[Editor's Note: Because of my role in formulating the Academic Honesty Essay Contest, this essay is not being submitted as an entry.]
"I did many of these 'academic dishonesty' things in high school- but not since arriving here- the atmosphere here is one of respect for the student- and so I have respect for the system." 1
How many WPI students would respond in this or a similar way when asked what motivations there are for not cheating at WPI? Perhaps many, but in my opinion, not enough, and this is one reason why I believe that academic dishonesty is a problem at WPI. More direct evidence is contained in the results of the academic honesty survey administered to students by the Student Life Office in 1993 2and 1996. For example, 70% of the 1993 survey respondents reported seeing another student cheat during an exam one or more times. Fifty-two percent (52%) of the respondents reported that they had collaborated with other students on a homework assignment when it was prohibited by the instructor, and 53% believed that this was not dishonest. Thirty-six percent (36%) reported copying a few sentences from a source without referencing the author during the past year, and 33% believed this was not an act of academic dishonesty. Twenty-six percent (26%) of the respondents agreed with the statement that under some circumstances academic dishonesty is justified.
These findings about WPI students' attitudes and practices are not unlike those reported by other high quality institutions or by national surveys.3 (For example, our students' practice and attitudes about prohibited collaboration seem quite similar to those of MIT students, as reported in 1992.4) So let us not berate our students. Indeed, I strongly agree with the following statement by Gary Pavela and Donald McCabe, two national experts on academic honesty: "Cynicism about student values can become a self-fulfilling prophecy."5 Yet the fact that the attitudes and practices of our students are not unlike those of many other universities must not be an excuse, for faculty or for students, to ignore addressing a very difficult problem or to state that we don't even have a problem. Indeed, faculty share equal responsibility for the present situation; typically only five or so academic dishonesty cases are heard by the Campus Hearing Board every year.6 At a minimum we need to do some introspection on why this is the case and make some changes in the policy to make it easier to use. In this essay, I would like to share my still-developing thinking about how to promote a high level of academic honesty at WPI. The path I'm envisioning focuses on the issues of trust, respect, and communication rather than procedural issues, which if you are a pessimist, means that our likelihood of success is doubtful and if you are an optimist, means that we have a tremendous opportunity to make some changes in the culture of our community.
First, I believe that much, not all, academic dishonesty at WPI may be rooted in actual or perceived lack of respect, trust, and communication between students and faculty. In the words of one student survey respondent, "It [academic honesty] is a matter of trust, attitude, and respect among the students and faculty, and not a matter of policy." 7 Indeed, research has shown that students at schools with high levels of self-reported cheating often describe their behavior with a "we" versus "they" mentality. "Cheating is acceptable because they (faculty) 'deserve' it for a number of reasons- unreasonable assignments, unclear instructions, poor quality of teaching, inaccessibility,... " 8 Similarly, students may get the sense that professors do not care about academic integrity if they use the same homework or exam questions or projects year after year, resulting in an erosion of respect. I admit that I do not have direct evidence to support this sense that we need to work on these issues of trust and respect. Maybe the anecdotes I hear are very isolated pockets of problems. Certainly, I think more discussion is needed in this area.
Another challenge we must confront is to change a perhaps prevailing attitude at WPI that academic dishonesty "doesn't hurt me." Following are some student responses in the most recent academic honesty surveys as to why they did not report incidences of cheating they observed:
"They aren't learning anything by cheating, so it's their life they're messing with...." "It doesn't bother me if they do it, it's their loss...." "Because it's not my problem...." "It'll come back to haunt them someday...." 9
While the results of the faculty survey on academic honesty are not yet compiled, I would not be surprised if many faculty also deflect responsibility in a similar way. When faced with the necessity of a confrontation, perhaps a poorly understood or burdensome academic honesty policy, and the prospect of judicial proceedings, we (in the general sense) shirk responsibility as much as the students do, and rationalize that the dishonest student surely will be "discovered" somewhere further down the pipeline. In the words of a WPI student on one of the academic honesty surveys:
"Although personal value systems should have been taught previously in life, the role of the college in reinforcing morals should not be underestimated. As most students' first step into the real world is college, it's vital that standards of conduct be enforced upon students and most importantly set by example of faculty and staff [student's emphasis]. Academic honesty is stressed in my department and should be in all so as to retain public faith in the results and direction of science and engineering." 10
This link between academic integrity in a university and professional ethics is a real one, and in fact, it may be emphasized anew in ABET's Criteria 2000. Students and faculty must take shared responsibility for communicating high expectations of ethical behavior and then holding each other to nothing less.
So what do we do? What I hope that WPI does not do in response to the academic dishonesty problem is to focus on educating faculty only about preventive strategies. Many of us use such strategies already- reducing the relative importance of assignments known to have high potential for impermissible collaboration, careful seating arrangements and plentiful proctoring during exams, for example.
