Communicating with Students in a Noisy World
Learn how you can improve your relationship management to attract and retain non-traditional students
This is the third and final installment in Bishop and Cini’s series on academic dishonesty in online education. In the second installment, they discussed some broad strategies that could help online education leaders minimize the prevalence of digital academic dishonesty. In this series, they share the specific approach UMUC has taken.
As an online provider, UMUC closely follows the regulations, requirements, and approaches to the topic of academic dishonesty. First, UMUC policies define “academic integrity” and dictate that students may not perform work for other students. We make this clear and educate students about this violation. All courses include the following standard statement:
As a member of the University of Maryland University College (UMUC) academic community that honors integrity and respect for others you are expected to maintain a high level of personal integrity in your academic work at all times. Your work should be original and must not be reused in other courses.
Academic integrity is emphasized throughout the curriculum in a variety of ways. Some academic programs include graded assignments that ask students to describe their understanding of the UMUC plagiarism policy and how they will abide by it. Other courses include modules such as Academic Integrity in Using Sources and When and How to Cite that specifically teach concepts. Other modules such as The Importance of Research Writing for Today’s Student emphasize systematic reading and note taking. Provided instructional resources scaffold good researching behaviors by helping students organize citations, quotes, paraphrases, summaries, and reflections on sources. Other online instructional resources are made available through the library and the Effective Writing Center.
Second, the general design of the curriculum and the way we assess students makes academic dishonesty very difficult in the ways discussed above. Courses are designed around an experiential learning model that immerses students in real situations that require authentic, project-based assessments, short papers, and other deliverables that relate to students’ lives. Faculty provide frequent feedback on multiple drafts of projects and papers that allows them to serve in more of a mentoring capacity. Students work toward mastery instead of being tempted to cheat on one “high-stakes” assessment.
Third, UMUC takes the concern about identity authentication in online courses seriously. We provide a secure user ID and pass code, which students must use each time they log on to our systems. If there is no activity for a period, the session is automatically timed out. We also stay on top of the latest technologies and approaches that address these potential issues, in compliance with the Department of Education and Middle States requirements. UMUC has piloted types of each of the identity authentication technologies described above, including challenge questions from public databases, mouse-based signature software, live proctoring via webcam tools, and a keystroke authentication product. In some cases, the technology has to be installed by the student user, and the installation failed for some significant number. In other cases, students would have been adversely impacted by the costs. In yet other cases the privacy issues related to pulling information from public databases led to a failed pilot. So, while the Department of Education through regional accreditors requires that universities stay abreast of identity authentication technologies in the field and consider adopting one when it can be widely utilized by the student population, to date we have not found a solution that would uniformly serve our student population. However, when a technology is developed that meets the threshold of being both low-cost, private, and easy to implement, we will likely implement it. Student privacy and cost are key considerations for our student population.
Fourth, we are continually assessing and reassessing our world-wide approach to supporting our students’ academic honesty. An “Academic Integrity Working Group” has recently been charged to evaluate and explore ways UMUC can take an even more comprehensive approach to educating students. And to ensure the ongoing review of new and emerging technologies for student identity authentication, UMUC’s President Javier Miyares has also directed a “Student Authentication Working Group” of faculty and program directors to meet regularly to review and consider how emerging technologies might impact students, faculty and staff.
Clearly, addressing academic dishonesty is not simple and there is no one “silver bullet” solution. Students cheat in various ways, for different reasons, and at various points in their college career. What is becoming clear is that academic dishonesty is not just about the instructional delivery mode but rather about the root causes for why people cheat, and these reasons are varied. Sometimes students cheat because they honestly don’t know they have done so, sometimes it’s because they’re desperate, sometimes they’re unable to grasp a concept, and sometimes they’re trying to “buy” their degree. Addressing academic dishonesty, therefore, requires a multi-pronged approach that includes education, effective course and assessment design, and deterrence for any mode of delivery.
This is the final installment of a three-part series by Bishop and Cini discussing academic dishonesty in online education.
– – – –
Ariely, D., (2012). The (honest) truth about dishonesty. New York: HarperCollins.
Bailie, J. L., & Jortberg, M. A. (2009). Online learner authentication: Verifying the identity of online users. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(2). Retrieved October 22, 2016 from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol5no2/bailie_0609.htm
Black, E., Greasers J., & Dawson, K. (2014). Academic honesty in traditional and online classrooms: Does the “media equation” hold true? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3-4), 23-30.
