An Approach to Maintaining Academic Integrity
In A Distance Learning Environment
Dr. Robert T. Kitahara
Assistant Professor, Business
Troy University – Florida Region
Dr. Frederick Westfall
Regional Chair, Business Programs
Troy University – Florida Region
Dr. Sallie J. Johnson
Professor of Distance Learning
Air Command & Staff College, Maxwell AFB
1
“Never underestimate the
joy people derive from
hearing something they
already know.”
Enrico Fermi
(1901-1954)
2
AGENDA
. University Standards of Conduct
. Case study of recent experiences - quantitative courses
delivered in a DL format
. Literature survey – Extent of the Problem
. One Approach – Troy University
. Conclusions/Observations
. Plan for future research
3
Excerpts from Troy University
Undergraduate Catalog – Standards of Conduct
……“A student is subject to disciplinary action if:
……In connection with the taking of, or in contemplation of the
taking of any examination by any person:
a) A student knowingly discovers or attempts to discover the
contents of an examination before the contents are revealed by
the instructor;
b) A student obtains, uses, attempts to obtain or use, or supplies
or attempts to supply to any person, any unauthorized material or
device;
c) A student uses, attempts to use, or supplies or attempts to
supply to any person any material or device dishonestly.
4
…...Penalties for Misconduct:
…...Any student who has committed an act of misconduct
……may be subject to one or more of the following penalties:
a) A student’s grade in the course or on the examination
affected by the misconduct may be reduced to any extent,
including a reduction to failure.
b) A student may be suspended from the University for a
specific or an indefinite period, the suspension to begin at any
time.”
5
Excerpts from Florida State University
Student Handbook – Codes and Policies
…. “(b) Violations of the Academic Honor Code.
…. During examinations, violations of the Academic Honor Code
shall include referring to information not specifically condoned
by the instructor. It shall further include receiving information
from a fellow student or another unauthorized source.
…. Violations of the Academic Honor Code shall include
obtaining, distributing, or referring to a copy of an examination
which the instructor/department has not authorized to be made
available for such purpose.
…. Violations of the Academic Honor Code shall include
assisting, attempting to assist, or conspiring to assist another
student in committing the offenses as outlined above.
…. Violations of the Academic Honor Code shall include
attempting to commit any offense as outlined above.”
6
Excerpts from University of Minnesota
Board of Regents Policy – Student Conduct Code
“…. Listed below are the disciplinary offenses actionable by the
University.
(1) Scholastic Dishonesty. Scholastic dishonesty means
plagiarizing; cheating on assignments or examinations; engaging in
unauthorized collaboration on academic work; taking, acquiring, or
using test materials without faculty permission; submitting false or
incomplete records of academic achievement; acting alone or in
cooperation with another to falsify records or to obtain dishonestly
grades, honors, awards, or professional endorsement; or altering,
forging, or misusing a University academic record; or fabricating or
falsifying of data, research procedures, or data analysis.”
7
Excerpts from Purdue University
Student Conduct Code
“…. The following actions constitute misconduct for which
students may be subject to administrative action or
disciplinary penalties.
…. Dishonesty in connection with any University activity.
Cheating, plagiarism, or knowingly furnishing false
information to the University are examples of dishonesty.
The commitment of the acts of cheating, lying, stealing, and
deceit in any of their diverse forms (such as the use of
ghost-written papers, the use of substitutes for taking
examinations, the use of illegal cribs, plagiarism, and
copying during examinations) is dishonest and must not be
tolerated. Moreover, knowingly to aid and abet, directly or
indirectly, other parties in committing dishonest acts is in
itself dishonest.”
8
Excerpts from Santa Clara University
Student Conduct Code
“….THE FOLLOWING ACTS SUBJECT STUDENTS TO
DISCIPLINARY ACTION:
…. Engaging in any form of academic dishonesty, such as
plagiarism (representing the work or ideas of others as one's
own without giving proper acknowledgment), cheating (e.g.,
copying the work of another person, falsifying laboratory
data, sabotaging the work of others), and other acts generally
understood to be dishonest by faculty or students in an
academic context.”
