1. ACADEMIC INTEGRITY TASK FORCE
Fall Conference: 2007

2. HISTORY OF THE TASK FORCE
Faculty Concern
More Faculty Concern: On-Line Environment
National Attention to Increased Cheating

3. HISTORY OF THE TASK FORCE
Fall 2006:
Task Force Forms
LCC Joins Center for Academic Integrity

4. TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP
Full-time faculty: English, Social Sciences, Information Systems, Business, Nursing, Library
Part-time faculty: English
Administrators: Associate Provost, Dean of Students, Director of Athletics
Staff: Learning Center Coordinator (and Testing Center Director), Manager of Institutional Research

5. PROMOTE A CLIMATE OF INTEGRITY
WORK OF THE TASK FORCE
PROMOTE A CLIMATE OF INTEGRITY
1) EDUCATION
2) PREVENTION
3) IDENTIFICATION
4) RESPONSE
5) EDUCATION

6. WORK OF THE TASK FORCE 2006-2007: Assess Our Strengths and Weaknesses:
Review Other Institutions’ Policies
Study Best Classroom Practices
Consider Legal Issues
Make Recommendations

7. 2006-2007: ASSESSING THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT
SHARED OUR HORROR STORIES
GENERATED LIST OF CONCERNS
SURVEYED STUDENTS AND FACULTY

8. Student Survey Results
Number Participating: 564
Response rates:
Percent of Students Enrolled in English in Spring 2007: 25%
Percent of Students within Sample of 50 English Sections: 61%

9. Student Survey Results

10. Student Survey Results

11. Student Survey Results

12. Student Survey Results

13. Student Survey Results

14. TOP FIVE STUDENT COMMENTS
Communication between students and faculty is important, and faculty should clearly explain their individual policies.
Faculty must catch students in the act to call it cheating.
Faculty need stricter procedures for exams and must remain vigilant for acts of plagiarism and cheating.

15. TOP FIVE STUDENT COMMENTS
Students have a responsibility to themselves and don’t like it when they are turned into “snitches.”
Students need a standard interpretation of policy across the college and would like more examples of plagiarism and proper citation.

16. Faculty Survey Results
Number participating: 189
Response rates:
F-T          89
P-T      100
Overall Resp. Rate: 29%
F-T Resp. Rate: 68% (Based on 130)
P-T Resp. Rate: 19% (Based on 515)

17. Faculty Survey Results

18. Faculty Survey Results

19. Faculty Survey Results

20. Faculty Survey Results

21. Faculty Survey Results

22. Faculty Survey Results

23. Faculty Survey Results

24. TOP FIVE FACULTY COMMENTS
Information on Integrity Policy: Student Handbook
Reasons for Ignoring Suspected Cheating: Students are already failing the class.
Handling of Reported Cases: Syllabus and policy often are at odds because the policy limits options

25. TOP FIVE FACULTY COMMENTS
Safeguards Used to Reduce Cheating: Exam and assignment design are the keys to reducing or preventing cheating and plagiarism.
Role Faculty Should Play: Faculty play the most important role in promoting integrity and creating a culture of integrity by consistently applying policies

26. Comparison of Faculty and Student Survey Results Largest Gaps in “Serious Cheating” (Rank Order)
Behavior
Percent of Students who consider it “Serious Cheating”
Percent of Faculty who consider it “Serious Cheating”
Fabricating or falsifying research data. 35 81
Fabricating or falsifying lab data. 34 75
Getting questions or answers from someone who has already taken a test. 44 79
In a course requiring computer work, copying another student's computer program rather than writing your own. 50 85
Using electronic crib notes (stored in PDA, phone, or calculator) to cheat on a test or exam. 56 89
Using unpermitted handwritten crib notes (or cheat sheets) during a test or exam. 59 91
Copying (using digital mean such as Instant Messaging or ) another student's homework. 28 58
Turning in a paper copied, at least in part, from another student’s paper, whether or not the student is currently taking the same course. 86
Fabricating or falsifying a bibliography. 22 51
Cheating on a test in any other way. 80

27.
NOW WHAT?
Review Policy Options

28. KEY QUESTIONS THE TASK FORCE WILL BE ADDRESSING:
EDUCATION:
How can we do a better job of ensuring faculty and student familiarity with LCC policy?
How can we do a better job of teaching students both why integrity matters and how to operate with integrity in an academic environment?

29. KEY QUESTIONS THE TASK FORCE WILL BE ADDRESSING:
EDUCATION:
Can we come up with precise, consensus definitions of plagiarism and other forms of academic dishonesty for the purpose of institutional consistency? Must definitions be discipline-specific?

30. KEY QUESTIONS THE TASK FORCE WILL BE ADDRESSING:
PREVENTION:
What strategies can we use to better prevent academic dishonesty?
Traditional classroom
On-line classroom
Testing center
Modified honor code?

31. KEY QUESTIONS THE TASK FORCE WILL BE ADDRESSING:
IDENTIFICATION:
How can we make it easier for faculty to identify cases of (suspected) dishonesty?

32. KEY QUESTIONS THE TASK FORCE WILL BE ADDRESSING:
IDENTIFICATION:
How can we make it easier for faculty to determine the facts in cases of suspected cheating on examinations or plagiarism on papers?
SafeAssign (
Systematic sharing of information about everything from technological tools to appropriate ways to discuss suspected dishonesty with a student

33. KEY QUESTIONS THE TASK FORCE WILL BE ADDRESSING:
IDENTIFICATION:
How can we do a better job of identifying those individuals who are habitually dishonest?

34. KEY QUESTIONS THE TASK FORCE WILL BE ADDRESSING
RESPONSE:
How can we create more consistency across the institution in our response to instances of dishonesty?
What kind of policy would faculty actually follow? What would work for part-time as well as full-time faculty?
How can we streamline the institution’s response to faculty reports of dishonesty while protecting students rights to due process?

35. KEY QUESTIONS THE TASK FORCE WILL BE ADDRESSING
RESPONSE:
Which forms of response will best serve the following objectives:
Deterrence of dishonesty
Protection of honest students
Education

36. KEY QUESTIONS THE TASK FORCE WILL BE ADDRESSING
EDUCATION:
Which policies, procedures, and pedagogies (P3) will most effectively fulfill our mission to promote integrity in academia and beyond?

37. ACADEMIC HONESTY PROCEDURE

38. BREAK-OUT GROUPS
QUESTION #1: What are some ways to change the gap in perception between faculty and students regarding the seriousness of various forms of academic dishonesty? QUESTION #2: What are some of the ways we can educate our students about what is and is not appropriate and prevent the dishonest behaviors that are most prevalent? QUESTION #3: What kind of institutional policy would work best for faculty, generating both investment in the policy and consistency?