Report on the Rutgers Academic Integrity Policy and its Implementation

Date

Background

The NBFC Academic Regulations and Standards Committee considered current academic integrity policies during the fall semester and held a discussion with the full NBFC at its December meeting. Brian T. Rose, Director of Compliance/Student Policy Concerns within the University-wide Office of the Vice-President for Student Affairs, also spoke at this meeting.

Much of the committee’s work, which commenced during the spring 2002 semester and continued through fall 2002,
consisted simply of gathering information about current practices. We found that most units (but not all – see the
“Continuing Education at Rutgers” catalogue) throughout the university, including those based in Camden and Newark,  include in their catalogues identical statements about academic integrity and the penalties for dishonesty. But determining actual practices proved to be complex, as many things seem to happen that are not well recorded, and substantially different implementations of the same basic policy seem to prevail in the diverse units represented in the NBFC. The committee believes that practices should be more uniform across all units of the university, although we note the view expressed by at least one NBFC member that graduate students, especially those who come from non-U.S. academic settings, may not understand our policies and their rationale.

The committee heard a variety of estimates about how widespread violations of academic integrity may be, and about what percentage of these are discovered and then reported in some official manner. Just to startle us a bit, it is reasonable to suggest that no more than 1 or 2 percent of clearly dishonest practices are even noticed, and a majority of these are not handled in accordance with the official policy stated in every unit catalogue.

 There are two distinct kinds of dishonest practices that dominate the cases now being reported: cheating on exams, and plagiarism on papers. The number of cheating cases reported seems to be the same over the years. In dramatic contrast, the number of plagiarism cases reported has increased by a factor of ten over the last few years and is now threatening to overload our judicial resources. We suspect that this is a result of better internet technology catching a higher percentage of plagiarism cases, but the same technology may be facilitating dishonesty as well. We view the internet plagiarism issue to be the most timely, fundamental and critical of the academic integrity issues we face.

Nonetheless, there appears to be no groundswell for a substantially revised policy. The voices we heard were divided, some calling for a less rigid policy and others for reduced discretion if discretion results in different outcomes for substantially similar offenses. More gathering of fact and opinion is in order.

Whatever we do about policies for dealing with known offenders, the committee members share the generally heard
sentiment that we need to look to prevention more than to punishment and to best practices more than to increased
policing. Academic dishonesty is demoralizing to the vast majority of students who are honest, and enhancing the
self-esteem of this majority is important. Some colleagues suggest that, before turning in an exam or assignment, each student should sign a statement attesting to its academic integrity. The purpose, in this and in any other “best practices,”would not be to entrap but rather to nourish environments where dishonesty is less likely to occur. If time pressures and life difficulties drive students to dishonesty, are there academically legitimate ways in which teachers might reduce the stress? One heretic suggested reduced penalties for late assignments and another recommended open book tests in certain situations. Less controversial approaches hold promise as well: better instruction on proper citation, both form and underlying rationale; a list of procedures for in-class test monitoring to remind faculty and TAs about the preventive value of random seating, packed-away book-bags, scrambled text questions, etc.; and clearer guidance on why the university policy – whatever it is – should be followed rather than having individual instructors invent ad hoc sanctions for perceived violations. The individual colleges, which may have resources to assist in educating students about the importance of academic integrity, have already undertaken laudable efforts to inform students and engage in prevention strategies. Dean Michael Stillwagon of Rutgers College discussed several of these endeavors in the context of a recent case referred by committee chair Bell.

The committee notes that while it quite properly initiated a discussion of academic integrity issues, neither it nor the full New Brunswick Faculty Council is the proper place for concluding our work. The University Senate needs to deal with the issue, which is surely university-wide and surely of concern to all stakeholders in the university.

Recommendations

We recommend that:

   1) A copy of this report be forwarded to the University Senate for further consideration
   2) The incoming Executive Vice-President for Academic Affairs appoint a university-wide committee including
      faculty, students, and administrators to review existing policy and to develop a “Best Practices” manual for all
      instructors, with appropriate sub-sections made widely available to students as well.

