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

===== If you plan on expanding or refining your analysis, here are some possible next steps based on these additional findings: =====
# Investigate how instructors discuss their own role in integrity enforcement. - Are faculty seen as integrity enforcers, or do they also present themselves as ethical mentors? - Do some syllabi mention office hours, support, or ethical discussions as part of integrity promotion?
# Analyze shifts in integrity language over time. - Have mentions of unauthorized materials, digital cheating, and AI-related concerns increased? - Are sanctions becoming harsher or more standardized over time?
# Compare how lower-level and upper-level courses differ in their approach to integrity discussions. - Do upper-level courses assume too much prior knowledge, leaving ethical expectations unclear? - Are more complex forms of misconduct (e.g., research integrity, data fabrication) addressed differently at higher levels?
# Examine whether syllabi frame integrity as a learning opportunity versus just a rule-based policy. - Could framing integrity as a skill (rather than just a policy) improve student buy-in? - Do syllabi provide positive messaging about integrity, or is the focus exclusively on punishment?