An academic dishonesty dilemma: a case study.

Abstract

One problem all instructors face is that at some point they will discover a student who plagiarizes. Occasionally, one student will take another student's work. In this case study, one student stole the work of another on the capstone project required to receive the Master of Science degree. While the faculty recognized the writing style of the actual author, proving which student wrote the material was impossible. As a result the faculty came up with a unique way to handle the incident.

Introduction

Within the broader society students see that few individuals involved in dishonest practices pay a price for that dishonesty. Indeed, over the past few years dishonesty among politicians and prominent business people has been widely reported in the media. From presidents and congressmen lying to businesses like Enron playing shell games with their accounting practices, students see how most of the individuals have profited and not paid for their dishonesty. So from the broader society, students get the message that the consequence of such behavior is minimal. Within the academy, students who are caught often experience a sense of shock when there are consequences for acts of plagiarism. Several studies indicate that large numbers of students in higher education engage in cheating (Simon, et. al., 2003; Davis & Ludvigson, 1995; Moore, 2002). In addition to the students' behavior, some teachers state that there could be legal problems if they charge a student with cheating. Another reason instructors avoid accusations of dishonesty is that it takes up too much time to research and defend the accusations (Petress, 2003). This has consequences for our society as a whole.

Sims (1993) indicated that students who engaged in acts of academic dishonesty were more likely to practice unethical behavior in their business practices. Other researchers have also found a positive relationship between academic dishonesty and dishonest behavior in the workplace (Nonis & Swift, 2001). While there are indications that professors do not always address incidents of academic dishonesty (Petress, 2003), one can also assume that professors do not always catch students who commit acts of academic dishonesty. Indeed one of the authors had the experience as a new professor of having a copy of a test stolen and not learning of the incident until after the test had been administered. If a student had not come forward, the professor would not have known about the cheating. How many students buy, copy, or otherwise find ways around the assessments that are carefully prepared? We will probably never know the numbers but we must deal with those we encounter because there is a societal price to pay if we as professors do not enforce consequences for academic dishonesty that we discover. The incident described in this article describes what two faculty members did when encountering an incident where one student stole another student's work and included it in the culminating special project for graduation.

Background

Students who will graduate from the Master of Science in Instructional Technology Master's Program at an urban southeastern university must complete a thesis or special project as part of their graduation requirements. The special project is expected to be equivalent to the thesis in effort. The special project could be anything from the development of training for a business or web-based educational materials for K-12 students. As often occurs in graduate school, individuals team up in pairs or small groups to study and discuss what they are learning. Indeed, this is an aspect of graduate school that we encourage as the discussion and sharing help students refine their thinking and help them develop as professionals within their field of study. In the case we are describing here two students followed this pattern. For the sake of the article we will call one student Barbara and the other Wendy (both students were female). Barbara began the program prior to Wendy. Wendy began the program the semester after Barbara. The two became study partners and friends. Barbara's work was excellent; however, Wendy's work would barely meet the criteria. Wendy constantly complained about the work and stated she was going to another institution. She missed a semester. During that period Barbara was still enrolled in classes and continued within the earlier established pattern of submitting excellent work. The following semester Wendy returned to the program. While Barbara took one or two courses a semester, Wendy took additional courses until both had the same number of hours left to complete. The two of them planned to graduate the same semester and began the special project process.

The Discovery of Academic Dishonesty

Each chose a different person for the chair of the special project committee. The committee is made up of a chair whom the student chooses, an appointed instructional technology faculty member and a member who is not from instructional. Barbara handed in her proposal prior to the initial deadline as was requested by her chair and followed the recommendations made by her chair for improvement prior to her proposal being submitted to the full committee for approval. Wendy handed in an incomplete proposal and did not respond to e-mails from her chair informing Wendy that the proposal needed improvements. When Wendy finally responded and met with her chair, she argued about what was required. The topic of the special project was approved but Wendy was advised that she needed to improve her literature review and include more information about the need for the project. Barbara and Wendy met the deadline for submission of the special project. However, both were told by their chairs to revise specific areas of the written portion of their projects (both had designed instructional CD/websites on different topics). Barbara's required minor changes. Wendy was told that she needed to add a great deal more to her literature review as it still lacked the substance needed. Both projects were resubmitted to the committee members.