 

APPENDIX: Review of Existing Academic Integrity Policy by Brian Rose

Rutgers Existing Policy

The Rutgers AI Policy is available at http://teachx.rutgers.edu/integrity/.The AI Policy defines prohibited behavior, ranks prohibited behavior into four levels of increasing severity and recommends judicial sanctions for each level of severity.The AI Policy does not itself define the process or procedures by which a student is actually found responsible for a violation; rather, the AI Policy is bootstrapped to the University Code of Student Conduct (“UCSC”).This means that a student who is alleged to have violated the AI Policy is charged with a violation of the UCSC.The matter is then resolved as would be any other charge under the UCSC such as “theft” or “use of force”.The procedures outlined in the UCSC work as follows:

  • There is a complaint that a student has engaged in prohibited conduct (in this case a violation of the AI Policy). The faculty member responsible for the course in question will typically lodge the complaint in an AI case.
  • A Dean at the student’s school of enrollment will conduct a Preliminary Review that will either result in the dismissal of the complaint (insufficient evidence to proceed), an admission of responsibility by the student (in which case the Dean will coordinate a sanction) or a charge against the student that will require adjudication by a hearing panel. There are two jurisdictional layers within this process. Offenses that may lead to separation (suspension or expulsion) are considered “university level offenses” and any hearing would be run through the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs. Offenses that are non-separable are considered “college level” and any hearing would be run through the student’s school of enrollment. AI cases can be either separable or non-separable depending upon the level of severity.
  • For cases that go to a hearing, the hearing panel typically consists of three (3) students and two (2) faculty members. A hearing officer (commonly an attorney from outside the university) presides over the forum. The hearing board will find the student responsible or not responsible for the violation using the standard of “clear and convincing evidence. The case will usually require some presentation of facts by the faculty member who brought the charge. The faculty member will be subject to questioning by the hearing panel, the hearing officer and the “respondent” (i.e. the student charged with the violation). The faculty member will also have the opportunity to be assisted by a “campus advisor” and to question any witnesses presented by the student. The hearing panel will find the student responsible or not responsible and recommend a sanction subject to the review of the Vice President for Student Affairs. There is an appeals procedure for students who believe they were wrongfully found responsible or given an unfair sanction.
  • Until this process is complete, the student’s status should not change (i.e. the student should have all the rights of any other student in terms of class attendance, use of campus facilities and so on). 

The most common violations officially adjudicated at Rutgers are plagiarism on major written works and cheating on examinations by collaboration or use of unauthorized materials.These cases most typically result in a sanction of suspension for one semester to two years (depending upon severity), an “F” in the course in question and perhaps some form of probation upon the student’s return from suspension.Violations by graduate students are more severely punished and quite often result in expulsion.

The AI Policy includes a so-called “rat clause” that creates an expectation that students will report to faculty / staff apparent incidents of academic dishonesty of which they become aware.

The AI Policy was last updated in 1997.It did not undergo substantive revisions, but was rather changed only to be consistent with the then new UCSC.During the same time period that the UCSC was being reviewed and rewritten 1992-1994, there was a committee organized under the auspices of the New Brunswick Provost and chaired by Dr. Leslie Fishbein that began the process of reviewing the AI Policy.That effort resulted in a report that concluded with several recommendations (See Appendix 1 hereto – hard copy only).Those recommendations were never formally reported, as it was determined that any action on the AI Policy should await the then pending review of the UCSC.The subsequent dissolution of the New Brunswick Provost Office essentially cut-off any systemic effort to resume the work of the committee upon implementation of the revised UCSC in January 1995.The UCSC itself was recently reviewed by the Committee on Student Conduct (2001-2002).While the report from that review has not been acted upon to date, it contained a recommendation that a committee be charged to review the AI Policy.

Incidence of Violations

Violations of the AI Policy are by far the most common violations of the UCSC addressed through the student disciplinary process.For example, in the Spring 2002 term, there were 92 judicial matters reported through the Office of Compliance, Student Policy and Judicial Affairs, 81 of which involved alleged violations of the AI Policy.In all but two of those cases, the student either accepted responsibility or was found responsible by a hearing panel.The data for other terms is similar in terms of the high incidence of AI Policy violations as a percentage of the total number of judicial cases.

