Code of Academic Integrity

Introduction

Academic integrity is at the heart of good academic practice -- effective teaching and demonstration of learning depend on the honest exchange of ideas and giving credit to the ideas of others. Wittenberg's academic climate has been the topic of significant faculty conversation for the past year or more. A desire to improve the climate was the basis for a subcommittee of the Board of Academic Standards to form and discuss academic honesty on our campus and a desire to improve both our educational processes about academic honesty and our policy and practices in dealing with cases of dishonesty.  Academic integrity is a community issue of concern to faculty, students and staff. The proposed Code of Academic Integrity is meant to elevate our conversations about academic honesty to a campus-wide level, involving all parts of the campus community in education, adjudication and commitment to the principles advanced in the code.

Why adopt an Honor Code?

While national trends in cheating on college campuses are discouraging, Donald McCabe and other leading researchers have shown that introducing honor codes or modified honor codes can reduce cheating:  "Serious test cheating on campuses with honor codes is typically 1/3 to ½ lower than the level on campuses that do not have honor codes. The level of serious cheating on written assignments is 1/4 to 1/3 lower" ("CAI Research" 1).  However, honor codes alone rarely bring about significant results, nor do greater surveillance and tougher penalties.  Rather, campuses fare better when they develop programs combining
 

(1) a campus ethos that reflects the importance of academic integrity to the institution,
(2) clearly stated  policies on academic dishonesty and an equitable process for resolving alleged cases,
(3) and, perhaps most importantly, an educational program on academic integrity for faculty, students, and staff.

(Kibler, "A Framework for Addressing Academic Integrity" 12)

The cultural shifts that make it possible to reduce cheating are linked to a greater awareness of the importance and value of academic integrity.  Thus, a first step is for the academic community to define academic integrity and to articulate its standards and expectations clearly and frequently.  Accountability begins with a clear set of expectations. Equally important, the proposed Code of Academic Integrity provides greater student ownership of the process for resolving cases of academic dishonesty.  The Code of Academic Integrity also establishes an Honor Council, which will be responsible for developing and maintaining extensive programs such as on-going workshops for students and faculty, an annual lecture series, and academic integrity scholarships.  The Honor Council would also institute rituals like pledge ceremonies at the beginning of each school year and signing pledges on assignments; such rituals are powerful statements of Wittenberg's commitment to academic integrity.

The proposed code is designed to raise awareness, provide for practical and ongoing advice to students and faculty, to illustrate and uphold the highest standards, and to develop within the community a shared appreciation for honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility.  The Code of Academic Integrity would also make clear that academic dishonesty in any form will not be tolerated by our community and that the responsibility for maintaining high standards rest with students, faculty, and staff.  We believe strongly that the proposed Code of Academic Integrity can improve the quality of our students' education as well as the quality of life for students, faculty, and staff alike on Wittenberg's campus.

The Problem

National trends in cheating and plagiarism are disturbing.  A 1993 survey of over 6000 students in 31 small to medium sized colleges revealed that 67% of college students admitted to some form of cheating during their college careers (Kibler,  "Academic Dishonesty" 28).  Other studies report similar, if not higher, percentages.  Moreover, cheating on college campuses has increased significantly over the past several years, from 38% in 1960 to as high as 75% in 1991 (Kibler,  "Academic Dishonesty" 28).  Recent studies at high schools across the country would seem to indicate that cheating is on the rise there as well (see Synthesis, 9:1, Summer 1987). Between 1963 and 1999, the number of high school students who admit to cheating on exams or papers at least once has risen from 39% to 75% (STAMATs).  Only 50% of those high school students believe that cheating is wrong (see also STAMATS).  The research also shows that cheaters in high school bring these behaviors with them when they come to college.  Some students report having begun cheating as early as the first grade (Kibler, "Academic Dishonesty" 26).  Students cheat in college for many and varied reasons: competition for grades and the need for good grades, fear of failure, the need to get a good job after college, lack of time, too much stress, and heavy workloads, including  homework (Clifford 117).  Students also cheat because of "the difficulty and/or fairness of course material, whether other students are cheating," the level of respect for professors, faculty regard for students, and the perception that faculty "do not
clearly state what to study" (Clifford 117).  Students frequently cheat when the stakes of individual assignments are too high and when tests and assignments are divorced from the educational goals of the course. Other factors also influence cheating, including an air of permissiveness and high tolerance for cheating.  Many of the reasons students cheat are linked to
campus climate (Kibler, "Academic Dishonesty" 28).

