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 Dishonesty Modifying 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 – – – – – –

Sub-Problems Plagiarism Improper citations Cheating on tests Inconsistency of faculty reporting academic dishonesty

Student Survey Results 150 students polled Personally Guilty 3% guilty of flagrant plagiarism 36% guilty of incorrect citations 10% guilty of cheating on tests Witnessed Others 50% seen someone guilty of flagrant plagiarism 65% seen someone guilty of incorrect citations 67% 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 dean 6 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?