November 26, 2006
Faculty Survey on the UVa
Honor System, 2006
Center for Survey Research
A Unit of the Weldon Cooper Center for Public
Service
University of Virginia
Project Support
Initiated by:
 The 2005-2006 Honor Committee
J. David Hobbs, Chair
Funded by:
The Honor Committee
Office of the Vice President & Provost
2
Report Authorship
Center for Survey Research
Thomas M. Guterbock, Director
Kate F. Wood, Senior Research Associate
Deborah L. Rexrode, Research Analyst
The Honor Committee
Alison V. Tramba (2006-2007 Chair)
With the aid of many others
3
Goals of Survey
• To collect information on the knowledge,
experience and perceptions of the faculty;
• To evaluate the correlation between the
faculty’s knowledge, experience and
perceptions; and
• To create a forum to provide feedback
from the faculty to the Honor Committee.
4
Survey Methods
• Focus group to develop questionnaire
• Target: all teaching faculty and TA’s
– No sample, survey request sent to all
• Web-based questionnaire




Hosted by CSR
Advance letter
E-mail reminders
Phone reminders
• Fully anonymous protocol
– Separate confirmation postcard or e-mail
5
Survey Response
• Fielded February and March 2006
• 1,564 respondents completed the survey
– 1059 were faculty members (including 166
adjunct or graduate instructors)
– 505 teaching assistants
• Response rate: 52.6%
• Margin of error: ± 1.7%
• Various demographics well represented
6
Percentage of Respondents across
Schools
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
School of Arts and Sciences
School of Engineering and Applied Science
School of Medicine
School of Continuing and Professional Studies
Curry School of Education
McIntire School of Commerce
School of Architecture
School of Nursing
Graduate School of Business Administration
School of Law
Did not identify their school affiliation
47%
10.4%
16.7%
2.2%
7.3%
2%
2%
2.9%
1.9%
1.9%
5.7%
7
Survey Topics
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Knowledge of Honor System
Expressed Support for the Honor System
Classroom Discussion of the Honor System
Cheating: Perceived Prevalence and Actual
Encounters
Responses to Encounters with Cheating
Faculty Experience with the Honor Process
Getting Information about the Honor System
Suggestions for Improvements
8
Knowledge of Honor System
Familiarity
(all respondents)
Very familiar
19.8%
So mewhat
familiar
59.5%
Slightly familiar
18.6%
No t at all
familiar
2.0%
0%
Table 2.1 in report
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
10
Measures of Respondent
Knowledge
• Questions for basic knowledge and
combined knowledge grouped separately
• Group of two questions were combined to
form a Basic Knowledge Index with a
maximum score of 2 points
• Group of five questions were added to
form a Combined Knowledge Index with a
maximum score of 7 points
11
Basic Knowledge Index
(2-point scale)
• What constitutes an Honor offense?
– Lying, cheating, stealing [only]
• Which penalty or penalties are applied
when a trial for an Honor offense results in
a guilty verdict?
– Permanent expulsion [only]
12
Basic Knowledge
(all respondents)
2 Points
33.8%
1 Point
41.4%
0 points
24.8%
0%
Table 2.4 in report
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
13
Added these items for Combined Knowledge Index
(7-point scale)
• Who is responsible for running the Honor System?
• What is the role of the faculty in relation to the Honor
System?
• If you detect cheating in your class, which of the
following options does the Honor System make
available?
• If you detect cheating in your class, are you required to
report the cheating to the Honor Committee?
• If a student admits to cheating, what are his or her
options regarding the Honor process?
14
Combined Knowledge
(all respondents)
7 points
4.0%
10.3%
6 points
5 points
15.9%
4 points
19.6%
15.5%
3 points
2 points
16.6%
1 point
12.0%
0 points
6.1%
0%
Table 2.8 in report
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
15
Mean of Combined Knowledge
Index by School
School Affiliation
Mean
A&S - Social sciences
3.77
A&S - Natural sciences
3.41
A&S - Humanities and Performing Arts
3.45
Continuing and Professional Studies
2.12
Curry School of Education
2.92
Darden School of Business Administration
4.55
McIntire School of Commerce
5.19
School of Architecture
3.97
School of Engineering and Applied Science
3.89
School of Law
3.90
School of Medicine
2.86
School of Nursing
3.38
Total
3.44
Table 2.9 in report
Expressed Support for the
Honor System
Question:
“How would you describe your own level of
support for the Honor System as it now
exists at the University of Virginia?”
18
Support for Honor System
(all respondents)
Strongly Support
30.0%
Support w ith Reservations
39.0%
14.9%
Neutral
Somew hat Oppose
Completely Oppose- Abolish
Completely Oppose- Change
Table 3.1 in report
0%
12.9%
2.0%
3.4%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
19
Question:
“In general, among the faculty you interact
with on a day-to-day basis, how strong do
you think support for the Honor System
is?”