We know anecdotally that these numbers do not represent anything close to the total number of AI Policy violations actually occurring on our campuses.This is true for all the following reasons:

  • The numbers do not include “college level” matters that involve less severe violations of the AI Policy for which separation is not a recommended sanction.
  • The numbers do not include those instances of cheating where student and faculty member reach agreement on a resolution “outside the system”.
  • The numbers do not include instances where a faculty member or a department imposes sanctions upon students (without the student’s agreement) and the student is unaware that this is inconsistent with existing policies or unwilling to lodge a complaint.
  • The numbers do not include instances of cheating observed by faculty, but that go un-addressed and unreported for whatever reason.
  • The numbers do not include instances of cheating that go undetected.

Perceptions of AI Policy

We also know anecdotally that there is widespread dissatisfaction with both the specifics of the AI Policy and with the process of adjudicating alleged violations under the UCSC.Common sources of dissatisfaction include the following:

  • Many members of the faculty believe that AI violations are “academic matters” that rightfully fall within the prerogatives of academic freedom. That is, they believe they should be free to resolve alleged instances of cheating within their departments without the involvement of the student disciplinary process. 
  • Faculty members and students both sometimes object to the perceived severity of the recommended sanctions under the AI Policy. TO the extent that faculty members may regard the likely sanction as too severe, it discourages reporting of the violation and encourages resolution outside of prescribed policies and procedures. [1]
  • Common beliefs among faculty members include that the student disciplinary process “takes too long”, requires too much effort on their part, applies too high a standard of proof, or fails to give proper weight to their testimony / opinions on appropriate sanctions. This undermines the legitimacy of the existing AI Policy. By the same token, the disciplinary system would be quickly overwhelmed should more AI cases be referred into official channels. 
  • Students charged with violations routinely complain that they did not understand their conduct to be a violation (this is most common in the context where students fail to properly cite to a source, including Internet sources).
  • Students officially charged with violations often express surprise at the severity of the sanctions compared with the supposed experiences of classmates who they believe were able to resolve similar matters informally with faculty with much less severe sanctions. 
  • Students routinely prolong the judicial process through all its various levels because they do not want to accept the recommended sanction and not because they dispute the conduct. This contributes to the inefficiency of the system.

Campus Efforts to Promote Academic Integrity

The AI Policy does not clearly define any one office as having responsibility to educate the community with respect to the norms articulated in the AI Policy.There are and have been several initiatives undertaken by various offices, departments and programs to undertake such education, though they suffer from a lack of coordination and consistency.Some examples of efforts undertaken to educate the community as to the AI Policy include the following:

  • College judicial officers publish educational materials, distribute information via broadcast emails and discuss the AI Policy during New Student Orientation and in residence life programming modules. These efforts differ from college to college and the published materials are different (though the AI Policy itself is unchanged). The extent to which any individual college employs any or all of these strategies varies from year to year.
  • The Graduate School New Brunswick conducts training programs for GA’s and TA’s on a semesterly basis and also publishes educational materials for students.
  • FAS has distributed correspondence to faculty reviewing the AI Policy.
  • Many faculty members include information on course syllabi.
  • The Writing Program includes within its curriculum instruction on proper citation and the AI Policy generally as do many other introductory level courses in various academic programs and disciplines.
  • The Teaching Excellence Centers maintains an academic integrity website.
  • There have been occasional student-directed programs attempting to promote student awareness conducted under the auspices of various student affairs offices over the years.

It is unclear to what extent the University provides training or information to new and/or adjunct faculty, though one suspects that this varies from department to department and program to program.

There does not appear to be any systemic effort to assess community attitudes towards the AI Policy, awareness of the AI Policy, or the efficacy of the AI Policy in deterring prohibited behavior.There also does not appear to be any systematic effort to recognize those faculty members who handle matters in accordance with the AI Policy, nor to discourage non-compliance.I am unaware of what programs there may be in place to train faculty with regard to administering examinations in ways that promote integrity and/or deter cheating.There does not appear to be a program for providing “test proctoring” services to aid in administering exams, though there may be informal or even formal programs within individual departments of which I am unaware.

