The tension between impression management and learning: examining the impact of Chinese students’ academic integrity perceptions on self-assessment intentions
Abstract
Student self-assessment research underscores the significance of honestly recognizing strengths and weaknesses, facilitating self-regulated learning and progress. The Integrated Quality Assessment (IQA) in China combines self-assessment with other data to evaluate achievement, serving dual purposes: promoting students’ awareness of their strengths and weaknesses, and providing summative scores and grades that contribute to the allocation of scholarships and other valued outcomes. This association creates tension in Chinese students’ self-assessment intentions due to the high-stakes consequences. Using a large-scale, cross-sectional survey of 2,063 Chinese undergraduate students, the factors influencing students’ self-assessment intentions were examined. Structural equation modeling revealed that positive perceptions of academic integrity and conceptions of IQA as improvement predicted learning-oriented self-assessment intentions, while increased perceptions of peer misconduct and negative conceptions of IQA significantly predicted impression management intentions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Students' reluctance to declare AI use is a strategic choice to protect their academic standing and self-presentation, reflecting psychological barriers beyond unconscious ignorance or negligence.
“This highlights psychological barriers that go beyond unconscious ignorance or negligence (Li, Brown, and Hawe 2023), suggesting that students' reluctance to declare AI use is a strategic choice to protect their academic standing and self-presentation.”
From Addressing student non-compliance in AI use declarations: implications for academic integrity and assessment in higher education (2025) · cites this paper as Li, Brown, and Hawe 2023
Cites
Stone, T. H., Jawahar, I. M., & Kisamore, J. L. (2010) · Basic and Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/01973530903539895 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
Plagiarism, cultural diversity and metaphor—Implications for academic staff development
Leask, B. (2006) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930500262486 · Cited by 175 · see citing works
Zhang, Y., & Yin, H. (2020) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2019.1608504 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gonsalves, C. (2025) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2024.2415654 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
“This highlights psychological barriers that go beyond unconscious igno-rance or negligence (Li, Brown, and Hawe 2023), suggesting that students’ reluctance to declare AI use is a strategic choice to protect their academic standing and self-presentation.”
- Authors
- Li, T., T. L. Brown, G., & Hawe, E.
- Affiliations
- Shaanxi Normal University (CN)
- Faculty of Education & Social Work, The University of Auckland
- University of Auckland (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- Li, Tianxin
- Venue
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2023-06-12
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1371-1384
- ISSN
- 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-297X
- OpenAlex
- W4380318674
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 4
- FWCI
- 4.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Keywords
- academic integrity, impression management, Chinese undergraduates, student self-regulation, high-stakes testing, learning-oriented assessment, conceptions of assessment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review