Academic Integrity Resource Center—Report on Integrity
I. Introduction
Emphasizing academic integrity, and enforcing academic integrity rules, is integral to a university education. Fostering a “climate of integrity” on campus supports Goal 2.3 of Michigan Tech’s Strategic plan: to promote and encourage student engagement and civic responsibility, and produce graduates with strong leadership capabilities.
Recent events on other campuses have made this report timely. In the past year, “cheating scandals” have been uncovered at Ohio University, Duke University and the Air Force Academy. The latter two institutions have long-standing honor codes. In a recent NPR interview, Donald McCabe of Rutgers University reviewed survey data from 5,300 students at 54 universities, and reported that “consistently business students and occasionally engineering students rise to the top” in terms of self-reported cheating. He believes that the data understates what is really going on. (Weekend Edition Sunday, May 6, 2007).
The current academic integrity policy was adopted by the University Senate and approved by the President in April 2006. The first formal academic integrity policy was drafted in 1994 and approved by the Senate and President in Fall 1995. The academic integrity policy is intended to (1) encourage faculty to report all suspected incidents of academic dishonesty to the Dean of Students Office; (2) hold students accountable for violations of the policy; and (3) provide students with due process rights. The policy also encourages students to report incidents of academic integrity; however, the University does not have an official “honor code” mandating students to report on other students.
II. Types of Cases
The academic integrity policy addresses the following conduct: plagiarism, cheating, fabrication and facilitating academic dishonesty. These categories occasionally overlap, and no one category is considered to be a more serious violation of the policy than another.
- Plagiarism—The classic plagiarism case is copying a term paper (from another student, cutting and pasting from a web site, or purchasing a term paper). However, as a technological university, Michigan Tech’s plagiarism cases most frequently relate to copying computer code. Unfortunately, the Michigan Tech student community has ready access to so-called “scoop” – a previous paper, exam or project written or completed by another student and passed on to other students. In today’s technological world, “scoop” is often emailed or shared via jump drives.
- Cheating—This is defined as using an unauthorized study aid, such as a “cheat sheet” in an exam, looking at another student’s exam, sharing answers via email or cell phone during an exam, or discussing an out of class assignment with another student without authorization of the professor (“unauthorized collaboration.”) A typical situation in the latter category is working on an “individual” assignment using information obtained from another student. Cheating also includes submitting an academic exercise completed for one class in another class, without the explicit approval of both instructors.
- Fabrication—Submitting falsified lab data is fabrication. Another example is changing an answer on a returned assignment and submitting it for regrading.
- Facilitating academic dishonesty—This is defined as “knowingly” helping another student cheat, plagiarize or fabricate. Scenarios often involve friends, roommates, or family members who have previously taken a course and provide a student with completed assignments or exams (“scoop”).
III. Prevention
Consistent with the University’s strategic plan, the Office of Student Judicial Affairs (OSJA) has engaged in multi-pronged education and prevention programs including: training all new faculty and GTAs on academic integrity issues; visiting departments and classrooms to raise awareness; creating an informative brochure on academic integrity issues and an on-line reporting site for faculty; providing Perspectives faculty with academic integrity training materials for first year students; working with Orientation to create a more meaningful program on academic integrity; and creating a 12 minute training video for students available on-line. (See "Academic Integrity at Michigan Tech: What Students Need to Know".)
In addition, a task force was formed by the OSJA (Associate Director Rob Bishop) to increase communication, strengthen collaboration and improve coordination on initiatives promoting diversity, integrity and justice. A group of faculty, staff and students meet on a monthly basis to discuss programs, resources and/or concerns in their departments addressing these areas. This ties in with a restorative justice initiative in the OSJA, but also with academic integrity issues.
IV. Hearing Procedures
As a state university, Michigan Tech must provide due process to students charged with academic integrity violations. This process is spelled out in the academic integrity policy and procedures. When the Dean of Students office receives a report of suspected academic integrity, it is referred to the OSJA. The report is reviewed with the submitting faculty member by a hearing officer (the Director or Associate Director of the OSJA.) An initial conference letter is sent to the student. At the initial conference, the hearing officer explains the procedures and reviews the evidence with the student. Often an academic integrity report involves two or more students. In that case, the hearing officer meets with all students separately but also may meet with the group during the initial conference.
Often the facts are not disputed, and a student agrees to an immediate administrative hearing with the hearing officer. On other occasions, students request additional time to prepare and the administrative hearing is scheduled at a later time with a hearing officer. Students may also have the case heard by a panel of the Academic Integrity Committee, which consists of trained faculty, staff and students. Any student found responsible may file an appeal with the Dean of Students.
| Reported Incidents 2001-2006 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Incidents Referred | Not Responsible | Committees (since 2003 – no prior records) | Appeals |
| 330 | 74 | 4 | 84 |
| Sanctions 2001-2006 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Warning | Censure | Grade Reduction | F* | Suspension | Expulsion |
| 148 | 0 | 33 | 64 | 7 | 2 |
Sanctions range from an “academic integrity warning,” “academic integrity censure,” “grade reduction in the course by one letter grade,” “F* - failure by reason of academic dishonesty,” “suspension” and “expulsion.”
| Demographic 2001-2006 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class | 2001-02 | 2002-03 | 2003-04 | 2004-05 | 2005-06 |
| FR | 7 | 33 | 28 | 16 | 31 |
| SOPH | 7 | 9 | 18 | 27 | 13 |
| JR | 10 | 12 | 9 | 11 | 13 |
| SR | 4 | 9 | 9 | 21 | 23 |
| GR | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
From 2001-02 to 2005-06, a total of 261 male students and 69 female students were charged.
Submitted by Patricia A. Gotschalk, Director, Office of Student Judicial Affairs
