We, students at Monmouth College…make the following pledge:

That we will accept responsibility for our lives while here at Monmouth College;

That we will endeavor daily to choose the course of action that ensures our own growth and well-being and that of our fellow students;

That we will act honestly and with integrity in all that we do;

That we will share openly our values, thoughts, and beliefs just as we will listen thoughtfully and with an open mind to the values, thoughts and beliefs of others;

That together we will explore our similarities and our differences and, through that exploration, seek to become more fully ourselves and more fully members of a genuine community of learners;

That we will treat with respect and civility our fellow students and the faculty and staff who have committed themselves to our learning and development;

And, finally, that we will honor the history, traditions, rules and regulations of the College so that we might further her mission, enhance her reputation, celebrate her good name and continue the legacy of those who have come before us.

Academic DishonestyModifying Monmouth College’s Current Regulations

Sean Fitzgerald, Jamie Jasmer, Evelina Lipecka, Missy McCrimmon, John Moore, Scott Taylor, and

Matt Woods

Why Does This Matter?

How can we proudly state that we attend an accredited college when students are not punished for being

dishonest?

“How can faculty and administration of Monmouth College effectively uphold and modify its standards given on the subject of academic dishonesty in the

Scot’s Guide?”

The Problem Question

Outline

• Introduction to Problem• Problem Analysis• Sub-Problems• Survey Results• Three Solutions• Final Solution• Criteria/Limitations• Conclusion

The Problem

• An increase in the occurrence of academic dishonesty witnessed by students

• Inconsistency in how academic dishonesty is dealt with among faculty and administration

• The current policy on academic dishonesty is vague and ambiguous, and as a result ineffective.

Tools Utilized

• Statistics

• Surveys

• Interviews

Cases of Academic Dishonesty Brought to the Attention of Dean Ambrose

Fall Spring

• 1998 – 1999 3 9• 1999 – 2000 4 4• 2000 – 2001 18 4• 2001 – 2002 17 14• 2002 – 2003 18 14• 2003 – 2004 14 -

Sub-Problems

• Plagiarism

• Improper citations

• Cheating on tests

• Inconsistency of faculty reporting academic dishonesty

Student Survey Results

• 150 students polled

Personally Guilty3% guilty of flagrant plagiarism36% guilty of incorrect citations10% guilty of cheating on tests

Witnessed Others50% seen someone guilty of flagrant plagiarism65% seen someone guilty of incorrect citations67% seen someone guilty of cheating on tests

Student Survey Results cont’d.

78 students felt academic dishonesty wasn’t a problem; only

56 felt it was

Analysis of Survey

• Relative majority believes that a problem does not exist

• At least half of polled students had witnessed each offense

• Clear inconsistency with the statistics

Faculty Survey Results

• 21 professors responded

• 15 mention in syllabus

• 6 mention before assignments

• 10 mention before papers

• 7 mention before tests

Faculty Survey Results cont’d.

• 19 encountered dishonesty 3 encountered once w/in last year

3 encountered twice w/in last year

5 encountered three times w/in last year

3 encountered > three times w/in last year

• 18 reported to the dean6 reported once w/in last year

2 reported twice w/in last year

2 reported three times w/in last year

2 reported > 3 times w/in last year

Analysis of Survey

• Faculty experience far less than occurs

• Faculty report less than encounter

• Statistics on reports are misleading

If the problem goes unsolved…

• Devalued reputation of college

• Degree will lose its credibility

• Students will not get the most from their education

Solutions

• Modification and education

• Consistent enforcement

• Consistent punishments

Modifying the Policy

• Students, faculty and administration

• Clarity and definition

• Viewbook, website, admissions, INTR101

Advantages/Disadvantages

• No loopholes

• Spread awareness of the problem

• Dishonest behavior curbed

• Knowledge not enough

• Not every problem solved

Consistent Enforcement

• Consistent in upholding rules

• Rules enforced the same; no individuality in cases

Advantages/Disadvantages

• Students’ behavior improves

• Faculty morale; more pride in MC occupation

• Confidence in faculty members

• Uncertainty; desired result not likely

Consistent Punishment

• Punishing offenders as the rules state

• No discrimination in punishment

Advantages/Disadvantages

• Most effective means• Main issue is loopholes• Consistent punishments will eliminate

loopholes

• Not easy• Individual cases don’t always match• Not all circumstances are the same

Combined Solution

• Modifying and educating

• More consistently enforced regulations

• Consistent administered punishments

Committee on Academic Regulations

• Two students, two faculty, two administrators

• Duties:Modify current policy

Oversee enforcement

Fair and consistent punishments

Advantages/Disadvantages

• Students presented with knowledge of clearer academic policy

• Students understand rules and punishments• Brief increase followed by a long-term decrease

in cases

• Not all cases can be caught• Students and faculty have more burden

Clear Advantage

• Reputation of Monmouth College will be restored

• Level of dishonesty will decrease

• Students, faculty, administrators PROUD to be affiliated with Monmouth College

Criteria

• Guidelines

• Consistency by Faculty

• Long-term Effects

Limitations

• Criticism

• Chain of Command

• Moral Limitations

• Logistical Limitations

• Persuasive Limitations

Final Thought

Thanks for listening! Questions?