It's my policy

integrity_policy.pdf

Home >Computer Science homework help >It's my policy

151

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY POLICY: THE JOURNEY Judith Winters Spain Marcel Marie Robles Eastern Kentucky University

An undergraduate student breaks into a professor’s office and steals the answers to an exam; the university initiates only process available— discipline pursuant to regulations governing student behavior through judicial affairs.

An undergraduate student fabricates lab data and is flunked for the course; the student initiates only process available—grade appeal through department academic practices committee.

A graduate student plagiarizes his master thesis and is dismissed from program; the student initiates only process available—appeal of dismissal through a readmission committee.

All these scenarios actually happened and all were handled through various administrative university processes not ever designed to handle matters involving cheating, fabrication, and plagiarism. But when a university does not have a unified method of handling academic integrity issues, administrators must default to whatever processes are available.

Because these scenarios happened, faculty and staff at a south- eastern regional public institution began to discuss better method- ologies to handle these matters. But how to even begin a conversation about a process, as well as changing a culture?

This article details the story of the idea, the process, and the final product on the journey toward developing an academic integrity policy and procedure that provide a unified methodology for han- dling the results of student choices to plagiarize, cheat, or fabricate, and, along the way, begins to change a culture.

152 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2011

THE IDEA

Beginning in 2002, various stakeholders at our university who had experienced the ramifications of student choices to plagiarize, cheat, or fabricate began to share their concerns with each other. Informal brainstorming sessions identified the major concerns of not having a unified academic integrity policy: (a) no systematic university-wide academic integrity philosophy existed regarding what is acceptable student behavior; (b) no systematic university-wide procedure existed regarding how to handle possible academic integrity violations; (c) no systematic university-wide method existed that could capture and retain information regarding students who plagiarized in one class in one college and also cheated in another class in another college; and (d) no systematic university-wide survey had ever been conducted to identify the magnitude of academic integrity violations.

THE JOURNEY

This initial group of faculty and staff also realized that since the path toward openly discussing campus academic integrity culture had not been previously paved, a deliberate course of action designed to involve as many stakeholders as possible on the campus would be a crucial component of the process.

Creating Buy-In

Initial stakeholders decided that creating buy-in from the top down and the bottom up would be critical during this journey. During 2003-2004, the initial stakeholders began to make the rounds of meetings after meetings to discuss the concept of a proposed aca- demic integrity policy. In total, 23 individual meetings were held with the president, provost, deans, vice presidents, Faculty Senate Executive Committee, Faculty Senate, and the leaders of Student Government Association. Three open forums were conducted. At one point, it seemed as if there could not be a person on campus that the initial stakeholders did not meet with, outline to the listener the general concept of the proposed academic integrity policy, and ask for general support of the audience.

PEDAGOGICAL PIRACY: THE PLAGIARISM PROBLEM 153

Ad Hoc Academic Integrity Committee Formation

Simultaneous with the meetings, the initial stakeholders approached the university president with a request to form an ad hoc Academic Integrity Committee (AIC). A 21-member committee, representing stakeholders from faculty, students, staff, judicial affairs, student affairs, registrar’s office, and others agreed to begin tackling this issue. The initial meeting of the AIC almost derailed the entire idea. The AIC members were so diverse in their views, with debates involving key questions: (a) Does the institution really need a cam- puswide unified academic integrity policy? (b) Does the institution really have a problem with academic dishonesty on the campus? (c) Is the AIC, by proposing this policy, stripping away the rights of the faculty to govern their classrooms? AIC members expressed doubt about trying to adopt an academic integrity policy, especially since it was clear at the first several meetings that the members could not even agree on a definition of academic dishonesty.

Campus Climate Assessment

The AIC co-chairs quickly realized that, if this committee was going to function and agree on a policy, understanding the extent and magnitude of cheating, plagiarism, and fabrication on campus should be the first step of the journey. Thus, a third-party, campus-wide assessment of the scope of academic dishonesty was conducted, with a survey adminis- tered to four separate groups: faculty, first-year undergraduate students, continuing undergraduate students, and graduate students. Although the survey results were not unexpected, they were disheartening.

Table 1. Faculty Respondents’ Perception of Pervasiveness of Cheating Activities (Responses of Often or Very Often)

Pervasiveness of Cheating Activities Percentage of University

Respondents Percentage of National

Respondents

Inappropriate sharing of work in group assignments

64 53

Plagiarism on written assignments 60 52 Cheating during tests or exams 27 22

154 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2011

Email surveys were sent to all 960 faculty members at the univer- sity, with usable data received from 240 faculty, a 25% response rate. Faculty perception of the pervasiveness of cheating activities in every category was higher than the perception of national respond- ents, as noted in Table 1. The national survey used as a comparator to the university was composed of 33 schools with 3,752 respondents surveyed in the year prior to the university survey.