The chairs of each committee happened to be discussing the projects with each other and began to talk about some of the references used in the literature reviews. During the discussion there was a feeling that something was similar in the literature reviews. Both faculty members reviewed the literature reviews and found portions were exactly the same. The faculty members had had both students in classes and knew that the issue of plagiarism and cheating had been addressed in their classes and on their syllabi. While both faculty members had experienced academic dishonesty in their classes, the discovery of the plagiarism on the special project was a new experience for both.

The Dilemma

While both faculty members had policies for handling academic dishonesty in their classes this was the first time either had encountered the problem within the special project. In addition, the policy stated in the Graduate Catalog allowed for individualized action. The policy reads:

   In instances where a student has clearly been identified as having
   committed an academic act of dishonesty, the instructor may take
   appropriate punitive action including a loss of credit for an
   assignment, and examination or project, or awarding a grade of "F"
   for the course subject to the review and endorsement of the
   chairperson and the dean. Repeated offenses can even lead to
   dismissal from the University. (Graduate Catalog, 2001-2003, p.
   23).

As can be seen the decision about the consequences rests within the school, department, and faculty involved. The incident was not within the scope of a course but within the context of preparation of the capstone for graduation. In addition, the problem involved two students rather than one student plagiarizing from a journal. There was an inherent problem with definitively determining who took whose work, even though both faculty members believed the style of writing involved belonged to Barbara rather than Wendy. The areas of the literature reviews in question appeared to be in Barbara's writing style and since Barbara normally handed in outstanding work (even when work was completed in class under proctored conditions) and Wendy's work usually just met the established criteria there was some concern on the part of the faculty that Wendy had taken advantage of the working relationship with Barbara. Indeed, one of the faculty members often encouraged students to read each other's work and make suggestions to each other to improve their writing and so it was believed that the two had perhaps exchanged earlier drafts of their projects.

Both faculty members believed that the incident required special consideration. Ordinarily, if academic dishonesty was discovered in the thesis or special project the student would be dismissed from the program. However, since there was a chance that one of the students was innocent (and it must be stated the faculty felt that was the case but could not legally prove which, if either student was innocent), it was decided to develop an alternative action. Initially the faculty members met with the Chair of the department about the problem. The Chair stated that she would support whatever action the faculty members deemed appropriate.

Appointments with the students were set up so that Barbara came in for an interview about the problem and then Wendy would come in while Barbara waited and then both students would be interviewed jointly. At the beginning of the individual interviews each student was shown the pages in each literature review, asked to compare the pages, and explain how they came to be alike. When Barbara compared the pages, she looked shocked and said that she was not sure how this could have happened. When encouraged to state how she thought it could have happened, she stated that they had exchanged work at different times during the production of their projects but she had not seen any areas prior to this that were exactly alike. Barbara appeared near tears and stated that she understood how serious the situation was and that she was sorry the incident had occurred. At that point the faculty members stated that the normal consequence for plagiarism was dismissal from the program. Barbara stated that she understood and accepted that it was appropriate under the circumstances. At that point we dismissed her and asked her to wait while we called in Wendy.

After Wendy compared the papers she stated that she did not see what the problem was. When she was asked to explain how the pages were exactly the same, she said that she and Barbara had worked together on the literature reviews. Wendy was asked to explain how the collaboration occurred. She stated that one of them would type the material while the other dictated. When asked who did the typing she said she did not remember. When told that the normal consequence for such behavior was dismissal from the program without being allowed to graduate, she said that she didn't think that was appropriate because in classes they had done group work and this had been simply doing group work. Wendy continued to justify the situation even when confronted with questions that required her to state the differences between group work and individual work and who is assigned as authors in those cases and the discussions about copyright, fair use, and plagiarism that had occurred in classes she had taken. Wendy held her position that she had done nothing wrong throughout both the individual and the group meeting.

