1 / 29

9,000 Freshmen, One Common Foundation: Academic Integrity

9,000 Freshmen, One Common Foundation: Academic Integrity. Joe Buenker, Leslee Shell & Julie Tharp LOEX 36 th National Conference. Academic Integrity @ ASU. Spring/Summer 2007: ASU Libraries developed an academic integrity module for the new ASU 101 course ASU 101

dakota
Download Presentation

9,000 Freshmen, One Common Foundation: Academic Integrity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 9,000 Freshmen, One Common Foundation: Academic Integrity Joe Buenker, Leslee Shell & Julie Tharp LOEX 36th National Conference

  2. Academic Integrity @ ASU • Spring/Summer 2007: ASU Libraries developed an academic integrity module for the new ASU 101 course • ASU 101 • freshman-level • mandatory course

  3. ASU Campuses • 4 campuses • 8 libraries • 60,000+ students

  4. “One University in Many Places” • Increasingly students take courses on two or more campuses over ASU career • Single university accreditation • Single university governance/Senate • Increased collaboration

  5. Unified Curriculum

  6. ASU 101 vs. FYE University Success Course FYE: • Coordinated by University Academic Success Program • Taught by graduate students • Not required for all freshmen • Colleges not participating have little or no awareness of course content ASU 101: • Coordinated by the University Provost’s Office • Taught by administrators, faculty and advisors • Required of 9,000+ freshmen • All colleges and departments participate

  7. How We Got Involved • Task force: curriculum planning • Model syllabus • Expert teams • Instructional design support

  8. Academic Integrity Expert Team • 2 librarians from Tempe campus • 3 librarians from West campus • 1 instructional designer • 2 month timeline • Weekly meetings

  9. Structure of ASU 101 • Hybrid format • 5 week course • 1.5 hours/week in-class time • Administered through Blackboard

  10. ASU 101: Module Standards • For continuity, each module must have: • Introductory activity that facilitates learning • “Overview” • PowerPoint and Macromedia Breeze narration • Discussion board questions • Assessment / quiz

  11. Academic Integrity Issues in Higher Education • Not a new phenomenon • Different findings regarding prevalence and frequency • Not just plagiarism • Large body of literature • Relies on self-reported behavior

  12. Large-Scale Surveying • Prof. Donald McCabe of Rutgers • Center for Academic Integrity (Clemson U) • 80,000+ students and 12,000+ faculty • 83 American and Canadian institutions (McCabe, Trevino and Butterfield, 2001)

  13. Academic Dishonesty Over Time 1963 1993 • Serious test cheating 39% 64% • Serious cheating on 65% 66% written work • All cheating 75% 82% (McCabe, Trevino and Butterfield, 2001)

  14. Factors at Play • Students: • behaviors determines frequency of misconduct • Faculty: • behaviors can deter misconduct (use of plagiarism detection tools, use of proctors during exams, etc.) • Institutional Culture: • Student Code of Conduct • Honor Code (Hard, Conway and Moran 2006)

  15. Why Do Students Cheat? • Ignorance • Not invested in learning • Situational ethics • Low risk of detection (Auer and Kupar, 2001)

  16. What Students Say • Time pressures (stress) • Ease of cut-and-paste plagiarism • Low risk of detection • Dislike for the class or professor (Lester and Diekhoff, 2002) • Peer behavior (situational ethics) (McCabe, Trevino and Butterfield, 2001)

  17. Who Cheats? • High school students cheat at higher rate. • Majority of high school cheater continue to cheat in college. • Cheating is more widespread at larger university campuses. • High cheating rates among sororities / fraternities and college athletics. (Miller, Murdock, Anderman and Poindexter 2007)

  18. Major U.S. Plagiarism Studies I • College students and print sources 1964 = 43% (Bowers) 2003 = 40% (Hansen)

  19. Major U.S. Plagiarism Studies II • High school students and print sources 1985 (California) = 51% 1989 (Georgia) = 76% • Internet Plagiarism 2001 (high school) = 52% 2003 (college) = 38% (Hansen 2003)

  20. Blackboard Module

  21. Narrated PowerPoint (Breeze) • https://www.asu.edu/courses/asu101/breeze/academic_integrity_intro/index.htm

  22. Academic Honesty / Dishonesty Survey • ACTIVITY: Decide if the behaviors described in the scenarios are honest or dishonest

  23. Secondary Learning Objective: Avoiding Plagiarism • Avoiding plagiarism handout • Test your understanding • Discussion

  24. ASU 101 Evaluations: W.P. Carey College of Business • Discovering Campus Resources and Academic Advising: Very, Somewhat Helpful – 83% Not Helpful – 16% No Response – 1% • Academic Success / Integrity: Very, Somewhat Helpful -79% Not Helpful – 20% No Response -1% • Getting Involved on Campus: Very, Somewhat Helpful – 77% Not Helpful – 22% No Response – 1% • Managing Time Effectively, Study Skills: Very, Somewhat Helpful – 73% Not Helpful – 22% No Response – 5% • Stress Management: Very, Somewhat Helpful – 66% Not Helpful – 27% No Response – 7%

  25. Next Steps: Library Module 2 for ASU 101 • 3 librarians and 1 instructional designer currently developing a second module • Focus of Module: • Locations, services and collections of ASU Libraries • Relevance and importance of academic libraries in the Google Era

  26. References I • Auer, N.J. & Kupar, E.M. (2001). Mouse click plagiarism: The role of technology in combating plagiarism and the librarian’s role in combating it. Library Trends, 49(3): 415-432. • Hansen, B. (2003). Combating plagiarism. CQ Researcher, 13(2): 773-796. • Hard, S.F., Conway, J.M., & Moran, A.C. (2006). Faculty and student beliefs about the frequency of student academic misconduct. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(6): 1058-1080. • Lester, M.C. & Diekhoff, G.M. (2002). A comparison of traditional and Internet cheaters. Journal of College Student Development, 43(6): 906-911.

  27. References II • McCabe, D.L., Trevino, L.K., & Butterfield, K.D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics and Behavior, 11(3): 219-232. • Miller, A.D., Murdock, T.B., Anderman, E.M. and Poindexter, A.L. (2007). Who are all these cheaters? Characteristics of academically dishonest students (pp. 9-32). In Anderman and Murdock.

  28. Recommended Sources • Anderman, E.M., & Murdock, T.B. (eds.). (2007). Psychology of academic cheating. Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier Academic Press. http://www.elsevierdirect.com/product.jsp?isbn=9780123725417 • ASU Libraries. Academic integrity & plagiarism. http://library.west.asu.edu/refguides/integrity/ • The Center for Academic Integrity, Rutland Institute for Ethics, Clemson University. http://www.academicintegrity.org/ • Stern, L. (2007). What every student should know about avoiding plagiarism. New York: Pearson/Longman. http://www.pearsonhighered.com/educator/academic/product/0,,0321446895,00%2ben-USS_01DBC.html

  29. Questions?

More Related