Email surveys were also sent to all 2,722 active student accounts for first-year students, with usable data received from 434 students, a 16% response rate. First-year student perception of the pervasiveness of cheating activities was similar to that of Canadian respondents in a comparator survey and, interestingly, the same percentage for “inap- propriate sharing of work in group assignments.” However, “plagiarism” and “cheating on tests” were flip-flopped in percentage of level of pervasiveness between the university and the national respondents, as Table 2 shows. The national survey used as a comparison with the university was composed of five Canadian schools, with 1,269 respondents, administered 2 years prior to the university survey.

Email surveys were then sent to all 12,355 active student accounts for continuing undergraduates (sophomores through seniors), with usable data received from 917 students, a 7.4% response rate. Alarmingly, continuing undergraduates’ perception of the pervasive- ness of cheating activities on the campus was higher in all categories than the national respondents, as noted in Table 3. The comparative sample is composed of 28 U.S. institutions surveyed in the year prior to the university survey, with 10,817 continuing undergradu- ates responding.

Finally, email surveys were sent to all 2,300 active graduate stu- dent accounts, with usable data received from only 77 students, a

Table 2. First-Year Respondents’ Perception of Pervasiveness of Cheating Activities (Responses of Often or Very Often)

Pervasiveness of Cheating Activities Percentage of University

Respondents Percentage of

National Respondents

Inappropriate sharing of work in group assignments

57 57

Cheating during tests or exams 40 33 Plagiarism on written assignments 35 43

PEDAGOGICAL PIRACY: THE PLAGIARISM PROBLEM 155

3.3% response rate. Because of the small number of respondents, the data were not evaluated.

Sufficiently alarmed by the survey results, the AIC agreed, in prin- ciple, that a university-wide academic integrity policy and process should be adopted. However, this committee member “agreement” was on the surface only—since the overarching philosophical issue that the AIC could not reach consensus on, at this time, was whether this academic integrity policy should be a “hard” or a “soft” honor code.

Writing of the Policy and the Process

A “hard” honor code, as defined by the AIC, would require students who knew of an academic integrity violation to report their fellow student for possible disciplinary action. A “soft” honor code would not have such a requirement; however, it would still bind the stu- dents to the lofty principle that plagiarizing, cheating, and fabrica- tion were unacceptable actions. The committee did, however, agree to move on with writing the definitions and the process and return to the overarching issue at another time.

Divided into subcommittees, various committee members worked on writing (a) definitions of academic dishonesty, that is, plagiarism, cheating, and fabrication; (b) the process for handling an alleged violation of the academic integrity policy; (c) the overarching philoso- phy supporting the policy; and (d) the Honor Pledge. Approximately 6 months later, the first rough draft of the policy was compiled. The AIC finally opted for a “soft” honor code, basing its decision on the realization that the campus climate would not tolerate a jump from no academic integrity policy to a strict interpretation honor code with required reporting and compliance.

Table 3. Continuing Student Respondents’ Perception of Pervasiveness of Cheating Activities (Responses of Often or Very Often)

Pervasiveness of Cheating Activities Percentage of

University Respondents Percentage of National

Respondents

Inappropriate sharing of work in group assignments

60 54

Plagiarism on written assignments 39 35 Cheating during tests or exams 31 27

156 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2011

The Vetting Process

The proposed Academic Integrity Policy was now ready for campus- wide vetting and approval from various stakeholders. At this time, the university did not have a formal process for seeking approval of a newly proposed university policy; the AIC decided that the process for adoption of this policy should have one focus: disseminating the policy to as many stakeholders as possible so that the adoption proc- ess would be transparent, made with due deliberation, and reflect the appropriate respect for academic freedom coupled with the need to provide due process rights for the students. The 4-month-long vetting process began.

Various members of the committee met with different university groups: provost, deans, chairs, Faculty Senate, Student Government Association, and faculty from each college. The committee held open forums for the students to encourage input and conducted focus groups for each college. After each of these meetings, the proposed policy was fine-tuned and disseminated to the AIC members for input on each proposed change. Heated email exchanges among the committee members were frequent as each apparently wrestled with various aspects of the proposed policy and process.

THE DEsTINATION

The Academic Integrity Policy was adopted by the Board of Regents on June 12, 2006, approximately 3 years after the initial idea was formulated. The complete Academic Integrity Policy can be seen at www.policies.eku.edu/policy/. Although the adoption process was arduous, it did provide an opportunity for open dialogue among fac- ulty, staff, and students, highlighting the issues and the question regarding how to handle matters of academic dishonesty.