9
A Case Study
QM3341 – Business Statistics II
MGT3373 – Operations Management
Course Requirements:
. 7 online quizzes – 1 hour time limit
(Typically students take 30-40 minutes)
. Online Final Examination – 2 hour time limit
(Typically students take 60-90 minutes)
. Proctored Examination – 3 hour time limit
- Administrative controls
- Distance Learning Office must pre-approve proctors
- Exam - open-book, open-notes
10
Stating the “Obvious”
Examination copies, instructor materials and author test
banks are not intended for general consumption particularly
by students
Examinations are intended to assess the individual’s
command of the subject matter, not the extent or accuracy
of his/her data files or work of others
11
Troy University, its instructors, delivery system designers
(Blackboard) and textbook publishers cooperatively implement
several strategies:
. Blackboard controls designed to prevent students from
printing copies of exams
. Blackboard controls force completion of exams once entered
. Instructions with each exam:
- Students must take assessments separately
- Students not allowed to make copies of exams
- Proctors must return all test question & exam sheets
. Publishers screen applicants for instructor materials
. Publishers screen applicants for author test banks
12
For Students’ Benefit
Provide, prior to Proctored Examination, questions
representative of type that will appear on exam
For Instructor Benefit
Inserted “code” each test bank question to facilitate
correlation to student inquiries
13
Table 1a Summary of Quiz Timing Irregularities
(QM3341 Business Statistics II – Term 2/05)
Timings (Minutes:Seconds) and Scores
QM3341
Quiz 1
Quiz 2
Quiz 3
Quiz 4
Quiz 5
Quiz 6
PE
Quiz 8
Final
Student 1
2:19
100
2:03
100
3:53
100
33:24
95
36:11
75
8:46
95
56/0*
17:07
100
35:36
96
Student 2
1:57
100
3:30
90
3:02
100
26:14
95
24:49
95
12:59
90
56/0*
21:10
95
37:37
92
Student 3
2:57
100
2:25
95
1:47
100
25:50
20
22:55
65
23:25
85
56/0*
11:15
95
30:39
94
Student 4
2:01
100
3:25
100
5:37
100
Lock
39:23
90
42:57
85
32:02
90
56/0*
38:48
40
46:48
94
Student 5
1:47
100
2:05
100
1:53
100
53:53
90
56:05
85
35:56
90
41/0*
9:05
95
73:38
60
Student 6
1:38
100
1:51
100
1:47
100
48:04
15
71:11
95
31:32
90
41/0*
3:56
100
46:39
94
* All 6 students from same site
14
(*Administratively changed to 0)
Response to Timing Irregularities
. Sent e-mail inquiries
few responded.
. One student claimed timings were “reasonable”
. No student admitted to possessing unapproved sources of
information
. For quiz 4 - shuffled “codes”
timings for all 6
immediately jumped to historical levels
. For remaining quizzes, removed codes
timings
remaining generally at historical averages
15
Table 1b Summary of Quiz Timing Irregularities
(QM3341 Business Statistics II – Term 2/05)
Timings (Minutes:Seconds) and Scores
QM3341
Quiz 1
Quiz 2
Quiz 3
Quiz 4
Quiz 5
Quiz 6
PE
Quiz 8
Final
Student 1
2:19
100
2:03
100
3:53
100
33:24
95
36:11
75
8:46
95
56/0*
17:07
100
35:36
96
Student 2
1:57
100
3:30
90
3:02
100
26:14
95
24:49
95
12:59
90
56/0*
21:10
95
37:37
92
Student 3
2:57
100
2:25
95
1:47
100
25:50
20
22:55
65
23:25
85
56/0*
11:15
95
30:39
94
Student 4
2:01
100
3:25
100
5:37
100
Lock
39:23
90
42:57
85
32:02
90
56/0*
38:48
40
46:48
94
Student 5
1:47
100
2:05
100
1:53
100
53:53
90
56:05
85
35:56
90
41/0*
9:05
95
73:38
60
Student 6
1:38
100
1:51
100
1:47
100
48:04
15
71:11
95
31:32
90
41/0*
3:56
100
46:39
94
(*Administratively changed to 0)
16
