Academic integrity executive summary 16 17

Executive Summary 2016-2017

OFFICE OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

The Honor Code is a set of principles established by the University to promote honesty and integrity in all aspects of a student’s academic career. It is the responsibility of every student at the University of South Carolina to adhere steadfastly to truthfulness and to avoid dishonesty in connection with any academic program. A student who violates, or assists another in violating the Honor Code, will be subject to University sanctions.

Table of Contents Academic Integrity Process....................................................3 Year in Review...................................................................................4 Case Adjudication Overview..................................................5 Case Management Overview Responsible Charges & Findings................................6 FIO Charges & Findings......................................................7 Not Responsible Charges & Findings .....................8 Sanctioning Philosophy.....................................................9 Sanctioning Outcomes......................................................10 Resolution Process................................................................11 Referrals Academic Department 3-Year Overview............13 Top Five Academic Department Referrals........17 Home College of Student Referred.........................18 Classification of Student Referred............................20 Survey Assessment Faculty/Instructors.................................................................21 Academic Integrity Workshop.....................................22 Outreach Why Cocky Never Cheats.................................................25 Best Practices and Updates..........................................26 Areas for Continued Improvement.........................27 Honor Code Policy Updates..........................................28 Carolinian Creed.....................................................................31

2

Academic Integrity Process

3

2016-2017 Academic Year in Review

401

188

8%

The number of cases heard by OAI

The number of community members who reported cases to the OAI

The five year (2012-2016) recidivism rate for cases reported to the OAI or 134 students.

22

42%

65

The average number of days it takes to resolve a case

The percentage decrease in the time to case resolution from 2015-2016 to 2016-2017

The number of presentations to students, faculty and staff about academic integrity

4

Case Adjudication Overview

Responsible

For Information Only

Not Responsible

Based on the case information, it is more likely than not that the student has violated the Honor Code

There is some case information that suggests a violation may have occurred, but not enough to reach preponderance. A student can still receive educational sanctions as a result of this finding.

Insufficient information exists to warrant a responsible finding.

Preponderance Standard The Office of Academic Integrity uses the standard of a "preponderance of the evidence", which means that the evidence/information presented must demonstrate that the charged student is more likely than not in violation of the Honor Code charge(s).

5

Case Management Overview 2016-2017 Charges & Findings

Unauthorized assistance was the most commonly violated Honor Code policy this past academic year. The numbers for all violations have been relatively consistent for the past three years.Â

6

Case Management Overview Sanction Philosophy Given that our process is designed to be educational in nature, many students who are found responsible for violating the Honor Code are given sanctions that are two-fold. The purpose of our sanctions are to both hold the student accountable for their actions, through some type of punitive measure like conduct probation, and further their ethical reasoning and decision-making.

Much of this philosophy is rooted in established If we truly believe in best practices throughout our profession. Donald our role as educators, McCabe served as founder and president of the we would do better to Center for Academic Integrity. Along with this view most instances distinction he was a professor at Rutgers University of cheating as and a leading researcher in the field of student educational conduct. In his 2005 article, “It Takes a Village: opportunities.

Academic Dishonesty and Educational - Donald McCabe Opportunity,” McCabe outlined that all University constituents played a role in building a community where academic integrity is practiced and valued. Faculty have an obligation to model and clarify expectations and an obligation to report instances of cheating. Administrators have an obligation to assist in the development of more responsible students through the adjudication process and students have an obligation to hold themselves and their peers accountable.

Thus, based on McCabe’s work, we have developed a variety of sanctions that when paired with an academic penalty of the professor’s choosing largely reach our intended goal of developing responsible citizens.

9 McCabe, D.L. (2005). It Takes a Village Academic Dishonesty and Educational Opportunity.

Journal of Liberal Education, 91. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/lesufa05/le-sufa05index.cfm

Case Management Overview Sanction Outcomes In 60.5 percent of cases (250), the sanction outcome was the Academic Integrity Workshop or the Online Academic Integrity Seminar, and a period of Conduct Probation. This was the most common combination of sanctions.

This combination both educates students about academic integrity and deters them from future academic misconduct.

