FINAL REPORT

THE PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE ON ACADEMIC HONESTY

SOUTHWEST TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY

APRIL 4, 2001

REPORT FROM

THE PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE ON ACADEMIC HONESTY

Executive Summary

This report summarizes the work of the Presidential Task Force on Academic Honesty. Specifically, this document includes the following information: (1) the goals of the Task Force, (2) a summary of the procedures used by the Task Force to achieve its goals including a statement of the problem, (3) a review of literature about Academic Honesty relevant to the goals of the Task Force, and (4) recommendations for addressing Academic Honesty issues at Southwest Texas State University

The Goals of the Task Force

First, we sought to recommend ways to address issues of academic honesty pro-actively. We identified strategies which would strengthen SWTπs commitment to academic honesty before violations occur. Second, we examined the current methods and procedures of addressing violations of the SWT Academic Honesty Statement; our goal was to clarify and enhance procedures to address incidents of academic dishonesty while upholding the values of honesty, fairness, and due process

Procedures of the Task Force

The Task Force began meeting on December 13, 2000 and met on virtually every Friday during the first half of the 2001 Spring semester. The Task Force interviewed several members of the campus community, including Mr. Vincent Morton, Mr. Bill Fly, and Dr. Jim Studer. We also interviewed Vice Chancellor Ronald Stump from the University of Colorado (UC) at Boulder, as well as several students from UC. In addition, we reviewed and summarized an extensive amount of research literature related to academic honesty.

Review of the Literature

Major findings from the research literature about academic honesty suggest:

Almost all students who cheat believe it should not be tolerated.
Students believe punishments are too soft.
Peer influence is a primary factor in why and how students cheat.
Cheating decreases when students are involved in policy and implementation.
Cheating decreases dramatically when codes are in place.
Strict, traditional ≥honor codes≤ are cumbersome for larger, state institutions.
≥Modified≤ codes work best for larger, state institutions.
Cheating on major written work assignments has remained constant.
Students often hold different views from faculty about what constitutes ≥serious≤ cheating.
Cheating rates are the same by gender; we do not know by race or ethnicity.
Unpermitted collaboration is the fastest growing method of cheating.
Off-campus and commuter trends correlate with an increase in cheating.
Impersonal feel of bigger campuses contributes to cynicism about cheating.
Students are finding more and more ways to justify cheating.

Recommendations

The Task Force on Academic Honesty makes two major recommendations to strengthen SWT's commitment to academic honesty: First, SWT should develop and implement a modified honor code; and second, while that development is in process, should revise, publicize, and more rigorously enforce current policies on academic honesty. The task force believes that these recommendations will initiate and sustain a significant cultural change on campus and will dramatically enhance the prestige and quality of SWT. Specific action steps, estimated costs, and a suggested time line are included in this report.

II.

Task Force Procedures

The Task Force held our organizational meeting on December 13, 2000, to clarify our task and develop a plan to accomplish our goals. Task Force members included administrators, faculty, staff, and students. Task Force members were: Mr. Brian Alford, Ms. Sherri Benn, Dr. Lydia Blanchard, Dr. Michael Blanda, Dr. Fred Blevens, Dr. Ron Brown, Dr. Marguerite Gillis, Dr. Robert Habingreither, Mr. Aaron Pfeiffer, Dr. Elizabeth Skerpan-Wheeler, Ms. Heather Stiefer, Ms. Tiffany Young, and Ms. Jonna Beck. Dr. Steven Beebe chaired the Task Force.

At our second meeting, on January 19, we interviewed Mr. Vincent Morton, Assistant Dean of Student Affairs and Director of Student Justice, and Mr. Bill Fly, University Attorney. Task Force member Sherri Benn, former Director of Student Justice, also provided exceptionally useful information to the Task Force. These colleagues provided important insight into both legal and procedural explanations of current policy related to academic honesty.

On January 26 we interviewed Dr. Jim Studer, Vice President for Student Affairs, about the role of an honor code in addressing academic honesty on college campuses. He also summarized current Regents Rules related to academic honesty policy.

At our February 2nd meeting we discussed suggestions for developing a ≥modified≤ honor code at SWT and planned a conference call with the Vice Chancellor of the University of Colorado (UC) at Boulder, Dr. Ronald Stump. The University of Colorado at Boulder has recently instituted a modified honor code on their campus.

