A few weeks ago The University Committee on Student Appeals (UCSA) presented its report to Senate regarding of discipline cases that occurred in the university from September 2008 – August 2009. Compared to the 2007- 2008 academic year (617 undergrad students, 3 grad students) the number of cases in 2007-2008 (781 undergrad students, 18 grad students) increased. However, the number of cases represents a meager 3.1% of the entire student population. The disciplinary cases are categorized into cheating, plagiarism and misrepresentation. Cheating is further categorized into unauthorized co-operation or collaboration, unauthorized resubmission of work, unauthorized aids or assistance, violation of examination regulations, impersonation and theft of intellectual property.
The cases are not reported by faculty or program in order to preserve confidentiality. In Engineering, disciplinary cases are investigated by the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies, Professor Wayne Loucks. The Iron Warrior decided to interview him regarding the occurrence and nature of these disciplinary cases.
The general procedure followed by Professor Loucks is as follows: when a Faculty member reports an offence a detailed letter is sent to the student(s) according to the Policy requirement. The first meeting between Professor Loucks and the student(s) is very general with the Professor taking on the role of an advisor rather than an investigator at this point. The student is asked for a detailed response letter which is often more organized and detailed than his/her verbal account during the meeting but rarely does it differ from what was told by the students. Moreover, in the majority cases students do agree that the incident happened and so the focus of the meeting is why and how it happened.
The common reasons by the students include ‘I didn’t know that was wrong or inappropriate, I realized that now that I read the instructions”, “I missed the first class when the instructions were told”. Sometimes if the student was caught with a crib sheet during an exam he/she would say that the sheet wasn’t actually used. According to Professor Loucks, at the end of the day the reason doesn’t matter. What matters is that the student(s) were seeking to get a credit for something that they didn’t write or in cases of excessive collaboration on assignments, left the professor confused as to if the individual deserves a credit for an assignment where the goal of was not to find the answer, it was to derive it. Moreover, 56% of all cheating at the undergraduate level occurs in year 1 and decreases steadily to year 4; very few students are multiple offenders. It is either they become more careful and don’t get caught or don’t do it at all.
When asked if there was a trend among certain courses, the Professor commented that it depends on the nature of the course. Some courses only have a midterm and an exam while some have assignments too. In the latter kind there are more chances of collaboration and thus an offence. Lab courses also have an increased chance of academic offenses because there are more people involved. On the other hand, offences in exams are random and not too common. In Engineering, it is also hard to comment on the difference between on campus and DE courses because engineering students don’t take many DE courses.
There has been an increase of 10% in academic offences in the last decade. What is hard to tell is that if that is the increase in the occurrence of offences or their detection and subsequent prosecution.
According to Professor Loucks the aim is to target the group of honest students and tell them what is right and wrong so they don’t get tempted. There is a very small fraction of dishonest students who deliberately do it and will do it no matter what – the aim is to increase transparency and prevent the majority from crossing the line.
Professor Loucks comments that PDEng 15 Integrity Quiz plays an integral role to spread awareness among students. Making the students actually go through the quiz involves them more; they know what the rules are and don’t delude themselves into doing something that has been explicitly told is wrong. Moreover, PDEng is also the only course that reliably measures every submission and cheating cases, if any are caught.
A very important element in spreading awareness among students is training of the TAs. In the delivery of the courses the three key people are the professor, students and TAs. The TAs should be clear on guidelines and policies and what could constitutes allowable collaboration and help from peers within the framework of the course so that when students approach them for help they do not misguide them.
The best instrument that we have is our ability to detect and take action. Detection is done in computer courses using programs such as Moss – measure of submission similarity to evaluate the similarity between computer codes. Students with weak language skills are more prone to being detected. The program Turnitin comes into play. It is used to monitor plagiarism by checking the content against the citations. It puts all students on the same footing and encourages them to be honest.
Some other ways discussed that can prevent cheating in exams include assigned seating and having alternate versions of the exam. In the former, statistically speaking the probability of two friends or acquaintances ending up sitting together is very low. But there are no university policies in place right now to enforce these. It is a challenging task to impose these guidelines. According to Professor Loucks, if the process to enforce such actions is made easier more professors will be willing to implement them.
When asked about UW’s performance against other schools, Professor Loucks commented that UW is not too different from other schools in what students do – who gets caught or prosecuted is a different story. All schools carry out the penalty differently. For example, the University of Virginia has a judiciary of students who decides between expulsion and pardon. There the professors have a lot of freedom in what constitutes an offence. On the other hand the procedure followed in UW is quite standardized. Although there is always room for improvement the process in its current form works quite well.
In 2007, The Academic Integrity Committee drafted a report entitled “Toward A Level Playing Field: Enhancing Academic Integrity at the University of Waterloo”. This report includes surveys conducted both among students and faculty, analyzes trends and makes recommendations for improvement. One of the key things that this report highlights is “To achieve a culture of high academic integrity, it is critically important that all groups – students, staff, faculty, administration – become involved and engaged.” Students should not view Academic Integrity and Policy 71 as a restriction or as an imposition. It is for our own intellectual growth and a strong sense of right and wrong. By making ourselves aware of and in compliance with the rules and regulations in place, we will be able to grow into honest individuals and help others to do so too.
Leave a Reply