Academic integrity: the report is out

UW will establish an “Academic Integrity Office”, the provost has announced, as one of the first responses to the report of the Academic Integrity Committee that has been at work for the past year and a half.

The committee was chaired by Bruce Mitchell, associate provost (academic and student affairs), and it’s under his authority that the new office will be set up “to coordinate and facilitate institution-wide initiatives”, provost Amit Chakma says in a memo to UW departments.

The provost said Deans’ Council — UW’s top administrators — endorsed the report on September 19. “Deans Council also was pleased to note that action already has been taken regarding some recommendations, such as to include academic integrity into orientation programs for new students and for new faculty, both of which occurred in early September.”

The deans agreed to ensure that “a statement related to academic integrity is included in print and electronic media produced by UW targeted to prospective and current students and, as appropriate, to faculty and staff” and to “develop and implement an online academic integrity module to be completed by new students during orientation”.

In addition, he said, UW will “identify academic units wishing to participate in a pilot project to use Plagiarism Detection Assistance Software to screen course assignments, and then implement the project”.

The report from Mitchell’s committee, which included students, faculty, staff and administrators, says that increasing numbers of faculty want UW to use such software — the best-known brand is Turnitin — to deter and detect cheaters. Students also emphasize the need for a level playing field, the report says: otherwise honest students may feel obliged to cheat as well. Although using plagiarism software undermines the core values of trust and respect, it does help to ensure that cheaters do not get an unfair advantage over students who work for their grades.

Different kinds of PDAS are available to compare a student’s work with other work in a range of ways, from only in that class at UW to a database of all submissions anywhere. Deans’ Council ruled against the general use of such software in January 2006, but it’s in use in a couple of special areas: MOSS (Measure of Software Similarity) is used for computer code, and WCopyfind for written text in the PDEng program.

Using databases maintained at UW should pose no problem, the committee says, but using databases maintained outside UW raises concerns about intellectual property and privacy. The committee recommends that UW should continue to use existing software to compare students’ work with that of others in same class or a previous class, but also should decide which third-party PDAS best enhances integrity and best deals with text assignments, and do a pilot study.

Back to top

'Develop a package of initiatives'

“Academic integrity is an important component for a university,” says Chakma’s memo, “and the University of Waterloo already has many initiatives to support high levels of academic integrity. Nevertheless, we can always improve. In that regard, the Sixth Decade Plan states that ‘To highlight the importance of achieving and sustaining high academic standards related to academic integrity, UW will develop and implement a package of initiatives to educate and sensitize students, faculty and staff about academic integrity issues and appropriate behaviour.’”

By the time that was written, the Mitchell committee was already at work. Its report, with a total of 36 recommendations, is now available online. Its title is Toward a Level Playing Field: Enhancing Integrity at the University of Waterloo.

“On behalf of the UW community,” says the provost, “I express my appreciation to all those who served on the Academic Integrity Committee, and to those individuals and units at UW who provided information and advice that informed the report. I particularly thank those who took the time to respond to the survey of undergraduate and graduate students, and faculty and staff, in October 2006.”

The Centre for Academic Integrity at Clemson University (of which UW is a member institution) defines AI as a commitment to five basic values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility. The report often refers to these values as the basis for UW policies on integrity or for changes that could be implemented.

There are two basic approaches one can take to promote a culture of AI, says the report: one based on distrust, focusing on prevention and detection, or one based on education and an assumption that most people want to embrace integrity. The UW committee advocates “a hybrid approach incorporating information, education, monitoring, detection and sanctions, because no single measure is sufficient to facilitate academic integrity.”

Surveys have found that more than half of Canadian undergraduate students admit to serious cheating on written work, with the most common offence (45 per cent) being working collaboratively when asked for individual work. But only 18 per cent of undergrads thought cheating was a serious problem on their campus. Suggested explanations for cheating include lack of maturity, poor teaching, perceived meaninglessness of the work, emphasis on grades over learning, and low chance of detection or sanction. Few students report other students, and many faculty fail to report cheating because of lack of time, evidence, knowledge of procedures, perceived lack of support from administration, and other reasons.