On February 9th six members of the Task Force participated in a conference call with Dr. Stump and UC student leaders about the procedures used to implement a modified honor code on their campus.

At the February 16 meeting of the Task Force we heard a report from those members who participated in the conference call; the members confirmed their unanimous interest in developing a modified honor code at SWT. We also made several recommendations to enhance our current procedures for addressing instances of academic dishonesty at SWT. Our recommendations are described later in this report.

In addition to the Task Force meetings and interviews, we reviewed an extensive amount of literature relevant to academic honesty. We also reviewed policy and procedure statements related to academic honesty from several colleges and universities. The interviews, extended discussions, policy and procedure statements from others, and a review of the literature helped us crystallize the specific problems related to academic honesty at SWT. The problems at SWT include the following:

Many faculty members do not follow the current procedures for handling incidents of academic honesty described in the SWTexan student handbook.
Many faculty members are not aware of the procedures for handling incidents of academic honesty, including the availability of the Academic Administrative Review Forms.
The advent of the Internet exacerbates instances of plagiarism on all college campuses including SWT.
Many students unwittingly violate the academic honesty policy because of their lack of knowledge about plagiarism and other academic honesty issues and behaviors.
There is currently no highly visible campus-wide program or emphasis on academic honesty.

The following review of the literature about academic honesty further documents the problems we have identified and identifies research-based strategies that inform our recommendations for decreasing instances of academic dishonesty at SWT.

III.

Summary of Research About Academic Honesty

Scope of the Problem

The body of modern research on academic honesty begins in 1964 (Bowers) with a study involving 5,000 students on nearly 100 campuses across the country. Most of the current research builds on the original methodology and attempts to study the parameters of cheating and to determine what best can be done to treat its symptoms; what makes students cheat; and what changes have occurred in cheating during the past 40 years. The purpose of this report section is to summarize the research on the effects and outcomes that might spring from the development of an honor code at SWT.

A comparison of results from 1964 and a similar study conducted in 1993 (McCabe and Trevino) indicates that cheating on campus is widespread and, in some specific categories, increasing dramatically. In 1963, 75 percent of students admitted to cheating in at least one of 13 ways described in the Bowers study. In 1993, McCabe and Trevino studied a group of campuses that included nine state schools from Bowersπs original research; on those nine campuses, the rate had increased from 63 percent to 70 percent.

The profile of cheating on campuses nationwide seem to be consistent: Lower-division cheating is more prevalent (Bowers, 1964); males are more likely to cheat; lower-achieving students cheat more than higher-achieving ones (Bowers, 1964; McCabe and Trevino, 1997); Greeks cheat more than independents (Stannard and Bowers, 1970); athletes cheat more than non-athletes (Bowers, 1964); and students cheat when there are no apparent penalties (Bowers, 1964; McCabe and Trevino, 1993, 1997).

Most important for the Task Forceπs purposes is the finding that institutions that have strong academic honor codes report a lower instances of cheating (Bowers, 1964; Brooks, Cunningham, Hinson, Brown, and Weaver, 1981; Campbell, 1935; Canning, 1956; McCabe, Trevino, and Butterfield, 1993).

Researchers also believe cheating is prevalent on campus because of the increase in competitive pressures and new technology (Desruisseaux, 1999; Fritz, 1999); the cultural influence of advertising and a confusion of societal values (Koch, 2000); the growth in enrollment and development of higher education as big business (McCabe and Trevino, 1996); a decrease in faculty time devoted to teaching

(Koch, 2000); and a general feeling among faculty that seeking justice is not worth tackling the bureaucratic maze involved in enforcement (Pavela, 1997; Schneider, 1999).

Defining Campus Codes

Honor codes often are recommended as the primary weapon against cheating on campus. As noted earlier, they are quite effective. When researchers define codes in their literature, they distinguish between ≥honor codes≤ and ≥modified honor codes,≤ essentially assigning the latter designation to methods that include two or more of the four basic components in a full-fledged honor code.

Melendez (1985) says honor codes traditionally have a written pledge, a student-run judicial process; unproctored examinations; and a mandate to report all acts of cheating by peers. Modified codes, then, would include two or more components. Melendez and other researchers agree that fourpoint honor codes work quite well at small, private schools, while modified codes are best for larger, public institutions such as SWT.