The Proctored Exam
. 2 Parts:
- Part 1: 25 multiple choice questions
- Part 2: 5 quantitative problems
. Open-book, open-notes
. All questions for both parts different from previous
terms
. Part 2 – show all work
17
Students 1 and 2 (QM3341)
. Arranged to take their PE’s from business professor
. Asked to take the examination together - “common notes”
. Denied request
. Offered to make copy of notes for each to have
. Students never returned to take exam
. Went to another university official to serve as proctor
(5 of the 6 students used the same proctor)
18
Table 2 Proctored Exam Irregularities
(QM 3341 Business Statistics II – Term 2/05)
QM3341
Answer
Sheets
Group A
(Students 1,2,3,4)
Group B
(Students 5,6)
Rest of Class
Historically
“similar test” same format,
same authors’
test bank
Part 1
25 Multiple
Choice
- Same 2 Errors
- Same 2
Erroneous Choices
- Same 2 Errors
(Same as Group A)
- No student missed
both questions as
A,B
- No other pair had
identical MC sheets
No pair had
identical sheets
Part 2
Virtually identical:
Same:
- Answers
- Layout
- Detail
- Errors
- Omissions
- Inclusions
- Decimal place
rounding**
- Wording (90%)
Virtually identical:
Same:
- Answers
- Layout
- Detail
- Errors
- Omissions
- Inclusions
- Decimal place
rounding
- Wording (90%)
- None matched A,B
- No other pair had
matching answer
sheets
No pair had
matching
answer sheets
5 Quantitative
Problems
19
** Decimal accuracy to 6 decimal places
Table 1c Summary of Quiz Timing Irregularities
(QM3341 Business Statistics II – Term 2/05)
Timings (Minutes:Seconds) and Scores
QM3341
Quiz 1
Quiz 2
Quiz 3
Quiz 4
Quiz 5
Quiz 6
PE
Quiz 8
Final
Student 1
2:19
100
2:03
100
3:53
100
33:24
95
36:11
75
8:46
95
56/0*
17:07
100
35:36
96
Student 2
1:57
100
3:30
90
3:02
100
26:14
95
24:49
95
12:59
90
56/0*
21:10
95
37:37
92
Student 3
2:57
100
2:25
95
1:47
100
25:50
20
22:55
65
23:25
85
56/0*
11:15
95
30:39
94
Student 4
2:01
100
3:25
100
5:37
100
L
39:23
90
42:57
85
32:02
90
56/0*
38:48
40
46:48
94
Student 5
1:47
100
2:05
100
1:53
100
53:53
90
56:05
85
35:56
90
41/0*
9:05
95
73:38
60
Student 6
1:38
100
1:51
100
1:47
100
48:04
15
71:11
95
31:32
90
41/0*
3:56
100
46:39
94
(*Administratively changed to 0)
20
Table 1c Summary of Quiz Timing Irregularities
(QM3341 Business Statistics II – Term 2/05)
Timings (Minutes:Seconds) and Scores
QM3341
Quiz 1
Quiz 2
Quiz 3
Quiz 4
Quiz 5
Quiz 6
PE
Quiz 8
Final
Student 1
2:19
100
2:03
100
3:53
100
33:24
95
36:11
75
8:46
95
56/0*
17:07
100
35:36
96
Student 2
1:57
100
3:30
90
3:02
100
26:14
95
24:49
95
12:59
90
56/0*
21:10
95
37:37
92
Student 3
2:57
100
2:25
95
1:47
100
25:50
20
22:55
65
23:25
85
56/0*
11:15
95
30:39
94
Student 4
2:01
100
3:25
100
5:37
100
L
39:23
90
42:57
85
32:02
90
56/0*
38:48
40
46:48
94
Student 5
1:47
100
2:05
100
1:53
100
53:53
90
56:05
85
35:56
90
41/0*
9:05
95
73:38
60
Student 6
1:38
100
1:51
100
1:47
100
48:04
15
71:11
95
31:32
90
41/0*
3:56
100
46:39
94
(*Administratively changed to 0)
21
Response to Proctored Exam Irregularities
. Only 3 of the students responded
. Vehemently denied “illegal” or wrongful activity
. 2 immediately threatened lawsuits
Students 1 & 2 also taking
MGT3373 Operations Management
. Behavior in that course similar
. Identical answer sheets for Part 1
. Virtually-identical answer sheets Part 2
. Same denials
. Threats of lawsuits
22
Table 3 Proctored Exam Irregularities
(MGT3373 Operations Management - Term T2/05)
MGT3373
Answer
Sheets
2 Students (1,2)
Rest of Class
