1 / 31

Academic Integrity Survey 2006-2007 Summary of Results

Academic Integrity Survey 2006-2007 Summary of Results. Committee on Intellectual Integrity http://www.oswego.edu/provost/integrity. September 11, 2007. Committee on Intellectual Integrity 2007-2008. David Bozak, College of Arts & Sciences David Clendinning, Penfield Library

imaran
Download Presentation

Academic Integrity Survey 2006-2007 Summary of Results

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. Academic Integrity Survey2006-2007Summary of Results Committee on Intellectual Integrity http://www.oswego.edu/provost/integrity September 11, 2007

  2. Committee on Intellectual Integrity2007-2008 • David Bozak, College of Arts & Sciences • David Clendinning, Penfield Library • Cathy Santos, Multicultural Opportunities • Paloma Jalife, School of Business • Gwen Kay, History • Helen Knowles, Political Science • Michael LeBlanc, School of Education • Michael Murphy, English • James Nichols, Penfield Library • Barbara Shaffer, Penfield Library

  3. Background • Oswego is a member of the Center for Academic Integrity, a national organization located at the Rutland Institute for Ethics at Clemson University. http://academicintegrity.org/ • As a member, we participated in a campus assessment of academic integrity using Don McCabe’s national survey instrument. • The web-based survey was available during the first part of the Fall 2006 semester • 966 students and 135 faculty participated

  4. Demographics - Over Representation

  5. Demographics - Under Representation

  6. Demographics - Faculty • Instructor rank, Full-time faculty overrepresented • Assistant Professor rank, Part-time faculty underrepresented • Younger faculty (< 5 years) overrepresented while those teaching 10-14 years are underrepresented

  7. Overall Summary • The national data describes a significant problem with academic integrity • Our survey data shows that SUNY Oswego reflects the national problem

  8. Highlights from Student Responses • 94% of students report having been informed of our integrity policy • By far the greatest source of that information for students is their faculty

  9. Highlights from Student Responses • 70% report a High or Very High understanding of the integrity policy • 60% report a High or Very High support of the integrity policy

  10. How frequently do you think the following occurs on campus? • Plagiarism on written assignments NS OS Never 1% 1% Very Seldom 21% 20% Seldom 47% 48% Often 25% 27% Very Often 6% 5% NS – Student responses nationally OS – Oswego Student responses

  11. How frequently do you think the following occurs on campus? • Plagiarism on written assignments NS OS OF Never 1% 1% 0% Very Seldom 21% 20% 3% Seldom 47% 48% 38% Often 25% 27% 48% Very Often 6% 5% 11% OF – Oswego faculty responses

  12. Highlights from Student Responses • 98% of students believe cheating during tests or exams takes place at Oswego • 29% report it takes place Often or Very Often • Only 48% report having actually seen another student cheat during a test of exam • 4% of students have reported another student for cheating

  13. How frequently do you think the following occurs on campus? • Inappropriate sharing in group assignments NS OS Never 1% 1% Very Seldom 10% 11% Seldom 32% 36% Often 38% 38% Very Often 19% 14%

  14. How frequently do you think the following occurs on campus? • Inappropriate sharing in group assignments NS OS OF Never 1% 1% 2% Very Seldom 10% 11% 4% Seldom 32% 36% 47% Often 38% 38% 36% Very Often 19% 14% 12%

  15. Significant differences from national data • 28% report working with others when asked for individual work, versus a national average of only 22% • 20% report working with others electronically when asked for individual work, versus a national average of only 13%

  16. Significant differences from national data • 36% report copying another’s homework, versus a national average of only 30% • 15% report electronically copying another’s homework, versus a national average of only 9% • 22% report using a false excuse to obtain an extension, versus a national average of only 16%

  17. Faculty/Student Opinion Contrasts – How serious is: Working with others when asked for individual work? Stu Fac Not cheating 23% 3% Trivial 48% 5% Moderate 24% 52% Serious 6% 44%

  18. Faculty/Student Opinion Contrasts – How serious is: Fabricating or falsifying a bibliography? Stu Fac Not cheating 10% 1% Trivial 33% 4% Moderate 35% 52% Serious 22% 44%

  19. Faculty/Student Opinion Contrasts – How serious is: Receiving unpermitted help on an assignment? Stu Fac Not cheating 14% 4% Trivial 31% 9% Moderate 35% 57% Serious 20% 31%

  20. Faculty/Student Opinion Contrasts – How serious is: Using a false excuse to obtain an extension? Stu Fac Not cheating 15% 4% Trivial 26% 13% Moderate 32% 47% Serious 27% 36%

  21. Faculty/Student Opinion Contrasts • Few of the more than two dozen items were viewed by faculty as not cheating, or trivial cheating; 17 were deemed serious cheating by 75% or more faculty

  22. Faculty/Student Opinion Contrasts • Only 4 items were viewed by 75% or more students as serious cheating • Copying during a test w/o other’s knowledge • Turning in a free “paper mill” paper • Turning in a purchased “paper mill” paper • Copying material word for word from a written source

  23. Faculty/Student Opinion Contrasts

  24. How often, if ever, have you seen a student cheating during a test/exam? NF OF Never 41% 33% Once 14% 15% Few times 32% 34% Several times 9% 13% Many times 2% 5%

  25. Have you ever ignored an incident of cheating in one of your courses for any reason? NF OF Yes 38% 46% No 62% 54%

  26. Have you ever referred a case of suspected cheating to anyone? NF OF Yes 44% 64% No 56% 36%

  27. Cheating is a serious problem on campus. NS OS NF OF Strongly disagree 8% 6% 2% 1% Disagree 32% 27% 14% 9% Not sure 47% 57% 42% 36% Agree 10% 9% 32% 42% Strongly agree 3% 2% 10% 12%

  28. How frequently have you observed student dishonesty when completing assignments or exams? SUNY Oswego Student Opinion Survey Spring, 2003 and 2006 ’03 ’06 Very frequently 4% 4% Frequently 14% 14% Sometimes 32% 24% Rarely 33% 35% Never 13% 22%

  29. Combating misconduct • Change exams frequently (76%) • Monitor students closely on tests; space them out during tests (72%) • Discuss views on integrity (72%) • Info on syllabus about cheating (77%) • Use of internet to confirm plagiarism (40%)

  30. Plagiarism detection? • “Plagiarism Detection: Is Technology the Answer?” by Liz Johnson • http://connect.educause.edu/library/abstract/PlagiarismDetectionI/44506 • Compares 7 services • Doc Cop – http://doccop.com/

  31. What next? • Discuss these results within your departments or dorms, with colleagues and friends. • Return in 3 weeks – October 2 – to a public forum to share ideas and thoughts about these data and what steps we as a campus should take to combat academic misconduct.

More Related