Barbara was called back into the meeting. Both Barbara and Wendy were asked to explain why there was a difference between their two stories. Barbara said that she didn't know and Wendy kept saying there was no difference between the stories even when confronted with Barbara's position that they had exchanged some of their work. When Wendy would say that they had worked together, Barbara would say, "We exchanged papers," but would not say they had not typed the material together. At this point both students were told that they would not be able to graduate that semester. Wendy then stated she didn't see why not. She suggested that the work in question be removed and she and Barbara discuss to whom each portion belonged and give each other credit within their literature reviews. Wendy then stated that then the two of them could graduate on time. The faculty members told her that was impossible. Barbara and Wendy were both told that the faculty would discuss the possibility of an action other than dismissal from the program but would not guarantee that either of them would be permitted to graduate at any time in the future.

The Consequences

After much discussion, it was decided to require both students to complete additional requirements and if the individual met the requirements, she would be allowed to graduate the following semester. Each student was called in for another individual meeting and given a letter stating that she had been involved in an academic dishonesty incident and in order to graduate must successfully fulfill certain requirements. The requirements were listed in the letter and discussed during the meeting. After the requirements were discussed each student was required to sign a letter stating that she understood the requirements and understood that failing any one of the requirements meant that she would be dismissed from the program. Each student had to meet the four requirements discussed during this meeting.

The first requirement was that each student had to write a letter to the Chair of the department and the Instructional Technology faculty apologizing for the act of academic dishonesty. The faculty believed it was important to have the students acknowledge that what had happened was inappropriate. While Barbara had done so from the beginning, Wendy never had and it was felt that she needed to do so.

After consideration, the faculty thought there might be a high probability that the student who plagiarized would do poorly if required to write a proctored literature review. Therefore, the second requirement was that a proctored written performance assessment meeting specific criteria be passed in order to stay in the program. Each student was provided with a grading rubric prior to the assessment and again on the day of the assessment. Barbara and Wendy were also informed that they would be given articles the day of the assessment to use to complete the literature review and that they would be given eight hours to complete the literature review. They were also informed that they would be given time for lunch if so desired. Both students were allowed to bring their APA Style Manuals to the assessment. The articles provided to the students were on academic dishonesty.

Since the incident involved the special projects, the special projects were considered tainted and both were told that new special project proposals would have to be completed and approved. If the proposal was not accepted by the second revision, the student would then be dismissed from the program. The last requirement was to complete the new special project. The project would have to meet all of the standard deadlines the following semester. In addition, the student would not receive feedback from the faculty during the development process. The student would be submitting to the whole committee and given only one chance for corrections.

The Outcome

The first requirement to write a letter of apology was met by both students. Next both students attended the proctored writing assessment. The papers were graded according to the rubric provided to the students in advance of the assessment. Barbara met all of the requirements established in the rubric. While her six pages of text included all requirements, not all were of high standard. Wendy produced two and a half pages that met only three of the requirements established by the rubric. As a result, Barbara was allowed to continue with the last two requirements and Wendy was formally dismissed from the Instructional Technology Master's Program. Barbara completed the process and produced a new project of high quality. Wendy brought a complaint against the faculty to the Academic Review Board. However, the actions of the faculty and her dismissal from the program were upheld.

Final Considerations

As a result of this incident, much discussion has occurred in which faculty members are discussing consistent means of dealing with the issue of academic dishonesty. The authors of this article developed a section for our syllabi that details the different types of academic dishonesty and the differences between group work and plagiarism. The current statement in our syllabi reads as follows:

Academic Honesty Policy

As a student in the Instructional Technology Master's Program at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University you are expected to maintain high ethical and moral standards.

The following activities are behaviors that display acts of academic dishonesty:

* Using another person's work and presenting it as if it were your own.

* Examples

* Copying from a classmate

* Copying from the web, journal or book

* Purchasing a paper or project

* Not giving credit to the author when you paraphrase 

* Treating an individual assignment as a group assignment. When you are expected to complete an assignment alone you do not work in a group.

* Failing to contribute a fair share of work to group assignments

* Creating false information.

