ACTIVITIES,

PRIMARY FINDINGS &

RECOMMENDATONS

UNCW’s Honor Code Task Force

IntroductionMany studies suggest that at least half of all

college students cheat on exams and assignments. Studies of UNCW students suggest that over 50%

of UNCW students are guilty of academic dishonesty.

Studies suggest that campuses with heightened awareness of what constitutes academic dishonesty, with a campus culture of academic integrity, and with increased certainty and severity of punishment experience decreased academic dishonesty.

Honor Code Task ForceCode was last updated in 1986.Student and Faculty Concerns about increased

cheating.Fall of 2007, Task Force Commissioned with

approval of the Provost, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, the Faculty Senate president, the SGA president and the GSA president. The Task Force was asked to examine the Honor Code and to report recommendations for changes

Members Leah Campbell, undergraduate student (07-09) Megan Jelley, undergraduate student (07-08) Adrienne Strain, undergraduate student (07-08) Alex Morgan, undergraduate student (08-09) Brandon Bell, undergraduate student (08-09) Alex Wadsworth, undergraduate student/staff (07-09) Greg Burzynski, graduate student (07-08) Dr. Jim Herstine, Associate Professor, Health and Applied Human Sciences

(07-09) Dr. Judith Jarosinski, Assistant Professor, Nursing (07-09) Dr. Anita McDaniel, Assistant Professor, Communication Studies (07-09) Dr. Richard Veit, Professor, English (co-chair, 07-08) Dr. Rob Burrus, Associate Professor, Business (co-chair, 08-09) Dr. Michael Walker, Assistant Vice Chancellor/Dean of Students (co-chair,

07-09)

Activities of the Task ForceReviewed and discussed the current UNCW Honor Code. Reviewed Codes from other universities.

Meredith College Mary Washington Duke College of Charleston NC State ECU UNC Charlotte UNC Chapel Hill Virginia Tech Davidson Kansas State JMU Texas A&M Stanford UMd.

Conducted focus groups (faculty, staff, and students) to get a sense of faculty and student attitudes toward cheating and toward the current honor code

•Discussed the UNCW Honor Code with UNCW Faculty Chairs, SGA, GSA, Academic Standards Committee, Senior Academic Officers, and Faculty Senate Steering Committee.•Conducted three student surveys and one faculty survey.

Activities (cont.)

Surveys on Cheating at UNCW

Surveys attempted to measure attitudes toward cheating and toward the current honor code as well as perceptions about why students cheat and ways to correct the behavior.

•Faculty survey (233/203 out of 866; 27%)•Student survey (322/229 out of 5,000; 6%)

Offenses Observed and AdmittedOffenses Observed Faculty Students

One Offense 23% 15%

Two Offenses 21% 20%

Three Offenses 14% 10%

Four or More Offenses

17% 38%

Total (One or More) 75% 83%Offenses Admitted Students

One Offense 21%

Two or Three 24%

Four or More Offenses

12%

Total (One or More) 57%

Contributors to Academic DishonestyStudents don’t study enoughPursuit of high gradesDon’t see value in courseworkWeak penaltiesLow risk of getting caughtDon’t understand honor code.

How to Reduce CheatingTactic Faculty Students

Signed Honor Pledge 52% 28%

Fostering a Community of Academic Integrity

77% 45%

Tracking Multiple Offenders 64% 51%

Multiple Versions of Exams 44% 74%

Harsher Penalties for Repeat Offenders 59% 57%

Ban all Electronic Devices During Exams

57% 47%

Faculty Private Resolutions

0102030

40

50

60

70

Brokered Private Resolutions in the

Past

AVG one per semester AVG two per

semester AVG three per semester AVG six per

semester

65%

46%

6%5%

1.5%

Faculty Reporting of Private Resolutions

0

10

20

30

40

50

NeverRarely

SometimesUsually

Always

46%

23%

12% 12%

7%

Faculty Reporting of Academic Dishonesty (actual number)Semester Private Referred

Fall 08 13 0

Spring 08 10 8

Fall 07 5 0

Spring 07 5 10

Fall 06 6 2

Spring 06 0 0

Fall 05 8 0

Spring 05 3 0

FindingsStrengths:

BrevityEase of interpretationClear adjudication process

WeaknessesNo formal statement of a “code” of honor.No explanation of why honor is needed at an institution

of higher learning.No requirement that students sign a pledge declaring

that they will abide by a common code of honor.Current code doesn’t foster a community/culture of

honor.

FindingsWeaknesses (cont.)

Current code allows students to cheat multiple times and face potentially soft penalties each time.

Current code doesn’t explicitly disallow replacing a grade that was obtained as punishment for academic dishonesty.

Current code doesn’t give students a major role in preserving academic integrity.

No incentives for instructors to report the results of private resolution.

General Recommendations•A campus-wide commitment to academic integrity among students, faculty and staff, is needed. UNCW can culture a community of academic integrity.

•Harsher penalties for repeat offenders.

Specific Recommendations•Statement of academic integrity (Section 1 of the Honor Code)

“The University of North Carolina Wilmington is a community of high academic standards where academic integrity is valued. UNCW students are committed to honesty and truthfulness in academic inquiry and in the mastery of existing knowledge. This commitment begins when new students matriculate at UNCW, continues as they create work of the highest quality while part of the university community, and endures as a core value throughout their lives.”

Specific Rec. (cont.)• Signed Honor Pledge.

“As a student at The University of North Carolina Wilmington, I am committed to honesty and truthfulness in academic inquiry and in the mastery of existing knowledge. I pledge to uphold and promote the UNCW Student Academic Honor Code.”

• Education responsibilities.• Encouragement to turn in those responsible for

academic dishonesty.

Specific Rec. (cont.)•Faculty/Student Honor Council.•Repeat offenders or students with prior disciplinary sanctions automatically face Honor Council Hearing.•Better incentives for faculty to report violations to dean of students (multiple offenders face consequences) .•Dean of Students office tracks prior offenses and faculty should consult with the dean of students at the time that an allegation is made.•Second offenses result in likely suspension (severity of punishment increased)•Students may not replace a poor grade that was the result of cheating.

Contributors to academic dishonesty at UNCW Contributors Faculty Students

Students Don’t See Cheating as Wrong 77% 57%

Students Don’t Understand Citation Rules

65% 48%

Students Don’t Understand Honor Code 58% 29%

Students Believe that Others are Cheating

57% 38%

Weak Penalties 53% 15%

Low Risk of Getting Caught 52% 47%

Students Don’t Study Enough 83% 82%

Pursuit of Highest Grade Possible 77% 72%

Students Don’t See Value in their Coursework

51% 55%

Students Don’t Like Professor 9% 21%