In addition to the aforementioned sanctions, three new educational sanctions were imposed this past academic year. These new sanctions include the Academic Integrity Tutorial and Quiz (16 cases), a Student Success Center (SSC) consultation (seven cases), and an reflection essay on integrity in the student's intended profession (20 cases). The tutorial focuses on the foundations of the Honor Code and basic citation education, while the SSC consultation focused on time management, study habit strategy development, or assistance with citations.

An transcript notation (a denotation that the student violated the Honor Code in a particular class) was imposed in 4.9 percent (20) of cases.

Suspension is only recommended if the student has multiple violations or if the conduct is especially egregious. Suspension was imposed in 2.4 percent of cases (10 cases) this year.

Eight of these ten students had one prior Honor Code violation. One student was suspended as a result of their first Honor Code violation while the other student had two prior academic integrity violations and was suspended for a second time.

10

Case Management Overview Resolution Process

Hearing Panel-12 3%

1-1 Meetings-389 97% Of the twelve College Committee Hearings (CCH) that took place this past academic year, nine occurred in the College of Arts and Sciences, two occurred in the College of Pharmacy, and one occurred in the College of Education. Four of the twelve students were graduate students. In eight of the twelve hearings, the hearing outcome was consistent with the University's recommended sanctions.Â

11

Referrals Department Overview & Home College Referrals

When reviewing the following data, please keep in mind pages ten through thirteen delineate case referrals by department and page fourteen delineates case referrals by home college of the student referred. For example, an engineering major could be taking a math course and be referred by the mathematics department for a violation.

Therefore, the first data set shows the department the referral came from (i.e. mathematics) and the second data set shows the home college of the referred student (i.e. engineering), regardless of where the violation occurred.

12

Referrals 3-Year Overview of Department Referrals

13

ReferralsÂ

3-Year Overview of Department Referrals

14

Referrals 3-Year Overview of Department Referrals

15

Referrals 3-Year Overview of Department Referrals

16

Referrals Top Five Academic Department Referrals

Computer Science & Engineering (40 cases)

Biological Sciences (36 cases)

History (24 cases)

Mathematics (21 cases)

Exercise Science (16 cases)

17

ReferralsÂ

Home college of student referred The following numbers show the home college of the referred students and the correlating percentage of the college's total enrollment.

68

Arts & Sciences (less than 1%)

62

Engineering & Computing (less than 1%)

18

Business (less than 1%)

38

Public Health (1.8%)

32

Hospitality, Retail, & Sport Management (less than 1%)

6 2

Education (less than 1%)

Music (less than 1%)

18

Referrals

Home college of student referred The following numbers show the home college of the alleged students and the correlating percentage of the college's total enrollment.

2

Pharmacy (less than 1%)

1

Information & Communications (less than 1%)

15 1

Nursing (less than 1%)

Social Work (less than 1%)

19

Referrals

Classification of Student Referred 150

100

50

La w -1

Ju ni or -8 So 0 ph om or e99 Fr es hm en -6 9 G ra du at eIn 35 te rn at io na l-3 2 Ph ar m ac y2

Se ni or -1 08

0

National data shows younger students are more likely to cheat than older students (and freshmen more than sophomores). However, at UofSC seniors remain the most commonly referred. These numbers have been relatively constant for the past three years. Salahub, Eric. "How to Address Plagiarism & Academic Dishonesty in Online Classes." Innovative Educators Webinar, 16 October 2016.

20

14

Assessment Faculty/Instructor

The Office of Academic Integrity regularly surveys our faculty/instructor reporters to assess satisfaction with the reporting and adjudication process.

In addition to the data below, only 74 percent of those surveyed stated that prior to reporting an incident, the process of referring a student to the Office of Academic Integrity was clear to them. This is an area we will work to improve through our outreach efforts during the 2017-2018 academic year. This year, faculty/instructors (38% response rate) reported the following: felt they understood how to report the alleged

100% violation utilizing the online report form.

89%

felt that the outcome of the referred case was appropriate, based on the nature of the incident

84%

felt that the imposed sanction of the referred case was appropriate, based on the nature of the incident

89%

surveyed stated that would utilize the OAI process again in the future

95%

surveyed agreed they would feel comfortable recommending this process to a colleague to use.