Generally, modified codes include the first two components ≠ the pledge and student process ≠ and exclude unproctored exams and the peer report provision. The peer report mandate, in fact, is so controversial that it often kills all efforts to establish a campus mechanism to combat cheating (Melendez, 1985).

Although researchers have shown excellent results from the peer reporting component, they warn that the gain from increased ≥role responsibility≤ may not be worth the pain of implementing such a method. In some exasperation, McCabe, Trevino and Butterfield (2001) say such a decision ≥is likely to be highly dependent on the culture of integrity that already exists on a campus,≤ creating a dilemma that is not addressed in existing research.

The Effects of Codes on Campus

There is no doubt in any of the literature reviewed that honor codes are effective. McCabe and Trevino (1996) found a significant difference in the rate of cheating between schools with honor codes and those without them. One-instance cheating is at 54 percent at honor-code schools, 71 percent on non-code campuses.

That research, however, did not look specifically at large, public institutions such as SWT. Not until fall 1999 did researchers have data to confirm a positive influence for modified codes on such campuses. McCabe and Pavela (2000) reported that a survey of 2,100 students on 21 campuses, including Kansas State, Cal-Davis, and Maryland-College Park, showed a reduction of at least 10 percent in all cheating categories.

Habitual cheaters make up 7 percent of the student population in the code schools, 17 percent at those without a code. At state schools with so-called modified codes, the repeater rate is 10 percent. In the same report, McCabe and Pavela said honor codes need to be university-wide enterprises rooted in an institutional core value of academic honesty. McCabe and Trevino (1993) also say their studies hint ≠ but do not conclude ≠ that schools that adopt honor codes must not expect to rely solely on that mechanism to improve integrity on campus.

Highlights and Recommendations of Research

Here are findings consistent within and among the literature on academic honesty:

Almost all students who cheat THINK it should not be tolerated.
Students believe punishments are too soft.
Peer influence is a primary factor in why and how students cheat.
Cheating decreases when students are involved in policy and implementation.
Cheating decreases dramatically when codes are in place.
Strict, traditional ≥honor codes≤ are cumbersome for larger, state institutions.
≥Modified≤ codes work best for larger, state institutions.
Cheating on major written work assignments has remained constant.
Students often hold different views from faculty on what constitutes ≥serious≤ cheating.
Cheating rates are the same by gender; we do not know by race or ethnicity.
Unpermitted collaboration is the fastest growing method of cheating.
Off-campus and commuter trends correlate with an increase in cheating.
Impersonal feel of bigger campuses contributes to cynicism about cheating.
Students are finding more and more ways to justify cheating.

Here are recommendations consistent within and among the literature on academic dishonesty:

Involve students fully in developing and enforcing policies.
Build awareness, especially during orientation periods.
Deliver faculty training on deterrent-based teaching methods.
Develop educational approaches (and tough consequences), not punitive approaches.
Encourage student leaders to educate their peers.
Develop fair, prompt, and effective due process policies.
Develop methods for regular reporting of data to faculty and administration.
Encourage leadership by the president and other top administrators.
Conduct thorough and regular evaluation and benchmarking.

There are a number of scholarly pieces that could assist in development of a campus code at SWT, but the best seems to be one written by Pavela (1997). It takes a step-by-step approach and is adaptable to specific values and goals that might be adopted by an individual institution.

Finally, it seems appropriate to quote directly from McCabe and Pavela, who, in 1997, developed ≥Ten Principles of Academic Integrity≤:

Affirm the importance of academic integrity.
Foster a love of learning.
Treat students as ends in themselves.
Promote an environment of trust in the classroom.
Encourage student responsibility for academic integrity.
Clarify expectations for students.
Develop fair and relevant forms of assessment.
Reduce opportunities to engage in academic dishonesty.
Challenge academic dishonesty when it occurs.
Help define and support campus wide academic integrity standards.

IV.

Task Force Recommendations

The Task Force on Academic Honesty makes two major recommendations to strengthen SWT's commitment to academic honesty: First, to develop a modified honor code for our campus, and second, while that development is in process, to revise, publicize, and more rigorously enforce current policies on academic honesty. The Task Force believes that these recommendations will initiate and sustain a significant cultural change on campus and will dramatically enhance the prestige and quality of SWT.