"[The problem is that] these strategies teach students very little about personal responsibility. The primary message of such strategies is 'We can't trust you, and therefore we've devised assignments that make it difficult for you to cheat.' That message conveys disrespect and presents a challenge to students' integrity- and they respond by finding ways around the safeguards." 11
An over-focus on preventive strategies is embodied in a brochure entitled "Promoting Academic Integrity: A User-Friendly Guide" prepared for faculty at Rutgers University. Some of the suggestions that the brochure provides for promoting integrity in examinations include banning of hats, assigned seating, destroying old exams with a shredder, employing as many proctors as possible and having them "circulate through the exam room, watching everyone closely."12 Yet the introduction to the brochure states that "Students who do cheat say that they are less likely to do so if they respect their professors. For faculty to earn that respect they must first respect their students. It seems clear that improving relations between faculty and students, so that a lack of caring is replaced by mutual understanding and respect, is one approach to dealing with the cheating dilemma."13 My reaction to these mixed, opposing messages was one of disgust and borderline revulsion, even after a complete reading of the brochure. In all fairness to Rutgers, some proactive strategies are also recommended in the brochure and we are not aware of what other strategies they might be using. Regardless, I still feel that when a communication or education campaign about academic honesty provides preventive measures that so clearly suggest that students cannot be trusted, any exhortations about the need for trust and respect in a community will only be viewed as lip service, and very little improvement in academic integrity is likely to result.
Neither massaging our present academic honesty policy nor creating an honor code is likely to significantly improve the situation in and of itself. One conclusion that is clear after reading the literature on honor codes is that they are not a panacea. Research has shown that in honor code schools that have recently reported the highest levels of cheating, less was being done to communicate with students about academic integrity.14 Furthermore, McCabe and Trevino report that "one of the lowest rates of self-reported academic dishonesty was found at a non honor-code institution. However, this institution is strongly committed to the concept of academic honor, making it a major topic of discussion in its student handbook and orientation sessions.... Academic honor is the obligation of every member of the campus community."15 Thus, communication and education to create a shared understanding of and commitment to academic integrity is more important than whether the school has an honor code. Fairly simple proactive strategies such as including statements about academic integrity on course syllabi and defining acceptable and unacceptable collaboration, both in writing and orally, may be effective.
Nevertheless, some sort of honor code remains appealing to me if for no other reason than to provide a new start. Ideally, any code or new policy should be largely driven by students, and a high level of student involvement in peer education and ongoing evaluation of academic honesty policies would be likely to positively influence student behaviors.16 I'm also interested in the idea of a complementary "faculty code," one in which we agree to the importance of trust and respect in our community and pledge to take shared responsibility for upholding academic integrity.
I imagine that some reactions to the opinions just presented may be something to the effect of "what a bunch of naive idealism!" If the root of the problem is indeed the need for more trust and respect in our community, then yes, it's not going to be easy. But better communication between students and faculty about acceptable and unacceptable behavior can begin today.
Thanks for reading. Please respond!
End Notes
1 D.L. McCabe and L.K. Trevino, "Academic Dishonesty: Honor Codes and Other Contextual Influences," J. Higher Educ., Vol. 64, No. 5 (1993), p. 534.
2 J.B. Richardson, "Academic Dishonesty at WPI: A Report on Attitudes and Practices of WPI Students," February 1994.
3 See for example, S. Maramark and M.B. Maline, "Academic Dishonesty Among College Students," Issues in Education, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Research (1993), pp. 3-14.
4 D.L. McCabe and S. Cole, "Student Collaboration: Not Always What the Instructor Wants," AAHE Bulletin, Vol. 48, No. 3 (1995), p. 3.
5 G. Pavela and D. McCabe, "The Surprising Return of Honor Codes," Planning for Higher Education, Vol. 21 (Summer 1993), p. 29.
6 J.B. Richardson, electronic mail correspondence, November 1996.
7 WPI Student Academic Dishonesty Survey Report, 1996.
8 McCabe and Trevino, p. 535.
9 WPI Student Academic Dishonesty Survey Report, 1996.
10 Ibid.
11 McCabe and Cole, p. 4.
12 "Promoting Academic Integrity: A User-Friendly Guide," prepared by Provost's Committee to Promote Academic Integrity, Rutgers University, pp. 1-16 (no date provided.)
13 Ibid.
14 N.L. Roth and D.L. McCabe, "Communication Strategies for Addressing Academic Dishonesty," J. College Student Development, Vol. 36, No. 6 (1995), p. 538.
15 McCabe and Trevino, p. 534.
16 Roth and McCabe, p. 539.