Back to top

Struggle against an 'alarming trend'

prepared in part by Patricia Bow

At UW, evidence from the University Committee on Student Appeals annual reports to Senate suggests “an alarming trend in cheating by first-year students” and an increased “sense of entitlement” among some students who think that they have paid for a degree and deserve to get it by any means. The UCSA cites larger class sizes with less individual attention for each student; examples of cheating in the worlds of business and sports; classmates who get away with cheating; pressure to get high grades and get into professional and grad programs; pressure from parents to succeed; confusion about how to cite sources and when collaborative work is a violation of AI; the availability of information on the Internet.

UW’s treatment of academic integrity is governed by Policies 71 (student academic discipline policy), 70 (student grievance), and 33 (ethical behaviour). Some faculties and departments also have statements on AI. The principles are set out clearly, says Mitchell’s committee; the problem may lie in poorly communicating them. There are also problems with the disciplinary and appeal process, with the security of final exams, and with procedures for giving students extensions for health reasons. Another problematic area is copyright, which seems to be confusing for faculty as well as students.

The report says the university communicates its expectations about AI in piecemeal fashion. Some sectors are better informed than others. Prospective students get no information. Current students and faculty members get some, but there is no consistent message on AI campus-wide, and no group with university-wide responsibility for AI concerns.

Last fall’s web-based survey drew what are considered to be healthy participation rates: undergrads 14.2 per cent, grad students 13.1 per cent, faculty 19.4 per cent. The committee report’s section about the survey says that the offence most commonly reported by undergrads (32 per cent) is working with others when asked for individual work. Less common behaviours include getting test questions from people who have already taken the test; getting unpermitted help on an assignment; copying a few sentences from a written source without citing; and copying from an electronic source without citing. Grad students admit to the same behaviours, but mostly at a lower rate, except when it comes to copying from a written source without citing (both 14 per cent).

However, faculty report these offences occurring at a much higher rate (collaborative work: 52 per cent, copying from a written source: 71 per cent). Students regard penalties as much more severe than do faculty. Asked to rate the seriousness of various offenses, undergrads rated some as less serious than did either grad students or faculty members, especially working collaboratively when asked for individual work – but some offences were rated as very serious by all three groups: helping someone cheat on a test, copying material word for word from a written source, and turning in work done by someone else.

Co-op students reported a low frequency of such behaviours as misrepresenting their qualifications or taking an interview for someone else, but nearly a quarter (23 per cent) said they had deliberately performed poorly in a job interview to avoid being offered the job.

These results are in line with findings of other Canadian and U.S. surveys: “The situation at Waterloo is not better or worse compared to other post-secondary institutions.” However, “the pattern appears to be that such behaviour is increasing.”

Back to top

Fair workloads and clear expectations

A section on “opportunities for enhancement” sets out the 36 recommendations, elaborates on them and discusses the thinking behind them. First principles: “academic integrity is a shared matter,” and staff, faculty and students are all responsible for supporting it; all recommendations are based on at least one of the CAI’s five values, giving a mix of approaches: education and communication along with monitoring, detection and sanctions. Again, “no one measure or approach is sufficient.”

Among the recommendations: UW should explicitly state and widely publicize its “vision for academic integrity”; faculty should make sure student workloads are fair; first offences should be treated as a learning experience (though there may be a penalty), but further offences should bring strong sanctions.

Several recommendations deal with “clear information” for current and future students; the committee says all students should complete an online module about AI before the end of their first academic term, and should sign off to show understanding. It says faculty should include AI in course outlines, especially clarifying how to cite sources and when to do collaborative work, and try to refresh assignments and exams each term.

More recommendations: there should be an AI Week, with events to raise the profile of AI, and an AI website; UW should ensure that faculty know how to deal with AI offences; try to alleviate large class sizes; assess exam security problems; tighten procedures for medical exceptions and extensions.

“Faculty members must always report any incidents of academic misconduct to the appropriate associate dean,” even when student and prof can agree to handle the matter between them, the committee advises.

It says a university-wide honour code would be “unworkable” but a modified honour code for grad students could work, and such a code is being drafted by the associate deans of graduate studies.

CAR

Back to top