Clearly, to change these numbers students need to cheat less.  We have to realize, however, that faculty play a critical role in promoting academic integrity on campus and that some common practices by faculty might even encourage dishonesty, albeit unintentionally.  The Center for Academic Integrity reports that  "In a 1999 survey of over 1,000 faculty on 21 campuses, one-third of those who were aware of student cheating in their course in the last two years, did nothing to address it. Students suggest that cheating is higher in courses where it is well known that faculty members are likely to ignore cheating" ("CAI Research" 1).  In 2000, Wittenberg students and faculty were surveyed about practices and attitudes toward cheating and plagiarism.  Because of a lower than usual response rate - roughly 10-12% for students - it is difficult to draw meaningful conclusions about cheating on our campus. However, it seems that Wittenberg does better than the average when compared to the other 11 schools in the study, some of which have honor codes or modified honor codes. Overall, however, the survey clearly shows that cheating and plagiarism are problems at Wittenberg. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the survey results may be misleading about the extent of cheating on our campus, which most likely occurs more frequently than the survey seems to
indicate.  Finally, students and faculty agree that the climate on campus does not encourage academic honesty.

Conclusion

In conclusion, students who attend schools with honor codes or modified honor codes carry the principles of integrity and honesty into their careers and professional lives.  These students wear their active participation in the preservation of academic integrity throughout their lives as a "badge" of honor (Rudolph and Timm 58).  In our work over the past two years we
have found that students want an atmosphere of honesty and integrity, and that they want to be active partners in preserving high standards of academic integrity on campus.  Most faculty also believe that there is room for significant improvement of the campus climate.  We hope that this Code of Academic Integrity and its educational program will become a permanent and significant part of Wittenberg's identity.  Perhaps more importantly, we look forward to the prospect that this Code of Academic Integrity, if adopted, could be one step toward an improved campus climate, a climate in which mutual respect between faculty and students is clearly evident, trust and honesty are the norm, and the love of learning and desire for truth underlie all our work inside and outside of the classroom.

Finally, the code as currently proposed does not mention an annual pledge signing ceremony; the committee hopes to establish this ritual at the earliest possible time, should the code be adopted by the University.   Also, we propose an automatic review of the program after three years, and then again, after two years, should the third year review prove favorable.  The code also designates that for the first three years of the program, there will be no faculty advisor, and that following this initial period, a faculty member will be appointed by the Honor Council to serve as faculty advisor for the next three years. The specific duties of the Faculty Advisor have not been detailed yet; however, it seems important to have an advisor who knows precedent and
understands intimately the policies and procedures.  In addition, for a first year of implementation, both student and faculty members of the Honor Council may have to be selected in ways different from those set out in the code.  Finally, the code of academic integrity as currently written also does not provide for unproctored examinations.  However, the committee
recommends that the decision to proctor exams or not continue to rest with the faculty member. It is our hope that eventually all exams on campus will be unproctored.

Works Cited

CAI Research.  12 March 2002.  The Center for Academic Integrity.  Duke U., Durham.    http://www.academicintegrity.org/cai_research.asp.

Clifford, Karen.  "Academic Integrity and Campus Climate at Small Colleges."  Academic Integrity Matters.  Eds. Burnett, Dana, et.al.  Washington, DC: National Association of  Student Personnel Administrators, Inc., 1998.  109-23.

Kibler, William L.  "A Framework for Addressing Academic Dishonesty From a Student Development Perspective."  NASPA Journal. 31:1 (Fall 1993), 8-18.

 -.  "The Academic Dishonesty of College Students: The prevalence of the Problem and Effective Educational Prevention Programs."  Academic Integrity Matters.  Eds. Burnett,  Dana, et.al.  Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Inc., 1998.  23-37.

"New Research on Academic Integrity: The Success of 'Modified' Honor Codes." 8 March 2002. Asheville, NC: College Administration Publications, Inc. 17 June 2000.  http://www.collegepubs.com/ref/SFX000515.shtml

Rudolph, Lynn and Linda Timm. "A Comprehensive Approach for Creating a Campus Climate that Promotes Academic Integrity." Academic Integrity Matters.  Eds. Burnett, Dana, et.al.  Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Inc.,1998.  57-75.

Sevier, Robert.  "STAMATS Quick Takes."  16 March 2002.  4:4, 2002. http://www.stamats.com/quicktakes/vol%5Fiv%5Fn4.html.

Return to Academic Integrity Home Page