Academic Integrity - A Research Update

Center for Academic Integrity

Texas A&M

October 20, 2001

Cheating starts early & grows

0

20

40

60

80

100

6th 7th 8th 11th

Test HW Parents

Study of single school district in NJ (1999)

% who have copied on a test, let other copy homework, submitted work done by parents

It’s nothing new!

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1969 1979 1989

Copy on test

Plagiarism

Let copy HW

Fred Schab, U. of Georgia

2001 High School Survey

Almost 4500 students completed a written survey in the 2000-2001 school year

These students represented 25 schools around the country - 14 public, 11 private

In class survey - 92% of students receiving surveys provided a useable response

52% of respondents were in 11th grade - 17% in 9th, 16% in 10th & 15% in 12th

Major Conclusions

Cheating is widespread

Students find it easy to rationalize cheating

The Internet is raising new questions

Students feel that many teachers ignore cheating, at least on occasion

Students cheat for a variety of reasons.

Cheating Is Widespread74% of respondents reported one or more

instances of serious test cheating

72% reported one or more instances of serious cheating on written work

97% report at least one questionable activity (copying homework to test copying)

More than 30% of respondents admit to repetitive, serious cheating on tests/exams

Students Rationalize Cheating“If teachers taught better we wouldn’t

have to cheat.” (12th grader in MA)

“Maybe schools and parents should focus on learning instead of grades.” (MI- 11th)

“Cheating is a part of high school.” (NJ-12th grade)

“You do what it takes to succeed in life. We’re afraid to fail.” (OH-11th grade)

Plagiarism & The Internet15% have submitted a paper obtained in

large part from a term paper mill/website

52% have copied a few sentences from a website w/o citing the source

90% of the students using the Internet to plagiarize have also plagiarized from written sources. (The Web has ‘created’ few new cheaters - 6% of all students.)

Plagiarism & The Internet

The technologies and sites available are almost endless - on-line Cliff Notes, language translators, HW chat rooms, etc.

Many students are not sure whether submitting material downloaded from the Internet is cheating.

Do Teachers Ignore Cheating?

47% of students think teachers do sometimes ignore cheating.

The major reasons:

Don’t want to deal with hassle (18%)

Don’t care (11%)

Not worth trouble on small assignments (7%)

Why Students Cheat

Lazy/don’t study/didn’t prepare 32%

To pass/get good grades 29%

Pressures to succeed 12%

Don’t know answers/understand 9%

Time pressure (too much work) 5%

Other 13%

Many students don’t consider these behaviors cheating

Working on assignments with 71%

others when told not to

Copying few sentences w/o citation 57%

Turn in work done by parents 53%

Got Q/A from someone who 50%

has already taken the test/exam

Random Student Comments

“Unless someone makes teachers care about cheating, it won’t be stopped.”

“It is unfair that teachers don’t take it seriously b/c then the honest students get the bad end of the deal.”

“Cheating will always exist as long as parents place the emphasis on grades rather than learning. The parent-student relation adds greatly to the dumbing down of America.”

Random Student Comments

“I think that cheating has become so common that it’s starting to become ‘normal’ in some cases.”

“There is no way of stopping it. Only the students themselves have the power to do so. Restrictions aren’t the problem, but the morals of students sure are.”

Recent College Research

1990 - 6,073 students at 31 schools (Codes)

1993 - 1,793 students at 9 public universities

1995 - 4,273 students at 31 schools (Replication)

1999 - Students/faculty at 21 schools (Templeton)

2001/2 - Assessment Project Survey

Caveats - College Research

Self-report data

Low (and decreasing) response rates

Changing definition of cheating????

Increasing % of female respondents

Profile of Participating Schools

1995 1993

Code No Code N 14 17

9

Enrollment 3407 3442 12239

Mean SAT 1249 1236 1027

% Off Campus 16 20 66

Respondents 3013 3083 1793

Traditional Honor Codes

Unproctored exams

Pledge

Student judiciary

Non-toleration

Profile of Participating Schools - 1999

Modified No Code Code Code

N 9 3 9

Enrollment 5226 17487 5523

Mean SAT 1207 1145 1081

% Off Campus 39% 76% 59%

Respondents 1080 376 776

Modified Honor Codes

Student judiciary

Pledge

Academic integrity a campus-wide

priority

Rehabilitative sanctions

Institutional Factors That Influence Cheating

Cheating is campus norm (cheating culture)

School has no honor code

Penalties for cheating are not severe

Faculty understanding/support of academic integrity policies is low

Little chance of getting caught

Cheating higher at larger, less selective schools

Personal Factors That Influence Cheating

Business/engineering majors

Future plans involve business

Men generally self-report more cheating

Fraternity/sorority members

Younger students

Students with lower GPA’s

Summary Cheating Indicators

1993 1995 1999 Code NC Code Mod NC

Test Cheating 64% 30% 45% 23% 36% 45%

Written Cheating 66% 42% 58% 45% 51% 56%

Serious Cheating 82% 54% 71% 53% 61% 68%

All Cheating 87% 62% 83% 68% 73% 83%

Repeat Test Cheating 27% 7% 17% 6% 11% 17%N 1793 2303 1970 1091

376 763

Summary Cheating Indicators -Student vs. Faculty Perspectives

Students Faculty

Test Cheating 23% - 45% 29% - 55%

Written Cheating 45% - 56% 76% - 83%

Serious Cheating 53% - 68% 81% - 90%

All Cheating 68% - 83% 85% - 91%

Repetitive Test 6% - 17% 6% - 21%

Most frequent types of test/examination cheating

1999

1963 1993 Code Mod NC

Copied on exam 26% 52% 15% 24% 32%

Used crib notes 6% 27% 9% 13% 19%

Helped other 23% 37% 10% 19% 26%

Pretest info* 33% 29% 28% 38% 54%

*1963 & 1999 = “Q/A” 1993 = “Unfair methods”