National Data and Policy Norms

Data
Rutgers School of Business Professor Donald McCabe regularly conducts research among both college students and high school students with regard to academic dishonesty.At the 2002 Center for Academic Integrity Annual Conference in Charlottesville, VA, Professor McCabe reported the following data:

Student Self-Report

Faculty Observed

Serious Cheating

23%

52%
Serious Written Cheating

50%

84%
Internet Plagiarism

40%

60%
Buying from Term Paper Mill

4%

28%

Collaboration

44%

55%

Dr. McCabe also reported the following data from surveys of high school students

1 or more serious incidents of cheating 74%

cheating on written work72%

1 questionable activity (e.g. copying homework)97%

3 or more serious instances of cheating33%

Without parsing the data too deeply, it is certainly fair to conclude that academic dishonesty is widespread and pervasive among students in higher education.It is also fair to conclude that large numbers of new students arrive on campus having already engaged in significant academic dishonesty.

It should be noted here that there is a larger national context around issues of integrity that reaches beyond student academic integrity.Examples of integrity in the news include:

  • Apparent plagiarism in the general interest press (Doris Kearns Goodwin / Stephen Ambrose)
  • Revocation of various awards and resignation of Emory University Professor Michael Beleisiles in connection with alleged “poor scholarship” in a trade book addressing the history of gun use in America.
  • Corporate scandals (Enron, Worldcom, TYCO, etc.)

This larger context suggests a possible need for curricular initiatives with respect to ethics and integrity.

Policy Norms

There have been a handful of published studies done over the last decade with regard to college and university efforts to promote student academic integrity.David K. Bush, Ed.D. presented his research dissertation at the 2002 Center for Academic Integrity Conference in Charlottesville Virginia (Executive Summary attached to hard copy). [2]Dr. Bush’s research helps to identify common policy norms and practices across other institutions.[3]Among his findings are the were the following:

Sanctions

Sanctions reported as available at responding institutions included all the following:

Grade Sanctions

Penalize grade in the assignment / test66%

Penalize grade in course (other than F)64%

Zero “O” for assignment / test79%

Fail course82%

Records Sanctions

Warning in Student File56%

Probation noted on transcript / file57%

 

Separation Sanction

Suspension for term81%

Conditional Suspension (return upon completing work)53%

Expulsion73%

Work Sanctions (e.g., write a paper, do a program)49%

 

Education

Educational initiatives employed at responding institutions included all the following:

Dissemination of written policy to faculty / staff84%

Dissemination of written policy to students89%

Training to new faculty39%

Training to TA / GA21%

Publish Handbook94%

Utilize Campus Media50%

Programming to discuss honesty with students82%

Other

Other data of note from the Bush research includes the following:

Institutional Efforts to assess effectiveness of policy44%

Schools with a “rat clause” (report others)64%

Honor Code[4]43%

This data does not suggest that Rutgers is out of the mainstream in terms of the sanctions used to deter academic dishonesty.The one exception is that Rutgers could perhaps make better use of a wider variety of grade sanctions (at least our official process relies heavily upon assigning a course grade of F rather than upon other grade sanctions).Moreover, while the Bush data does not discuss the use of so-called “x-grades”, this was at the heart of the model suggested by the provostial committee report referenced above and attached (hard copy only). [5]

The data does suggest that other institutions perhaps do more than does Rutgers in terms of education of students and staff around issues of academic integrity.While Rutgers does employ many of the educational strategies listed above, we do so only within particular programs and not in a systematic, consistent and comprehensive manner.In short, I suspect our educational efforts have many holes.

Analysis / Recommendations

The point of this paper is not to draw specific conclusions, but rather to present information around a topic of increasing interest to our community.I believe two central conclusions can, nonetheless, be easily drawn:

  1. Student academic dishonesty is a significant problem at Rutgers and within all of higher education
  1. The concerns by all constituencies with the workings of our existing AI Policy as well as our educational efforts merit a review of our practices and policies. Even if we conclude with an endorsement of our existing practices and policies, the review process is, in my view appropriate to re-establish community consensus around some fundamental principles and to restore the legitimacy of the AI Policy and the procedures to which it is tied.

