitoring and Evaluation (positive)

14. Monitoring and Evaluation (negative)

15. EVALUATION: SYSTEM IMPACT IN ENHANCING ACADEMIC INTEGRITY • Data validation • Transparency and fairness in the application and selection process • Auto rejection where set minimum entrance requirements are not met • Academic malpractices have been brought to the fore • Neglecting finalising applications in the systems and opening up spaces for walk-ins • Through monitoring, unfairness of rejected applicants is monitored resulting in sharpened accountability • Evidence based decision making in the selection process EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFECIENCY TRANSPARENCY

16. Lessons learnt in enhancing academic integrity through academic administration systems • Buy-in from executive management • Integrated approach through stakeholder engagement • Alignment of developed systems to the admission policy • Critical use of monitoring and evaluation • Minimised non-compliance • Transparency through report sharing has resulted in improved relationships with student leadership • Subscribing to academic integrity can earn you enemies

17. CONCLUSION • Academic dishonesty among students is not confined to the dynamics of the class-rooms in which it occurs. • The institution has a major role in fostering academic integrity. • With current evidence we can concur with Boehem, Justice and Weeks (2009) that multiple initiatives and strategies are effective in curbing scholastic dishonesty and engender academic integrity

18. SYSTEM VALUES

19. Thank You!