21

Assessment Academic Integrity Workshop The Academic Integrity Workshop is a four-week workshop that focuses on effective decision-making. The workshop includes an in-person session followed by several written assignments that incorporate narrative therapy, solutions-focused therapy and brief motivational interviewing.

A pre and post workshop rubric was created in campus labs to assess student learning as a result of completing the academic integrity workshop.

What was assessed?

The specific criteria being assessed includes: decision making Understanding future implications Knowledge of available campus resources Importance of Honor Code and Carolinian Creed

Understanding of student’s impact on faculty Future identity Ability to articulate future standards of behavior

How was the data collected?

The pre workshop rubric is completed immediately by the conduct administrator after resolving the incident with the student. The conduct administrator's conversation with the student mirror the intended learning outcomes that are then evaluated on the rubric.

The post workshop rubric is completed using the student's written workshop assignments. In order to eliminate bias from the conduct administrator and maintain consistency all post workshop rubrics are completed by a designated staff member.

22

17

Assessment Academic Integrity Workshop How was the data collected? cont.

Each factor was measured on a four tier scale from entry stage through Tier three. Point totals were calculated on the following scale: Entry Stage = one point, Tier one = two points, Tier two = three points, Tier three = four points for a possible total score of 36 points.

Results: As a result of attending an academic integrity workshop on average student's advanced in learning by at least one tier in all categories.

23

17

Assessment Academic Integrity Workshop Rubric Example:

24

17

Outreach

Why Cocky Never Cheats The Office of Academic Integrity presents to students throughout the year through U101 classes and at the request of professors. Our signature presentation, Why Cocky Never Cheats, specifically addresses the individual policies of the University's Honor Code, ways to avoid academic dishonesty and the impact of violating the Honor Code on the student's academic reputation and the institution.

Cocky Never Cheats is an interactive educational program that uses think-pair-share activities to facilitate student-led discussions about academic integrity.

A survey of the U101 classes in which Why Cocky Never Cheats was presented yielded the following results from 483 respondents:

97%

surveyed can articulate the negative impact that cheating has on the value of their USC degree

99%

surveyed can identify which actions constitute a violation of the Honor Code

85%

surveyed stated they are likely to ask their instructor questions about academic integrity for a specific class

25

Best Practices & Updates 2017 Integrity Award Recipient Karen Edwards, J.D., Senior Instructor of Retailing and Associate Director of the Center for Teaching Excellence was this year's Integrity Award recipient and was presented the award at this year's faculty awards ceremony. Here nominator said it best:

“In every class, she develops a positive classroom community—using icebreakers to get students interacting, communicating shared expectations for civility, even offering participation points to students who can recite the Carolinian Creed. She stresses academic honesty in her syllabi and employs “Dear Abby”-style scenarios to encourage students to reflect on what constitutes “cheating.” She further fosters students’ ethical engagement outside class, encouraging participation in community service and campus events. It’s no wonder Karen’s students see her as an inspiration; as one student notes in his end-of-course reflection, ‘’ve never had a professor who cares so much about students.’ Just as she inspires her classes, Karen is a leader in promoting integrity university-wide.”

Incorporate Syllabus Statements Setting clear expectations with students via your syllabus is important. When discussing academic integrity, it is best to share your obligation (and student’s obligation) to report as well as sharing the specific ways in which a student can violate our Honor Code. Lastly, outlining your standard grade penalty for an academic integrity violation can be a helpful deterrent to academically dishonest behavior.

We highly encourage the use of a collaboration statement, as unauthorized assistance is our second more commonly violation at UofSC. Therefore, it is helpful to state clear guidelines on how students can or cannot work together.

You can access sample syllabus statements online: sc.edu/academicintegrity

Request a presentation for your class or department Our presentation on academic integrity specifically addresses the individual policies of the University's Honor Code, ways to avoid academic dishonesty (i.e. use of campus and online resources, building relationships with faculty members, etc.), and the impact of violating the Honor Code on a student's academic reputation and the institution.

Our presentation is designed to be an interactive and educational program that uses the "Think-PairShare" activity to provide student-led discussion about academic integrity.

Our presentation to students usually lasts approximately 50 minutes, but can be shortened or lengthened base on your needs.