I would personally also suggest the following:

  • Any review process should certainly make reference to the above-referenced provostial report and its many recommendations, including the use of “X” grades (the report actually uses the letter “Y” as the proposed grade).
  • Efforts to promote academic integrity and the AI Policy within the community should be coordinated to promote a consistent message and to communicate a strong community value around principles of academic honesty. Well-intentioned but uncoordinated efforts tend to diffuse the impact of the message. The educational efforts should also be comprehensive, diverse in delivery modalities and supported with sufficient resources to establish a strong community message around principles of academic honesty.
  • Any policy must have legitimacy and acceptance among faculty to be successful. This necessitates a strong faculty role in any review and a continuing faculty presence in administration and assessment of institutional policies and practices related to academic integrity. 
  • Any policy must also have legitimacy and acceptance among students, the ultimate aim being to promote honesty more so than to punish dishonesty. In my own view this requires (a) consistency in application; (b) a role for students in the process of responding to alleged violations; and (c) a role for students in educating their peers about the central tenets of the AI Policy.
  • The structure of the existing AI Policy tends to promote rigidity of sanctions sine it carves up violations into levels and ties a recommended sanction(s) to each level. Any review should consider whether we would be better served by permitting more flexibility in sanctions and/or a broader range of recommended sanctions from which to choose. 
  • A review should consider the possible use of uniform mechanisms to promote awareness of academic integrity. Some institutions require students to pass a “quiz” before being granted access to institutional computing networks or course registration systems. Others require model statements to be included on all course syllabi and / or send recurring official notices to students. A single “handbook” made available to all students and faculty should be considered. 
  • The University should consider systematically assessing the efficacy of its efforts on a recurring basis and establishing a mechanism within the AI Policy requiring periodic re-evaluation (e.g. review every 7 years) and should clarify responsibility for same.
  • A review of the process by which alleged violations of the AI Policy are adjudicated should be mindful of efficiency (i.e. resolving matters promptly), fairness (permitting students adequate due process) and sound record keeping (reporting violations centrally so repeat-offenders can be identified and data on violations easily maintained and reported to the community).

I hope the above information is useful to you in your deliberations.I will be working to further refine this document and would be pleased to have the opportunity to present you with additional information.

White Paper Produced by Brian T. Rose 

Director of Compliance, Student Policy and Judicial Affairs

[1] Special problems come up in the context of structured programs where a student who must repeat a course and/or who is suspended for a semester will effectively lose at least a year of study given the sequential nature of the program (i.e. the student cannot continue in the curriculum until they repeat the course in which they cheated and such course may only be offered once per year).Another circumstance that can aggravate the impact of a routine sanction involves international students.Suspension may trigger a loss of status under their visa, which may require them to leave the country.Depending upon a range of circumstances, reentry upon the expiration of the suspension may not be possible.
[2] Examining What We Are Doing:Contemporary Approaches to Promoting Student Academic Integrity, David K. Bush. Ed.D. 2002.
[3] Dr. Bush conducted his research around member institutions in the Center for Academic Integrity (which includes Rutgers) (a total of 188 with 77% responding).More than 90% of the respondents were four-year institutions, 50% were public and 20% enrolled more than 5000 students.
[4] An Honor Code usually involves a pledge by students to respect principles of academic honesty.Less common is a pledge by faculty to report instances of dishonesty.The typical Honor Code “trusts” students not to cheat and may have, for instance, unproctored exams.The concept is to foment a culture of honesty through mutual trust.Those who breech that trust are often sanctioned severely (e.g. expulsion) under an Honor Code system.
[5] The general concept of an x-grade is that a course grade that has been affected by disciplinary problems would carry an “X” prefix denoting them as disciplinary grades.Under various circumstances, the student could “work-off” the X prefix and convert the grade to a new course grade reflective of the student’s additional work.