20
Perceived Support for Honor System
(all respondents)
Very strong support
24.8%
Moderate support-reservati ons
42.7%
Most are neutral
15.8%
Many do not support
9.9%
Most oppose-change
Most oppose-abol i sh
6.1%
0.7%
0%
Table 3.6 in report
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
21
Question:
“How much do you think your support
matters to the effectiveness of the Honor
Committee?”
22
How much do you think your
support matters
(all respondents)
Not at all
14%
Very much
48%
Somewhat
38%
Table 3.9 in report
23
Knowledge Score and Support
• What is the relationship between
knowledge and support of the Honor
System?
• Average score of Combined Knowledge
Index (seven point scale) can be grouped
by level of support
24
Combined Knowledge Scores and Support
(all respondents)
Strongly support
3.0 (n=465)
Support-reservations
3.8 (n=560)
Neutral
2.8 (n=195)
Somew hat oppose
4.0 (n=154)
Comp. oppose
4.3 (n=111)
No opinion
1.9 (n=65)
0
Figure 3.1 in report
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
25
Classroom Discussion of the
Honor System
Classroom Behaviors
In the past two years, how often have you done each of the
following?
Regularly
or Always
%
Discussed the Honor Code on the course syllabus
46.9
Discussed the Honor Code with your class
36.8
Given in-class exams without proctoring
32.6
Given closed-book or time-limited take-home exams
25.0
Given the same exams on different days to meet student
needs
22.6
Stated clear expectations about honorable conduct on
assignments, verbally or in writing
64.7
Asked students to sign the Honor pledge on work and tests
66.1
Talked with other faculty members about the Honor System.
16.6
Table 4.1 in report
Classroom Acknowledgement Index
(4-point scale)
• In the past two years, how often have you
– Discussed the Honor Code on the syllabus?
– Discussed the Honor Code with your class?
– Stated clear expectations about honorable conduct on
assignments, verbally or in writing?
– Asked students to sign Honor pledge on work and
tests?
• 1 point for each behavior reported regularly or
always.
28
Classroom Acknowledgement Index
(all respondents)
4 pts
21.9%
3 pts
15.7%
2 pts
18.5%
1 pt
16.8%
0 pt
27.0%
0%
Table 4.2 in report
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
29
Classroom Acknowledgment Index
by School
School Affiliation
Mean
A&S - Social science
2.05
A&S - Natural science
2.10
A&S - Humanities and Performing Arts
2.01
Continuing and Professional Studies
2.82
Curry School of Education
2.40
Darden School of Business Administration
2.17
McIntire School of Commerce
3.42
School of Architecture
1.44
School of Engineering and Applied Science
2.37
School of Law
1.67
School of Medicine
.51
School of Nursing
2.60
Total
1.88
Table 4.3 in report
30
Cheating:
Perceived Prevalence and
Actual Encounters
How commonplace do you think
cheating is in your classes?
(all respondents)
Very Uncommon
38.8%
Uncommon
37.9%
Somew hat
common
9.3%
Very Common
1.3%
Don't Know
12.6%
32
Table 5.1 in report
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
How commonplace do you think
cheating is in the University?
(all respondents)
Very Uncommon
8%
Uncommon
36. 4%
Somewhat common
29. 8%
Very Common
4. 3%
Don't Know
21. 4%
0%
Table 5.3 in report
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
33
Question:
“Since you became a faculty member or a
teaching assistant at the University, have
you EVER clearly observed a student
cheating or been quite certain that a
student cheated on work for your course?”
34
Observed Cheating
(all respondents)
YES
31.6%
NO
68.4%
0%
Table 5.5 in report
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
35
Question:
“In the past two years at the University of
Virginia (from January 2004 to the
present), have you ever clearly observed a
student intentionally cheating or been
quite certain that a student had cheated on
work for your course?”
36
Observed Cheating
in the past two years
Yes
17.5%
No
82.5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
37
Table 5.7 in report
Question:
• How many times in the past two years
have you clearly observed a student
intentionally cheating or been quite certain
that a student cheated on work for your
course?