Historically
“similar test” same format, same
authors’ test bank
Part 1
25 Multiple Choice
- Same 2 Errors
- Same 2 Erroneous
Choices
* Same 2 students showed
similar behavior in QM3341
- No student sheet
matched 1,2
- No other pair had
identical MC sheets
No pair had
identical sheets
Part 2
Virtually identical
Same:
- Answers
- Detail
- Omissions
- Inclusions
- Examples
- Wording – 90%
* Same 2 students showed
similar behavior in QM3341
- None matched 1,2
- No other pair had
matching answer
sheets
No pair had
matching answer
sheets
5 Short Essay
Questions
(4/5 Open Ended)
23
Relevant Aside
. Students 1 & 2 showed same behavior
QM2241 Business Statistics I (Term 1/05)
. 1-hour quizzes in 2-3 minutes
. 2-hour final exam in 5 minutes
. Identical answer sheets for Part 1 of PE
. Identical answer sheets for Part 2 of PE
24
Administrative Actions
. Initial focus = unreasonable assessment timings
. Concern over “open-notes” policy
. Students offered grades based on “items submitted”
. Upon further review = degree of similarity, particularly on
quantitative & essay portions, not be explained by
“common notes”
. Final grades reassigned as failing
. Apprised of their rights to appeal
25
Table 1d Summary of Quiz Timing Irregularities
(QM3341 Business Statistics II – Term 2/05)
Timings (Minutes:Seconds) and Scores
QM3341
Quiz 1
Quiz 2
Quiz 3
Quiz 4
Quiz 5
Quiz 6
PE
Quiz 8
Final
Student 1
2:19
100
2:03
100
3:53
100
33:24
95
36:11
75
8:46
95
56/0*
17:07
100
35:36
96
Student 2
1:57
100
3:30
90
3:02
100
26:14
95
24:49
95
12:59
90
56/0*
21:10
95
37:37
92
Student 3
2:57
100
2:25
95
1:47
100
25:50
20
22:55
65
23:25
85
56/0*
11:15
95
30:39
94
Student 4
2:01
100
3:25
100
5:37
100
Lock
39:23
90
42:57
85
32:02
90
56/0*
38:48
40
46:48
94
Student 5
1:47
100
2:05
100
1:53
100
53:53
90
56:05
85
35:56
90
41/0*
9:05
95
73:38
60
Student 6
1:38
100
1:51
100
1:47
100
48:04
15
71:11
95
31:32
90
41/0*
3:56
100
46:39
94
Students 1,2 also received 0 on PE for MGT3373
26
(*Administratively changed to 0)
Early Stages of Appeals
. 2 students admitted to possessing unapproved materials
. One claimed they had copies of all past exams
. Another admitted they had textbook test bank - found on
an open website
. Included these in their “notes”
“did nothing wrong”
. None of 6 students responded to issue of high degree of
similarity of answer sheets
27
Final Appeals Resolution
. 5 Students dropped their appeals given the evidence
- Accepted their failing grades
. 1 Student persisted. This student took his appeal to:
- Several campus deans
- Dean of the School of Business
- Senior Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
- University Chancellor
. Could not explain the answer sheet “similarities”
. Decision to assign a failing grade upheld
. 8 failing grades held for all 8 cases
28
What It Cost !!
. 5+ Months of Aggravation
. Personally = 200 Man Hours
. Regional Administration & Support Staff = 50 Man Hours
. Main Campus Administration & Support = 30 Man Hours
. Main Campus Deans & Leadership = 20 Man Hours
What It Entailed
. Constant threats of lawsuits
. Threats of personal lawsuits
. Persistent badgering and lies by students
. Faced several “flip-flops” in administrative decisions
. Pressure to “let it go”
Is it any wonder that many/most students go unchallenged?
29
Post Script
. In Term 4/06 several of the offending students repeated
the courses with me again
. In QM3341 two of those students (Students 5 & 6) repeated
the same acts!