* Examples

* Making up references for a paper

* Saying you have read assigned readings when you have not

* Making up experiences, such as, case studies or other data that you use to present as research you have done

* Helping another individual cheat by providing your help or assistance in any way. This does not mean being isolated. It is expected that in graduate school you will discuss ideas and information that you are learning so that you can develop a deep understanding of the material however, you should not provide information and materials to a fellow student to complete an assignment that he or she must hand in as their own work.

CONSEQUENCES of Academic Dishonesty in this Class

By committing acts of academic dishonesty you are not achieving what is expected of you within the program and are actually not learning those things expected of a professional in this field. While I may not catch ALL individuals who commit acts of academic dishonesty, those who are caught will be given an F in a course and a letter in your file explaining why the F was assigned.

As can be seen by the statement in the syllabi, both group work and individual work treated as group work are addressed.

During the time of this incident, other graduate instructors in the department had experiences within their classes. The chair indicated that she believed that we needed to establish a departmental policy that was clear and consistent. As a result of this incident, the faculty of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction developed consistent policies for handling academic dishonesty at both the undergraduate and the graduate levels (See Appendix A for the undergraduate policy). The policy is similar for the description of offenses but the consequences are an F in the course for the first offense and letter in the file and dismissal from the program for the second offense or an offense occurring within the thesis, special project or other final benchmark (each program in Curriculum and Instruction has it's own capstone or benchmark). At Noah Carolina A&T State University all policies must be reviewed by the university lawyers and higher administration. After approval, students will be given the form and the advisor will discuss the policy with the students. Once the document it signed it will be placed in the student's permanent departmental folder. The faculty felt that by emphasizing the issue with students and requiring a signature, students would be more likely to understand the behaviors expected.

Appendix A

Undergraduate Academic Honesty Policy Of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction

As a student in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University I know 1 am expected to maintain high ethical and moral standards. Since that is the case, 1 understand that I must complete all work in an academically honest fashion.

I understand that the following activities are behaviors that display acts of academic dishonesty:

* Using another person's intellectual property and presenting it as if it were my own. Intellectual property as defined by the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (2001) is the "intangible property that is the result of creativity."

* Creating false information.

* Allowing another student to use your intellectual property, except when the instructor's policy states otherwise in the syllabus.

CONSEQUENCES

The first offense will result in the student meeting with the faculty member, the Director of Teacher Education, and the Chair of Curriculum and Instruction. The student will also redo the assignment in question. A letter of reprimand will be given to the student and a copy placed in the student's permanent file.

Should a second offense occur, the student will receive an automatic F in the course in which the offense occurred. The student will meet with the faculty member, the Director of Teacher Education, and the Chair of Curriculum and Instruction. A second letter of reprimand will be given to the student and a copy place in the student's permanent file..

The third offense will result in the student's expulsion form the program. The student will be provided with a letter stating that he/she has been expelled for the offense of academic dishonesty and a letter placed in the student's permanent file. Upon receipt of the letter the student may follow the normal appeals process.

I have read and understand the above and by signing this I indicate that I know and understand the seriousness of academic honesty and will maintain high standards throughout my studies.

Signature --

Date --

References

Davis, S. F. & Ludvigson, H. W. (1995). Additional data on academic dishonesty and a proposal for remediation. Teaching of Psychology, 22 (2), 119-121.

Graduate Catalog of North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, 11 (1). (2001-2003). Greensboro, NC.

Moore, B.J. (2002). Truth or consequences. About Campus, 7(4), 25-28.

Nonis, S. & Swift, C.O. (2001). An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Journal of Education for Business, 77(2), 69-77.

Petress, K.C. (2003). Academic dishonesty: A plague on our profession. Education, 123(3), 624628.

Simon, C. A., Carr, J.R., McCullough, S.M., Morgan, S.J., Oleson, T. & Ressel, M. (2003). The other side of academic dishonesty: the relationship between faculty skepticism, gender and strategies for managing student academic dishonesty cases. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28 (2), 193-207.

Sims, R. L. (1993). The relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices. Journal of Education for Business, 68(4), p. 207-211.

Karen Smith-Gratto, North Carolina A&T State University, NC

Muktha Jost, North Carolina A&T State University, NC

Smith-Gratto, Ph.D. and Jost are Associate Professors of Instructional Technology