One possible solution is an Honor Code such as this one from the University of North Carolina: "It shall be the responsibility of every student at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to obey and to support the enforcement of the Honor Code, which prohibits lying, cheating, or stealing when these actions involve academic processes or University students or academic personnel acting in an official capacity." The code then has to be backed up with specific punishments for infractions, steps to report infractions and a good program will include methods to eliminate infractions.
Education is important in such matters. It is necessary to point out that nothing is really gained by cheating, we are constantly relying on other people's integrity. When you go to a doctor, you expect that he or she is competent and did not cheat their way through school. When you drive over a bridge, you understand that it was designed by competent engineers who took the time to understand the principles involved in design. It is only natural that we expect the same integrity in ourselves.
It was the opinion of the panel that all schools should involve some form of education about cheating in their orientation programs. This allows incoming students to see that there is a special emphasis placed on academic integrity at the school and that cheating is something that is not tolerated.
Student involvement is important also. Although many students might see incidents of cheating, few want to rat out their friends, whistleblowers are not usually appreciated. Anonymous reporting should be allowed by the institution, to protect the students and special measures should be taken for students who do come forward. They often need the support of the system to help them feel that they have done nothing wrong. When the U.S. Naval Academy had a cheating incident in December 1992, one student who's roommate cheated got threatening phone calls from his roommate's parents.
The Naval Academy case is a good study in the breakdown of an Honor Code, at least 133 students were implicated in cheating on an electrical engineering exam, six were recommended for expulsion. The conclusions drawn from the case are that it is not always the best idea to tell the truth, (as students who lied, or changed their testimony were not expelled, while the six who were told the truth), not enough training in the honor concept had been made and tough penalties for infractions do not work well (Synfax Weekly Report, Feb 14, 1994).
The teleconference panel discussed the problem of cheating as if it is only marginally worse now than thirty years ago. In a survey of nine schools it was found that 80% of students had cheated at least once (this includes padding a reference list and working in groups on assignments that are designated to be worked on alone). A similar survey found that 73% of students were cheating thirty years ago. The alarming thing is that the students who do cheat are doing so more frequently and earlier in their college careers. Thirty years ago, far more men than women were cheating, but now the rates are pretty much equal.
Because college cannot be the foundation for an individual's ethical development, some attention needs to be given to a student's background. There is no evidence that any particular culture is more likely to yield people who cheat, but competitive students and students who are failing classes tend to cheat more often. It has also been found that students who cheated in high school but go to a college that has a strong honor code or high academic integrity, often break out of the cheating habits. The reverse has also been found to be true, in that students placed in a cheating environment will do what it takes to remain competitive.
"An honor code is not a panacea" remarked one panel member, but only one in twenty students cheat regularly at honor code schools, compared to one in four at other schools. The assumption is that if the college holds its students up to a high standard, they will respond by trying to meet the standard. By educating incoming students about the consequences of unethical actions, they may become better scholars and create a better learning environment.
But academic integrity goes beyond a pledge between students and the school's administration. It falls, obviously, into the hands of the faculty. They are the ones giving exams and proctoring, reading essays and correcting homework that might look suspicious. It is important that the faculty understand the importance of reporting violations in the school's code and to be patient with the system. Professors can also be more specific in terms of what they expect from their students, in terms of group work on homework assignments and also in terms of integrity in general.
Faculty members, in the opinion of the panel, tend to get frustrated by the extent to which due process can be overdone. The reminder that was offered by the panel was "how would I like to be treated if this was me?"
In general, a strong sense of community helps to decrease incidents of cheating and if the school is relatively tolerant of first offenses, better results are often achieved. This is because people are more likely to report these cases if they know that someone will not be thrown out of school.
The teleconference was informative and should generate some discussion on campus about the issue of academic integrity as was intended.
Give feedback: newspeak@wpi.wpi.edu