1. A Process and Outcomes Evaluation of Academic Honesty Interventions in On- Line Courses ROGER DURAND; PHILLIP J. DECKER; EDWARD WALLER UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON – CLEAR LAKE

2. Background and Importance  What has been variously referred to as “high-tech cheating” – the use of information technology to violate principles of academic integrity -- has reportedly reached considerable heights in colleges and universities, especially in courses taught “on-line.”  In an effort to discourage such violations and to promote academic integrity, our School adopted a far- ranging set of interventions.

3. Academic Honesty Interventions  The following academic honesty interventions (among others) were adopted:  Proctoring for all on-line courses  Videos for students on integrity issues  Software for detecting plagiarism  Ethics modules for faculty use  On adaptive release rule in on-line classes limiting student access until an honesty test is passed  An Academy Honesty Code added to all instructional materials  An honesty pledge that students are required to sign  Photo id’s required for all examinations  New actions by the Dean of Students: student orientation; Web materials; emails

4. Evaluation Research Questions  What – if any problems – were encountered by faculty and students in the implementation of these academic honesty and integrity interventions?  What have been the outcomes of implementing these honesty and integrity interventions?

5. Methodology  “Mixed-methods” process and outcomes evaluations were conducted over a one and one-half year period  Data included –  Repeated surveys of all School faculty  Repeated surveys of all students in the School (nearly 700 in all)  Grade report data  Participant observations  Statistical analysis using SPSS and Hierarchical Linear Modelling software

6. Process Evaluation Results - Faculty  77% of faculty reported no problems in implementing the interventions; 20% reported problems; 3% were unsure  Among the problems reported:  “Too much administrative trivia”  Exam proctoring schedule creates conflicts with other on-line courses  Students have shown up for proctoring without identification  Difficulties in making it on Saturdays to conduct face-to-face proctoring  Too much repetition of honesty pledge  “I already do many of the interventions; these offer no additional benefits but take time.”  Gives impression to students that we believe them to be dishonest

7. Process Evaluation Results -- Students  More than 60% of students reported “no problems” with the implementation of the academic honesty interventions; 22% reported some problems; about 18% were uncertain.  Some of the reported problems:  “As an on-line student I either have to pay for on-line proctoring or drive a long way to take a test”  Inconvenience of changes in test dates and times; general scheduling problems especially conflict with work schedules  Stress of having an on-line proctor looking over my shoulder  Software for detecting plagiarism creates “false positives”  Computer connection problems during on-line proctored examination  I now have to hire a babysitter to take tests

8. Outcomes Assessment Results  About 63% of faculty reported in surveys that the interventions they introduced in their courses enhanced academic integrity in their courses.  Similarly, almost 67% of students reported in surveys being strongly in favor of the School’s interventions. This was so despite only 9% of responding students reporting that academic dishonesty has been widespread in the past.  A matched sample analysis of online test results over a 30 month period revealed that the interventions implemented by the School’s faculty resulted in small but meaningful improvements in such key outcomes as mean exam scores.

9. Discussion  In this research we extended and combined mixed methods of evaluation – both an “embedded” and a “multiphase” one – in high-tech settings in which the ethical distinction between “legitimate” and “illegitimate” sharing of student work is often complicated.  The results of extending and combining these mixed methods in this way led us to repose confidence in the validity of our academic honesty findings.  Our results show what has worked well in considerably mitigating -- if not eliminating altogether -- possible high-tech, on-line academic dishonesty.

10. Resources  Cresswell, JW. (2014) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.  Garson, GD (ed.). (2013) Hierarchical Linear Modeling: Guide and Applications. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

11. Contact Information and Acknowledgement  Contact for more information Roger Durand, Ph.D. Professor, School of Business University of Houston-Clear Lake Houston, TX 77058 Email: Durand@UHCL.eduDurand@UHCL.edu  Acknowledgment: The authors are grateful to Dr. W. Theodore Cummings, Dean of the School of Business, for his encouragement and his permission for us to proceed in an unfettered way.