Blum, S.D. (2009). My word! Plagiarism and college culture. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Buranen, L., & Roy, A.M. (Eds.) (1999). Perspectives on plagiarism and intellectual property in a postmodern world. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Buchmann, B. (2014). Cheating in college: Where it happens, why students do it and how to stop it. Huffington Post (February 20, 2014). Retrieved October 22, 2016 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/uloop/cheating-in-college-where_b_4826136.html
Carroll, J. (2013). A handbook for deterring plagiarism in higher education (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
Chew, E., Ding, S.L., & Rowell, G. (2015). Changing attitudes in learning and assessment: cast-off ‘plagiarism detection’ and cast-on self-service assessment for learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 52(5), 454-463.
Fischer, B.A., & Zigmond, M.J. (2011). Educational approaches for discouraging plagiarism. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 29(1), 100-103.
Gabriel, T. (2010). Plagiarism Lines Blur for Students in Digital Age, New York Times, August 1, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/education/02cheat.html
Grijalva, T., Nowell, C., & Kerkvliet, J. (2006). Academic honesty and online courses. College Student Journal, 40(1), 180-185.
Lanier, M. (2006). Academic integrity and distance learning. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 17(2), 244-261.
Lang, J.M. (2013). Cheating lessons: Learning from academic dishonesty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ma, Y., McCabe, D., & Liu, R. (2013). Students’ academic cheating in Chinese universities: Prevalence, influencing factors, and proposed action. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11(3), 169-184.
McCabe, D. (2005). Levels of cheating and plagiarism remain high. Retrieved November 21, 2012, from The Center for Academic Integrity Website: http://www.academicintegrity.org/cai_
McCabe, D. (2005). Cheating among college and university students: A North American perspective. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 1(1). Retrieved October 22, 2016 from http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/IJEI/article/view/14/9
McCabe, D. (2016). Cheating and honor: Lessons from a long-term research project. In T. Bretag (ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity, pp. 187-200.
McCabe, D.L., Butterfield, K.D., & Treviño, L.K. (2012). Cheating in college: Why students do it and what educators can do about it. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 219–232.
McCabe, D. L., and Treviño, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education 64(5), 522–538.
McCabe, D. L., and Treviño, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multi-campus investigation. Research in Higher Education 38(3), 379-396.
McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2002). Honor codes and other contextual influences on academic integrity: A replication and extension to modified honor code settings. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 357-378.
Park, C. (2003). In other (people’s) words: Plagiarism by university students––literature and lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 471-488.
Park, C. (2004). Rebels without a clause: Towards an institutional framework for dealing with plagiarism by students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28(3), 291–306.
Rolfe, V. (2010). Can Turnitin be used to provide instant formative feedback? British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 701-710. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01091.x
Scanlon, P.M., & Neumann, D.R. (2002). Internet plagiarism among college students. Journal of College Student Development, 43(3), 374-385.
Selwyn, N. (2008). “Not necessarily a bad thing…”: A study of online plagiarism amongst undergraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 465-479.
Semple, M., Hatala, J., Franks, P., & Rossi, M. (2011). Is your avatar ethical? On-line course tools that are methods for student identity verification. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 39(2), 191-191.
Shafer, T., Barta, M., & Pavone, T. (2009). Student identity verification and the Higher Education Opportunity Act: A faculty perspective. International journal of Technology and Distance Learning, 6(8). Retrieved on October 22, 2016 from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Aug_09/article05.htm.
Singh, P., & Thambusamy, R. (2016). “To Cheat or Not To Cheat, That is the Question”: Undergraduates’ Moral Reasoning and Academic Dishonesty in C.Y. Fook et al. (eds.), 7th International Conference on University Learning and Teaching (InCULT 2014) Proceedings, pp 741-752. DOI 10.1007/978-981-287-664-5_58
Smith, C. M., & Noviello, S. R., (2012). Best practices in authentication and verification of students in online education. Presentation at the 23rd International Nursing Research Congress. Brisbane, Australia
Stuber-McEwen, D., Wiseley, P., & Hoggatt, S. (2009). Point, click, and cheat: Frequency and type of academic dishonesty in the virtual classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(3), 1-10.
Sterngold, A. (2010). Confronting plagiarism: How conventional teaching invites cyber-cheating. Change, 36(3), 16-21.
Vilic, B., & Cini, M.A. (2006). User authentication and academic integrity in online assessment. In M. Hricko & S. Howell (Eds.) Online assessment and measurement: Foundations and challenges (pp. 341-358). Hershey, PA: Information Science.
Watson, G., & Sottile, J. (2010). Cheating in the digital age: Do students cheat more in online courses? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring131/watson131.html?goback= percent2Egde_52119_member_208797940.
Xueqin, J. (2002, May 17). Chinese academics consider a “culture of copying.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, A45-A46.
Learn how you can improve your relationship management to attract and retain non-traditional students
Author Perspective: Administrator