Cited by 6Student Assessment and FeedbackAcademic integrity and plagiarismEvaluation of Teaching Practices

The tension between impression management and learning: examining the impact of Chinese students’ academic integrity perceptions on self-assessment intentions

Li, Tianxin, T. L. Brown, Gavin, Hawe, Eleanor·2023·Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

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

Crossref · 10.1080/02602938.2023.2222232

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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