. Failing grades were assigned to both students, once again
for cheating on the Proctored Examination
. Student 5 admitted to the acts and cooperated in the
investigation of the case.
. Student 5 verified ALL suspicions in Terms 2/05 and 4/06
. Student 5 was allowed to receive a grade of D (reduced from a C)
based upon submitted work
30
Literature – Extent of the Problem
Cheating is on the Rise
. At least 50% of students cheat from middle school through college
. 75% of high school students admit to cheating on exams and papers
. 50% of undergraduates admitted to cheating more than once
. On most campuses 75% of students admit to some form of cheating
. 41% of students believe plagiarism occurs “often”
. Surveys show incidence rates on the rise
. 40% incidence rate for graduate students
The anecdotal and statistical evidence that dishonesty in the
business world is also growing.
31
Evolution of Methods of Cheating
Traditional methods:
. Copying from other students
. Crib notes
. Writing on palms of hands
. Whispering answers
. Tapping Morse Code
. Stealing exam copies
Newer methods:
. Cell phones
. PDA devices
. Programmable calculators
. Internet connected laptops
. Mobile internet devices.
. Hand-held Blackberry
units
. Tape recorders
. Small video cameras
. Digital media
(CD, DVD, flash drives,
mini hard drives,iPods)
Instructors and administrators must keep pace.
32
Disturbing Trends in Cheating
. Nationwide most forms at record levels
. Underclassmen cheat more than upperclassmen
. More prominent among fraternity, sorority members & athletes
. Those who perceive others aren’t caught likely to cheat
. Younger students cheat more often
. Some surveys showed:
80% of faculty observed some form of serious cheating
More than 30% did nothing about it
. Less cheating occurs at universities with strong Honor Codes
33
A Culture of Cheating?
.
. Students
perceive the practice is (more) acceptable
. “Everybody is doing it”
. Hard-core cheaters not concerned with long-term consequences
. Diminishing social stigma
. Cheaters shun accountability (blame teachers, parents)
. Society becoming increasingly tolerant
34
Establishing a Climate of Honesty & Integrity
-
Affirm the importance of academic integrity.
Foster love of learning.
Treat students as ends in themselves.
Promote an environment of trust in the classroom.
Encourage student responsibility for academic integrity.
Clarify expectations for students.
Develop fair and relevant forms of assessment.
Reduce opportunities to engage in academic dishonesty.
Challenge academic dishonesty when it occurs.
Help define and support campus-wide academic integrity
standards
Faculty and administrators must be concerned and involved.
35
How do you do that in a Distance Learning Environment?
36
One Approach – Troy University
Securexam Remote ProctorTM (Prototype)
Will take the place of a human proctor.
37
38
“Indeed your class attendance gives new meaning
to the term ‘Distance Learning’”
39
Securexam Remote ProctorTM Features
. Fingerprint scanner and student verification system
. 360 degree field-of-view camera
. Omni directional microphone
. Remote recording of real-time audio and video
. Integrated motion detection software to detect and flag
suspicious activity
. Specialized exam software to disable unwanted, student
computer functions
. Connection via USB port
. Onsite hardware does not contain student information
. Permits use by different users
. Target cost $100
40
What do some people think? Comments found on the web…
And now electronic proctors? As Bob Dylan said, "the times they are a‘ changin."
I think this is a fantastic development. I have been concerned about security in
distance learning environments for a while… Any kind of testing process is
useless unless security and integrity can be attained. I certainly hope this
effort is successful. Peter, Southwestern Community College, Sylva, NC
Yes, I can see it now. Just like the Italian Job, or Oceans 11, or whatever. The
student prerecords him or herself dutifully typing, then broadcasts it directly
into the device, complete with fake time stamp. I would hate to think our
professors would easily adopt the tactics of the CIA or NSA. Ken
I am fascinated by this. …setting aside the (lack of) effectiveness of the Web cam
as a proctor, I cannot imagine students would want to have their fingerprints
on file and used as an exam verification tool. Also, isn't it a *whole lot cheaper*
to hire one or even more real proctors that to set up $200 devices at each desk?