The Academic Integrity Policy affords initial discussions between the faculty/staff and the student regarding the alleged academic dis- honesty incident and the resulting reporting of disciplinary sanction. The associate director of Academic Integrity in the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities (AI director) maintains and documents all communication. If a student accepts the sanction, the matter is closed. If the student does not accept the sanction, she or he has the

PEDAGOGICAL PIRACY: THE PLAGIARISM PROBLEM 157

right to request a hearing before the College Academic Integrity Committee, with a further appeal to the University Academic Integrity Committee on procedural grounds only. If the alleged academic integrity violation is particularly egregious, the matter could proceed to the Student Disciplinary Council, the campus body with the authority, pursuant to statute, to expel or suspend a student.

Permanent Record

A particularly controversial aspect of the Academic Integrity Policy was the institution of an “FX” grade. Designed to be given in situa- tions that constituted egregious conduct, this particular sanction is a permanent notation on the student’s transcript representing an aca- demic integrity violation. The authors note that the initial explanation of the FX notation in the Academic Integrity Policy created confu- sion regarding its utilization and application, and accordingly, the Academic Integrity Policy was subsequently amended to better reflect the intent of the sanction.

Academic Freedom Maintained

Growing pains associated with the Academic Integrity Policy were not unexpected. Initial resistance was promulgated by faculty/deans regarding their perceived loss of control of their classrooms and college-level decisions. Generally, this concern dissipated after a fac- ulty member had a conversation with the AI director, who reminded that person that she or he still has the right to report the alleged viola- tion and determine the initial sanction. Additionally, resistance to reporting lessened after the faculty member realized that if the educa- tional component of the Academic Integrity Policy was going to work, the student’s actions in the one class had to be reported in order to discourage the student from repeating the violation in another class.

FAsT FORWARD . . . 5 YEARs LATER

Five years after the Academic Integrity Policy was adopted, a total of 328 academic dishonesty cases have been reported and adjudi- cated. Of these reported violations, 169 cases involved plagiarism,

158 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2011

142 cases involved cheating, and 17 cases involved fabrication. Of notable significance, only 33 students (10%) of the 328 reported cases were repeat offenders.

Campus climate about academic integrity has changed. Minor tweaks have been made to the process since its adoption, and the processes are functioning effectively and efficiently, providing a true safeguard of student and faculty rights (e.g., academic freedom).

A faculty member was hired, on a part-time basis, as the AI director to implement the process. New Student Days Orientation now fea- tures a freshman convocation during which the university president, deans, and the AI director stress the importance of the Academic Integrity Policy and making the right choices in life. This event also features the donning of t-shirts (paid for by various university stake- holders, including Student Government Association) that highlight a saying promoting academic integrity. Academic integrity tutorials focusing on the definitions stated in the AI Policy were developed and are now housed on the university library homepage (www .library.eku.edu/tutorials/honesty/).

In addition, faculty Professional Learning Communities focusing on academic ethics are flourishing, and outreach programs to area high school students, exploring issues of ethics and social responsi- bility, have been implemented. An in-depth and systematic plan for increased educational opportunities for the campus community deal- ing with issues of academic integrity, copyright, and peer-to-peer file sharing have also been implemented.

CONCLUsION

Our university was faced with a choice. We could continue to deal with students’ choices to plagiarize, cheat, or fabricate on a case-by- case method with little consistency of result and frustration for faculty and students since no formal process existed. Or we could embark on an ambitious plan to reshape the culture of the institution, result- ing in a fair and transparent process for the students and faculty and an educational moment for all.

The choice seemed simple.

PEDAGOGICAL PIRACY: THE PLAGIARISM PROBLEM 159

Judith Winters Spain is University Counsel and a professor of law at Eastern Kentucky University, where she formerly served as MBA Director and Interim Assistant Dean for Business in the College of Business and Technology. She teaches business law and ethics. Her current research interests include ethics and employment law. Address correspondence to Marcel Marie Robles, Eastern Kentucky University, 521 Lancaster Ave., BTC 011, Richmond, KY 40475; email: [email protected].

Marcel Marie Robles is a professor of corporate communication in the College of Business and Technology at Eastern Kentucky University. She teaches managerial report writing, entrepreneurship, and MBA strategic business communication. She also conducts training for the Leadership Institute for Business Excellence and the Kentucky Criminal Justice Executive Development Program. Address correspondence to Marcel Marie Robles, Eastern Kentucky University, 521 Lancaster Ave., BTC 011, Richmond, KY 40475; email: [email protected].

and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright

holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.