38
Observed Cheating
in the past two years
(%)
Not observed
One time
Two times
Three times
Four times
Five times
82.5
8.8
4.9
2.5
0.6
0.1
Six or more times
0.6
Table 5.9 in report
Observed Cheating by School Affiliation
School Affiliation
Table 5.10 in
report
%
1 A&S - Social science
28.2
2 A&S - Natural science
24.4
3 A&S - Humanities and Performing Arts
23.1
4 Continuing and Professional Studies
8.8
5 Curry School of Education
4.4
6 Darden School of Business Administration
6.9
7 McIntire School of Commerce
22.6
8 School of Architecture
3.1
9 School of Engineering and Applied Science
27.6
10 School of Law
10.0
11 School of Medicine
0.8
12 School of Nursing
11.1
All Faculty and TAs
17.4
40
Cheating: Observed v. Suspected
• Ever Observed
31.6%
• Observed past two years
17.5%
• Suspected last two years
32.6%
• Observed or Suspected
39.0%
41
Responses to Encounters with
Cheating
Survey Questions
• What actions were taken by faculty and
TA’s in response to instances of:
 Observed cheating (past two years)
 Suspected cheating (past two years)
• Respondents could select more than one
response
43
Action Take in Response to Observed
Cheating
Cheating Observed – Action
% of Those Who
Observed
No action
2.6
Discussed it with colleagues involved in the course
51.5
Discussed it with chair or dean
20.8
Discussed it with colleagues not involved in the course
33.9
Discussed it with student
57.3
Tried to get student to report to HC
4.0
Lowered students grade
22.6
Required student to resubmit
16.4
Failed student for assignment
41.2
Failed student for course
7.3
Discussed with HC advisor
17.2
Reported to Honor Committee
16.4
Something else
6.6
Table 6.1 in report
Actions taken if cheating is
observed
Talked about it
84.0%
Honor system
27.6%
Acted
academically
No action
67.2%
2.6%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
45
Table 6.2 in report
Action taken if cheating is
suspected
Talked about it
Honor system
64.3%
3.8%
Acted
academically
20.0%
No action
0.0%
Table 6.6 in report
30.3%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
46
Faculty Experience with the
Honor Process
Asked only of those who had reported a case
“How would you describe the timecommitment required from you?”
Prohibitive
17%
Manageable
53%
Not a
problem
30%
Table 7.2 in report
48
“How satisfied were you with the overall
process of the Honor case?”
Dissatisfied
37.0%
63.0%
Satisfied
0%
Table 7.5 in report
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
49
“Were you satisfied that the outcome of
the Honor process was just?”
Not sure
22%
Yes
46%
No
33%
Table 7.6 in report
50
Getting Information about the
Honor System
Do you know your Honor Committee
representative?
Know
14.2%
Don't know
85.8%
0%
Table 8.2 in report
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
52
Which of the following methods of
communication would you most prefer?
Information on the webpage
48.8
Web-based training option
40.3
Email
35.1
Presentations
32.4
Newsletters
16.3
Information sessions
16.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
53
Table 8.4 in report
Suggestions for Improvements
Responses of those asked these questions
Question:
“In your opinion, what are the factors that
work to reduce the effectiveness of the
Honor System at UVA?”
55
Factors that reduce effectiveness of the System
Single sanction
16.2
Lack of awareness/knowledge/communication
6.3
Lack of reporting/Enforcement
Lack of full support (student/faculty/administration)
Time concerns/cumbersome
6
5.3
5
UVa culture and characteristics
4.9
Biases and inconsistent enforcement/convictions
3.5
Distrust of Honor Committee (no faculty/administration involvement)
3.2
Trial process and rules (adversarial nature/outside lawyers)
2.9
Seriousness clause-acquittal of small offenses
2.2
Other
6.5
No responses
54
Table 9.1 in report
In your opinion, what are the factors that
work to reduce the effectiveness of the
Honor System at UVA?”
Single sanction
Lack of awareness/knowledge/communication
Lack of reporting/Enforcement
16.2
6.3
6.0
Lack of full support (student/faculty/administration)
5.3
Time concerns/cumbersome
5.0
[Top Five Responses]
Table 9.1 in report
57
Question:
“Do you have suggestions for improving
the Honor System?”
58
Suggestions for Improving Honor
System
Change Single Sanction-Create Alternative
Punishments
14.6
8.5
Better Communication and Education
More Faculty Participation and/or Adult
Involvement
2.9
Change Procedural/Trial Rules
2.7
Better Reporting and Enforcement
2.5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Top Five Suggestions
Table 9.2 in report
59
Question:
“Do you have suggestions for increasing
faculty support for the Honor System?”
60
Suggestions for increasing faculty support
%
Increase awareness, communication and education
Increase Credibility (Reporting/Enforcement/Student Ownership)
8.7
6
Create Alternative Mechanisms for Addressing Cheating/End Single
Sanction
5.6
Increase Faculty/Professional Involvement and Support Them in the
Process
3.1
Increase efficiency and timeliness
2.6
Include More Offenses in Honor System
0.1
Other
2.9
No responses
74
Table 9.3 in report
For more results . . .
• Please refer to the printed report
– Or check it out on the Honor web page
• Check out the cross-tabulation tables to be
posted on the Honor web page:
www.virginia.edu/honor
62
November 26, 2006
Faculty Survey on the UVa Honor
System, 2006
For further information please contact:
Thomas M. Guterbock
Director
434-243-5223
TomG@virginia.edu
Alison V. Tramba
2006-2007 Honor Committee Chair
434-924-7644
avtramba@virginia.edu