Honor Code Task Force Preliminary Report

home

Honor Code Task Force:
A Preliminary Report

The UNCW “Honor Code”

Although UNCW has a document titled “Honor Code,” it does not have an honor code in the traditional sense. The document’s preamble states:

The University of North Carolina Wilmington is committed to the proposition that the pursuit of truth requires the presence of honesty among all involved. It is therefore this institution's stated policy that no form of dishonesty among its faculty or students will be tolerated. Although all members of the university community are encouraged to report occurrences of dishonesty, each individual is principally responsible for his or her own honesty.

While this document states an institutional commitment to academic integrity and articulates a policy on responding to dishonesty, it neither calls upon members of the community to subscribe to a code of integrity nor offers any means for them to do so. The word “honor” does not appear in the document apart from the title.

Cheating nationwide and at UNCW

Donald McCabe of Rutgers University, founder of the Center for Academic Integrity, surveyed students at private campuses with traditional honor codes, large public universities with modified honor codes (descriptions of these categories appears below), and campuses with no honor code (a category that would include UNCW). The percentage of students who had engaged in at least one instance of serious cheating in college was as follows:

SERIOUS CHEATING ON CAMPUSES*

*College Administration Publications, http://www.collegepubs.com/ref/SFX000515.shtml

This and other studies have shown a significant role for honor codes in reducing academic dishonesty.

Learning the extent of academic dishonesty at UNCW would require a study involving similar large-scale surveys of the experiences and perceptions of our students and faculty. Available data on cheating are limited. For example, accusations of dishonesty were referred to the Office of the Dean of Students in only two of the eight semesters since the spring of 1974, and on average, fewer than four cases of private resolution of cases by faculty were reported to the Dean of Students per semester. It can safely be assumed that many more cases of cheating went undetected by faculty. Moreover, faculty are not required to report outcomes of private resolution of cases with the Dean of Students’ office, although they are encouraged to do so.

Descriptions of the extent of dishonesty at UNCW are largely anecdotal, but it does not appear that UNCW is significantly different from similar campuses nationwide. In one survey conducted among 89 students in three upper-level UNCW classes in 2004, 72% reported having engaged in academic dishonesty (cheating, plagiarism, giving false excuses) at least once in high school or college. One-third had cheated on a test, and 42% either agreed or did not disagree with the statement “It is sometimes justifiable to cheat in school.” However, when those same students were asked to subscribe to a strict honor code at the beginning of those classes (where exams were not proctored and they had opportunity to cheat), fewer than 6% reported in an exit survey that they cheated. Thirty-seven percent agreed that “Because of the [class’s] honor code, I was less likely to cheat in this course than in another course” compared to less than 5% who agreed that “I was more likely to cheat in this course because the honor system made it easier.”

Traditional Honor Codes

The fewest incidents of dishonesty occur on campuses with traditional honor codes. Examples of such campuses are the service academies, the University of Virginia, Texas A&M University, Connecticut College, the University of Mary Washington, and Davidson University. Hallmarks of traditional codes include the following:

• An honor pledge to which students subscribe, individually and collectively.
• Unproctored examinations.
• An obligation to report observed cheating by others.
• An exclusive or near-exclusive role for students in creating and maintaining the honor code and in adjudicating reported violations of the code.
• A prominent role for the honor code in the campus’s public persona, including its mission statement, admissions materials, ceremonies, web documents, and other publications.
• A longtime campus culture of integrity and trust.

As appealing as a traditional honor code may be, the greatest obstacle to establishing one is tradition itself. McCabe and Makowski (2001) state that “most traditional honor codes rest on long-standing campus traditions that have developed over decades . . . and have become an integral part of the campus culture. Such traditions will not be duplicated easily or quickly on other campuses.”

Modified Honor Codes

An alternative to a traditional code is a modified honor code. Its hallmarks are:

• An honor pledge which students may be asked to sign (upon enrollment or during orientation).
• Exams generally proctored, with individual instructors having the option not to proctor.
• At the instructor’s option, the signing of an honor pledge on exams/assignments.
• Encouragement but no obligation to report violations by others.
• Extensive student participation in creating and maintaining the honor code and in adjudicating reported violations of the code.
• Increased emphasis on and discussion of academic integrity.
• A more prominent role for the honor code in campus’s public persona.
• The building of a campus culture of integrity and trust.

McCabe and other researchers on academic integrity recommend modified honor codes as an effective means for campuses to foster integrity and reduce dishonesty.

UNCW’s Honor Code Task Force

Following concerns expressed by various members of the academic community, a student-faculty Honor Code Task Force was constituted in Fall 2007, with the participation of the Provost, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, the Faculty Senate president, and the SGA president. The Task Force was asked to examine the Honor Code and to report recommendations. Members are:

• Greg Burzynski, graduate student
• Leah Campbell, undergraduate student
• Jim Herstine, Associate Professor, Health and Applied Human Sciences
• Judith Jarosinski, Assistant Professor, Nursing
• Megan Jelley, undergraduate student
• Anita McDaniel, Assistant Professor, Communication Studies
• A student member to be named
• Adrienne Strain, undergraduate student (co-chair)
• Richard Veit, Professor, English (co-chair)
• Michael Walker, Dean of Students (co-chair)

Results of the First Meetings of the Task Force

The Task Force held its first meetings November 15 and November 29, 2007. Prior to the meetings, members had examined documents related to academic integrity and honor policies on other campuses. Among the ideas expressed at the meetings were the following:

• UNCW needs an honor code whose primary emphasis is a commitment by students and faculty to academic integrity.
• A variation of a “modified” honor code is most feasible for a campus such as UNCW that is establishing a new code.
• An honor code can be expected to reduce dishonesty, but a commitment to academic integrity is important in itself and not just as a means to an end.
• An honor code is not a self-contained policy; it involves and affects the entire university culture. A university with an honor code commits itself to making academic integrity central to its ethos.
• An honor code will work only if it is created “bottom-up” and not imposed “top-down.” Extensive participation by students in the creation and ratification of an honor code is essential.
• An honor code will work only if it is widely supported among all campus constituencies. Participation by faculty and others constituencies in the campus community is also essential.
• The Task Force should seek a formal preliminary mandate for its work in both SGA and the Faculty Senate.
• The Task Force should hold open forums for students and faculty to gain maximum input and participation in the process; it should work with maximum transparency and openness; and it should publicize its proceedings.
• If it is subsequently determined that the Task Force is the appropriate body to draft a proposal for an honor code, it should widely publicize its draft proposals at various stages and seek feedback from the campus community.
• As the culmination of the creation process, a proposed honor code must, at a minimum, be ratified by the Student Government Association, the Graduate Student Association, and by the Faculty Senate. A student referendum could also be a requisite in the adoption process.
• Because adaption of an honor code means a broad change in the campus ethos, an honor code should also have the approval and support of the university administration and the Board of Trustees.
• Adoption of an honor code would be only the first step in its implementation. Additional steps to change the campus culture and build a commitment to academic integrity would be required. Focus should be on student-led efforts to involve students.
• Efforts to inculcate the honor code should be a priority of freshman orientation.
• Various methods to reinforce commitment to the code should be designed by students; as an example, these might include the posting of the code or a briefer honor slogan in every classroom and laboratory.
• The university’s mission statement, mission-related documents and web pages, and admissions materials should reflect the centrality of the honor code to the university’s mission.