To me, this seems like a solution in search of a problem. Touro University
Just sounds like a lot of headache. I think the honor code should work just
fine. Samford University
41
Table 4a Troy University Practices to Maintain Academic Integrity
Prior to 2007
Post 2007
- Definition of violations
Well published
Well published
- Penalties/consequences
Well published
Well published
- Procedures
Well published
Well published
Student Honor Code
Well published
Well published
Proctored Exams
Human Proctor
Remote Proctor
- Student verification
Picture ID
Fingerprint scan
- Copying others work
Scrutiny by proctor
Remote Proctor
- Receiving assistance from others
Scrutiny by proctor
Remote Proctor
- Using unapproved materials
Scrutiny by proctor
Remote Proctor
- Using unapproved crib notes,
electronic devices, storage media
Scrutiny by proctor
Remote Proctor
- Helping others commit illicit acts
Scrutiny by proctor
Remote Proctor
- Detecting suspicious behavior
Scrutiny by proctor
Remote Proctor
- Collusion
Post exam analysis
Post exam analysis
Academic Code
Addressing Common Problems
42
Table 4b Troy University Practices to Maintain Academic Integrity
Prior to 2007
Post 2007
Course/Instruction Design
Instructor discretion
Committees of experts
Redesign committees
Course templates
Controlling the Exam Environment
Proctored Exams
(Currently optional)
Remote Proctor
- Large test banks
Instructor discretion
Instructor discretion
- Randomized tests
Instructor discretion
Instructor discretion
- Force Exam completion
Instructor discretion
Instructor discretion
- Presentation of questions
Instructor discretion
Instructor discretion
- Multiple or single attempts
Instructor discretion
Instructor discretion
- Record of student accesses
Provided by Blackboard
Provided by Blackboard
- Record of time spent
Provided by Blackboard
Provided by Blackboard
- Record of student postings
to various components
- Record of communications
via Digital Drop Box
Provided by Blackboard
Provided by Blackboard
Provided by Blackboard
Provided by Blackboard
Selectable Blackboard Options
Detection Tools/Statistics
43
Conclusions/Observations
- New tools & resources to obtain unethical edge
- Job of University, instructors, course delivery system
designers & publishers much more difficult
- More apt to threaten lawyers and lawsuits
- Believe university will ultimately back down
- Requires more thought, time & energy to maintain
academic integrity
- Multifaceted approaches being pursued
- Courses with large quantitative content impose additional
challenges
44
Pressing Questions
. If a student has resources which give him/her an unfair
advantage over other students, does this constitute
unethical behavior, violations of the University’s Standards
of Conduct, or cheating?
. If a student obtains instructor materials, such as the
authors’ test banks for the course textbook, which give
him/her prior knowledge of examination questions and
therefore an unfair advantage over other students, does
this constitute unethical behavior or cheating?
. Is it possible to write a statement of the Standards of
Conduct which is comprehensive and which will withstand
the scrutiny of attorneys in a court of law?
45
. How must these standards be communicated in a course
syllabus?
. Will largely technology-based solutions be sufficient?
. Have student attitudes toward academic integrity
changed?
. What are the special implications of these issues on
courses taught in the DL format?
46
Plan for Future Research
- Review of Troy University’s history & comparison with
other universities – ID trends in academia’s views of
ethical behavior, if any
- Comparison of alternate solutions
- Set of surveys - differences in views of academic
integrity between students & instructors - ID acts which
both populations consider unethical, violations of
Academic Code, or cheating
- Expand literature review & surveys - propensity
of students to threaten lawsuits and reaction of
universities
47
- Statistical analyses - ID correlations & trends in student
& instructor views sorted by appropriate demographic
factors
- Survey selected local businesses for current employee
attitudes - comparison with academia
- Statistical analyses - ID changes & trends in attitudes
(transition from pupil to university student and ultimately
to working professional)
- Develop proposals - revisions of university policies toward
Standards of Conduct & recommend corresponding
adjustments to course syllabi, particularly for DL courses
48
What Message To Take Away?
• Academic integrity issues on the rise.
• Students are finding new, creative ways to
gain advantages (cheat)
• Professors need to be vigilant in pursuit of
irregularities and enforcement of academic
integrity (regardless of personal cost).
• Administrators need to ensure Academic
Integrity policies will deal with technical
alternatives available in the 21st century.
49
50