To develop a modified honor code, the Task Force recommends the following:

Establish a Presidential Committee on Academic Honesty to oversee the development and implementation of a modified honor code. The committee should include significant representation from the student body, as well as from Academic Affairs and Student Affairs.
Develop high visibility for our interest in developing a modified honor code in such forums as public statements by President Supple, The University Star, Hillviews, and other university media.
Send a representative group of students, faculty, and administrators, as well as the Presidential Committee, to the meeting of the Center for Academic Integrity (CAI), Texas A&M, Fall 2001.
Schedule an open forum at SWT with Donald L. McCabe, founding president of CAI, on modified honor codes and their feasibility at large state institutions. Dr. McCabe's visit should be coordinated with the TAMU meeting Fall 2001.

While we necessarily leave to the Presidential Committee on Academic Honesty the working out of specific details of implementation, we also recommend that they consider the following in their deliberations:

The experience of institutions like the University of Colorado at Boulder that are in early stages of planning, as well as institutions like Kansas State that have had codes in place for a period of time.
The wording of modified codes at other state institutions--for example, "On my honor, as a University of Colorado at Boulder student, I have neither given nor received unauthorized assistance on this work."
The serious involvement of students and faculty at every stage of the process, including a possible campus referendum in Spring 2002. The campus could be polled on a question such as the following: "Should SWT continue its consideration of whether to adopt a modified honor code?"
The development of an assessment program to gauge the extent of academic honesty problems in the SWT academic community. Benchmarks should also be developed and used to assess the effectiveness of academic honesty policies and procedures.
The wide dissemination of whatever honor code may be adopted, including posting a statement of the code in every classroom and including it on every test and paper submitted at SWT. Discussion and explanation of the code should also be an important part of Paws Preview and University Seminar.
The development of an Honor Council to replace the current appeals procedure described on page 47 of the Student Handbook. The Honor Council should develop educational approaches to change the institutional culture, while also recommending appropriate consequences for students who violate the honor code.

To revise, publicize, and more rigorously enforce current policies on academic honesty, the Task Force recommends the following while work proceeds on a modified honor code:

Adoption of the attached suggested revisions in the UPPS 03.03 on academic honesty, clarifying the role of chairs in academic dishonesty appeals (Appendix A). These suggested revisions were prepared by Sherri Benn, Assistant Dean of Students, in consultation with Bill Fly, University Attorney.
More rigorous dissemination of information about the current procedure for dealing with cases of academic dishonesty. (We applaud VPAA Gratz's recent memo asking that reporting forms be available in department offices.)
Encouragement of student leaders to educate their peers about academic honesty issues.
Development and delivery of faculty training that encourages deterrent-based teaching methods related to academic honesty; this may be best implemented at new faculty orientation.
Systematic encouragement for faculty to report cases of academic dishonesty using the Academic Administrative Review Form.
More widespread dissemination of the academic honesty policy to students including increased efforts to communicate the consequences of violating the policy via highly visible media such as The University Star, TV, radio and other conduits of information.
Exploration of the use of methods and tools (e.g., software) that can help faculty enforce academic honesty policies.
Leadership by the president and other central administration leaders to promote a culture that values academic honesty; such emphasis could be included in the Presidentπs annual faculty convocation, and Deansπ State of the College addresses, and reinforced in department faculty meetings.

Suggested Time Line and Cost Estimate for Implementing a Modified Honor Code at SWT

Suggested Implementation Time Line

Spring Semester 2001

President Supple appoints a Presidential Committee on Academic Honesty.
Committee holds an organizational meeting.

Fall Semester 2001

Presidential Committee on Academic Honesty attends meeting of Center for Academic Integrity (CAI), Texas A&M, with representative group of additional students, faculty, and administrators from SWT.
Donald L. McCabe, founding president of CAI, speaks at open forum at SWT on modified honor codes and their feasibility at large state institutions.
Presidential Committee assesses current status of academic (dis)honesty at SWT and investigates honor codes at other comparable institutions.

Spring Semester 2002

Presidential Committee prepares pamphlet explaining preliminary plans for a modified honor code for faculty and students.
Presidential Committee holds open forum for discussion of a modified honor code at SWT.
Presidential Committee holds campus referendum, "Should SWT continue its consideration of whether to adopt a modified honor code?"