Most frequent types of written cheating

1999

1963 1993 Code Mod NC

Collaboration 11% 49% 40% 43% 49%

No footnoting 49% 54% 36% 42% 45%

Plagiarism 30% 26% 14% 19% 19%

Serious CheatingStudents vs. Faculty

Students Faculty

Copying on exam/crib notes 78% 95%

Help other on test 72% 94%

Plagiarism 69% 92%

Collaboration 24% 52%

Failure to footnote 35% 40%

Falsify lab data 49% 95%

Paper ‘mill’/Internet plagiarism 70% 90%

New technologies are an issue

Downloading papers from the Internet

5% - 10% admit they’ve done it and one-quarter don’t think it’s serious cheating

Internet plagiarism

10% - 20% have cut and pasted material into a paper without citing the source and almost half don’t think it’s serious cheating

http://www.turnitin.com

Students are notlikely to report others

Code Mod NC

% who think typical

student would report 35% 19% 13%

% who think typical student would report

a close friend 9% 3% 2%

Actual reporting* 14% 13% 10%

* (Includes anonymous reporting and general reporting - e.g., not naming alleged cheater)

Why Students HaveDifficulty Reporting

Code Mod NC

Not my concern/respons. 14% 16% 27%

Don’t want to be a rat 15% 11% 15%

Don’t want to get involved 7% 9% 8%

Friend 11% 8% 4%

Lack proof 10% 9% 5%

Faculty Safeguards Against Cheating

Code Mod NC

Change exams regularly 70% 82% 79%

Discuss imp. of integrity 55% 59% 63%

Information in syllabus 52% 61% 57%

Remind students of policy 60% 47% 48%

Different versions of exams 28% 42% 49%

Faculty self-reports of reactions to serious cheating

55% have reprimanded a student 40% have lowered a student’s grade30% referred to appropriate

authority21% have referred issue to Chair6% have reacted in some other way

32% have done nothing!

Faculty satisfaction withhandling of cheating reports

Code Mod. NC

Satisfied 61% 53% 51%

Very satisfied 20% 25% 20%

Unsatisfied 19% 22% 29%

N 124 55 174

Feel Campus Academic Integrity Policy is Effective

StudentsFaculty

No Code 56% 30%

Modified Code 63% 25%

Code 64% 53%

Some Possible Resources

“Academic Integrity: 10 Principles”McCabe & PavelaDecember 1997

Principles of academic integrity for faculty.

Principles of Academic Integrity for Faculty

Foster an environment of trust in the classroom.

Most students are mature adults, and value an environment free of arbitrary rules and trivial assignments, where trust is earned, and given.

Principles of AcademicIntegrity for Faculty

Encourage student responsibility for academic integrity.

Students want to work in communities where competition is fair, integrity is respected, and cheating is punished.

Principles of AcademicIntegrity for Faculty

Clarify expectations for students.

Faculty must clarify their expectations regarding honesty in academic work, including the nature and scope of collaboration. Most students want such guidance.

Principles of AcademicIntegrity for Faculty

Reduce opportunities to engage in academic dishonesty.

Students should not be tempted to engage in acts of academic dishonesty by ambiguous policies, undefined or unrealistic standards for collaboration, inadequate classroom management, or poor examination security.

Principles of AcademicIntegrity for Faculty

Challenge academic dishonesty when it occurs.

Faculty who ignore academic dishonesty send the message that the core values of academic life are not worth any significant effort to enforce.

Principles of AcademicIntegrity for Faculty

Help define and support campus-wide academic integrity standards.

Although faculty members should be the primary role models for academic integrity, defining, promoting, and protecting academic integrity must be a community-wide responsibility.

http://www.uga.berkeley.edu/sled/bgd/prevent.html

Davis (1993)

Make sure students know criteria for evaluation.

Learn to recognize signs of stress in students.

Ensure equal access to study materials.

Make sure students feel they can succeed in class w/o cheating.

Davis (1993)

Clarify distinctions between paraphrasing, plagiarism, and direct citation.

Assign specific topics.

Change assignments across semesters.

Require first drafts, early discussion, etc.

University of Maryland

A great resource for model student codes.

http://www.inform.umd.edu/campusinfo/

departments/jpo/ai/index.html

“Some Good News About Academic Integrity”

McCabe & PavelaSept./Oct. 2000

The basic elements of a modified honor code strategy.

Implementing aModified Honor Code

Ask students about the nature and extent of campus cheating.

Perhaps form an Academic Integrity Advisory Council consisting of a diverse group of student leaders. Invite key faculty to participate.

Implementing a Modified Honor Code

Give interested students and faculty a voice in setting campus policy.

Allow students to play a major role in the resolution of contested cases.

Implementing a Modified Honor Code

Enforce significant sanctions, keyed to an academic integrity seminar.

Simple penalties may not be effective deterrents. Consider the ‘XF’ sanction with the opportunity to remove the X.

Implementing a Modified Honor Code

Help student leaders educate their peers.

Communicate a culture of integrity to students, especially new students.

Implementing a Modified Honor Code

Develop fair, prompt and efficient due process procedures.

(See www.umd.edu/ethics under “library” for a model code.)

Faculty participation will be encouraged if faculty members are allowed some discretion to resolve less serious, first offenses.

Implementing a Modified Honor Code

Encourage presidential leadership.

What presidents choose to emphasize becomes a campus-wide focus. Interest the president through student-led initiatives.