26

Areas for Continued Improvement Honor Code Awareness For the 2016-2017 academic year, our office saw a decline in the number of cases reported from the previous academic year. As such, we hope to increase outreach efforts to faculty and students in the coming year.

The development of our presentation request form is one way we hope to increase the number of presentations we give to faculty and students.

Additionally, postcards will be sent to all faculty on the Columbia campus this fall and the Division of Student Affairs will be sending out a Causeire to all faculty on the topic of academic integrity as well. Lastly, our office plans to host a Mutual Expectations event with the Center for Teaching Excellence and the Student Success Center in October.

Consistent Communications Based on feedback our office worked with our college liaisons to update the messages we send out to faculty reporters. These updated communications provide the reporter with an updated timeline of our process, the contact information for their college liaison who can assist them if they have questions as information about common grade penalties.

Additionally, we've updated our website to provide faculty with reporting resources including assistance with blackboard analytics and a sample email to send students who are reported.

Our reporter feedback survey has also been updated to provide our office with better information on how we can make improvements to our office and address faculty concerns.

27

Honor Code Policy Updates Code Revision Process: In Fall of 2016, faculty, students and staff within the Office of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity began the revisions to the Honor Code policy. This policy had not been significantly changed since 2007. The policy was then submitted to the provost, reviewed by community members and the University's president and board of trustees.

Review Committee's Goals: The Honor Code Review Committee established three overarching goals that were to: 1. Revise and update the Honor Code policies to encompass all potential violations and provide a clear definition for what constitutes a violation of the Honor Code 2. Update and remove procedural information 3. Create a document that is user friendly for students, faculty and staff Honor

Goal 1 Updates: Updates to codes and definitions of violations Constituent feedback stated previous policy language was vague and often had to be translated. The number of violations was decreased to four overarching areas of plagiarism, cheating, falsification and complicity. Now each violation is written to provide examples of behaviors that violate the Honor Code.

For example: Plagiarism: Use of work or ideas without proper acknowledgment of source. Prohibited behaviors include: partial or incomplete citation of work or ideas (etc.)

28

Honor Code Policy Updates Goal 1 Updates: Jurisdiction statement The opening statement now includes language that charges students with the role of upholding academic integrity. This statement unequivocally connects adherence to the Honor Code as part of their responsibility as a University student.

The previous version of the Honor Code did not clearly outline the role of the faculty member from the Office of Academic Integrity (OAI). The jurisdiction section achieves both this and the separation of grade consequences from university sanctions.

Retaliation In surveying faculty, several mentioned that a barrier to reporting was the of fear of retaliation. Though instances of retaliation have not been reported to OSCAI, additional language was added.

Goal 2 Updates: Carolina Judicial Council Hearings Feedback from faculty and students was that the current make-up of our panel could be perceived by the charged student as being biased (dean serving as the university representative over his/her faculty who served on the panel). To address this concern, the panel will now consist of faculty from any college (regardless of the violation).

The committee also changed and reduced the makeup of panelists for an Academic Integrity CJC hearing to allow for more flexibility for how many members are qualified to hear each case, thus solving a consistently recurring scheduling issue. The panel will consist either of two students and one faculty member or one student and two faculty members.

29

Honor Code Policy Updates Goal 2 Updates: Transcript Notation Process The committee formalized the transcript notation appellate process to provide a structured process that did not previously exist. The proposal requires students to provide documentation of goal achievement, personal growth, and adherence to university standards for academic integrity.

Appeals Process The committee worked with the chair of the Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Responsibility to address updates to the CJC hearing appeals process. The updates model the committee’s composition after other appellate groups and require annual training.

Goal 3 Updates: Grade Grievance Policy The committee clarified for faculty and students when the grade grievance processes could be utilized.

Simplified Language and Formatting Much of the feedback from the faculty survey and from students on the committee was that the previous Honor Code Language was unclear. A focus on simplifying language, providing examples, and listing information from least to most severe was made to ensure ease of use for student clarity and CJC panelist use in the hearing process.

30

Faculty serve as role models regarding academic honesty and help to ensure a community in which integrity and fairness occur. Thank you for continuing to partner with The Office of Academic Integrity and upholding the academic reputation of the university. Â

31