Fall Semester 2002

Depending on results of referendum, Committee develops a modified honor code and plans for an Honor Council as the mechanism for enforcing the code. By the end of Fall Semester, the Committee completes the design of the code and plans for its implementation.

Spring Semester 2003

Committee engages in extensive campaign to educate students and faculty about the code and its implementation in Fall 2003.
Committee works with those planning Paws Preview and University Seminar for Fall 2003 to incorporate information about the Honor Code in these forums.
Committee plans for implementation of the code through such mechanisms as posting the code in every classroom and including it on every test and paper submitted at SWT.

Fall Semester 2003

Modified honor code takes effect at SWT.

Cost Estimate

Finally, we also recommend that SWT commit the necessary funds to implement these policies. UC/Boulder officials estimate that development and implementation of an honor code on their campus cost approximately $60,000 per year.

References

Bowers, W.J. (1964). Student Dishonesty and its Control in College. New York: Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University.

Brooks, C.M., Cunningham, R., Hinson, N., Brown, S., & Weaver, B. (1981). Student attitudes toward a medical school honor code. Journal of Medical Education, 56, 669-671.

Campbell, W.G. (1935). A comparative investigation of the behavior of students under an honor system and a proctor system in the same university. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press.

Canning, R. (1956). Does an honor system reduce classroom cheating? An experimental answer. Journal of Experimental Education, 24, 291-296.

Desruisseaux, P. (1999). Cheating is reaching epidemic proportions worldwide, researchers say. The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 30.

Fritz, M. (1999). Plagiarism by Internet now a staple of college life. Los Angeles Times, March 4,A12.

Koch, K. (2000). Cheating in schools. CQ Researcher, 10, 747-767.

McCabe, D.L., & Pavela, G. (2000). Some good news about academic integrity. Change, Sept. -Oct. 2000.

McCabe, D.L., & Trevino, L.K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 522-538.

McCabe, D.L. & Trevino, L.K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multi-campus investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38, 379 396.

McCabe, D.L., Trevino, L.K., & Butterfield, K.D. (1996). The influence of collegiate and corporate codes of conduct on ethics-related behavior in the workplace. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 461-476.

McCabe, D.L., Trevino, L.K., & Butterfield, K.D. (2001). Dishonesty in academic environments: The influence of peer reporting requirements. The Journal of Higher Education., 72, 29-45.

Melendez, B. (1985). Honor Code Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Pavela, G. (1997). Applying the power of association on campus: A model code of academic integrity. Journal of College and University Law, 24, 97-118.

Schneider, A. (1999). Why professors donπt do more to stop students who cheat. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan. 22.

Stannard, C.I., & Bowers, W.J. (1970). The college fraternity as an opportunity structure for meeting academic demands. Social Problems, 17, 371-390.

Appendix A

Draft of UPPS 03.03 on Academic Honesty

03.03. The faculty member will present the student with the evidence of a violation of academic honesty and allow the student an opportunity to respond.

The faculty member may consult with his or her department chair before deciding whether the student violated the policy and if so, the appropriate academic penalty. If the faculty member does consult with the chair and if the chair feels that the consultation will affect the chairπs ability to impartially judge the matter, then the chair's college dean will perform the chairπs duties in section.
Thereafter, if the faculty member is convinced that the student did violate the academic honesty policy, he or she will advise the student of that fact and of the academic penalty to be imposed. It the faculty member is not convinced that the student violated the policy, the faculty member will advise the student and the matter will end.
Additionally, the faculty member may include on the Academic Administrative Review Form (Attachment III) along with the recommended academic penalty, a recommendation that the Coordinator of Student Justice take additional disciplinary action.
The student shall indicate in writing on the Academic Administrative Review Form either acceptance or rejection of the faculty memberπs findings and penalty.
Regardless of the student's action, the faculty member will forward the Academic Administrative Review Form to the Coordinator of Academic Honesty. The Coordinator will open a case file noting an alleged violation of academic honesty and create a disciplinary record of the incident.

03.04. If the student does not accept the faculty member's decision, the student may appea to the faculty memberπs department chair.

If the student accepts the chairπs decision the student will so indicate In writing on the Academic Administrative Review Form.
If the student does not accept the chairπs decision the student may appeal to the chair's college dean, who may consult with the Vice President for Academic Affairs.