9,000 Freshmen, One Common Foundation: Academic Integrity Joe Buenker, Leslee Shell & Julie Tharp LOEX 36 th National Conference

Academic ASU Spring/Summer 2007: ASU Libraries developed an academic integrity module for the new ASU 101 course ASU 101 –freshman-level –mandatory course

ASU Campuses 4 campuses 8 libraries 60,000+ students

“One University in Many Places” Increasingly students take courses on two or more campuses over ASU career Single university accreditation Single university governance/Senate Increased collaboration

Unified Curriculum

ASU 101 vs. FYE University Success Course FYE: Coordinated by University Academic Success Program Taught by graduate students Not required for all freshmen Colleges not participating have little or no awareness of course content ASU 101: Coordinated by the University Provost’s Office Taught by administrators, faculty and advisors Required of 9,000+ freshmen All colleges and departments participate

How We Got Involved Task force: curriculum planning Model syllabus Expert teams Instructional design support

Academic Integrity Expert Team 2 librarians from Tempe campus 3 librarians from West campus 1 instructional designer 2 month timeline Weekly meetings

Structure of ASU 101 Hybrid format 5 week course 1.5 hours/week in-class time Administered through Blackboard

ASU 101: Module Standards For continuity, each module must have: –Introductory activity that facilitates learning –“Overview” PowerPoint and Macromedia Breeze narration –Discussion board questions –Assessment / quiz

Academic Integrity Issues in Higher Education Not a new phenomenon Different findings regarding prevalence and frequency Not just plagiarism Large body of literature Relies on self-reported behavior

Large-Scale Surveying Prof. Donald McCabe of Rutgers Center for Academic Integrity (Clemson U) 80,000+ students and 12,000+ faculty 83 American and Canadian institutions (McCabe, Trevino and Butterfield, 2001)

Academic Dishonesty Over Time Serious test cheating39%64% Serious cheating on 65%66% written work All cheating75%82% (McCabe, Trevino and Butterfield, 2001)

Factors at Play Students: –behaviors determines frequency of misconduct Faculty: –behaviors can deter misconduct (use of plagiarism detection tools, use of proctors during exams, etc.) Institutional Culture: –Student Code of Conduct –Honor Code (Hard, Conway and Moran 2006)

Why Do Students Cheat? Ignorance Not invested in learning Situational ethics Low risk of detection (Auer and Kupar, 2001)

What Students Say Time pressures (stress) Ease of cut-and-paste plagiarism Low risk of detection Dislike for the class or professor (Lester and Diekhoff, 2002) Peer behavior (situational ethics) (McCabe, Trevino and Butterfield, 2001)

Who Cheats? High school students cheat at higher rate. Majority of high school cheater continue to cheat in college. Cheating is more widespread at larger university campuses. High cheating rates among sororities / fraternities and college athletics. (Miller, Murdock, Anderman and Poindexter 2007)

Major U.S. Plagiarism Studies I College students and print sources 1964 = 43% (Bowers) 2003 = 40% (Hansen)

Major U.S. Plagiarism Studies II High school students and print sources 1985 (California)=51% 1989 (Georgia)=76% Internet Plagiarism 2001 (high school)= 52% 2003 (college)= 38% (Hansen 2003)

Blackboard Module

Narrated PowerPoint (Breeze) academic_integrity_intro/index.htmhttps:// academic_integrity_intro/index.htm

Academic Honesty / Dishonesty Survey ACTIVITY: Decide if the behaviors described in the scenarios are honest or dishonest

Secondary Learning Objective: Avoiding Plagiarism Avoiding plagiarism handout Test your understanding Discussion

ASU 101 Evaluations: W.P. Carey College of Business Discovering Campus Resources and Academic Advising: Very, Somewhat Helpful – 83% Not Helpful – 16% No Response – 1% Academic Success / Integrity:Academic Success / Integrity: Very, Somewhat Helpful -79% Not Helpful – 20% No Response -1% Getting Involved on Campus: Very, Somewhat Helpful – 77% Not Helpful – 22% No Response – 1% Managing Time Effectively, Study Skills: Very, Somewhat Helpful – 73% Not Helpful – 22% No Response – 5% Stress Management: Very, Somewhat Helpful – 66% Not Helpful – 27% No Response – 7%

Next Steps: Library Module 2 for ASU librarians and 1 instructional designer currently developing a second module Focus of Module: –Locations, services and collections of ASU Libraries –Relevance and importance of academic libraries in the Google Era

References I Auer, N.J. & Kupar, E.M. (2001). Mouse click plagiarism: The role of technology in combating plagiarism and the librarian’s role in combating it. Library Trends, 49(3): Hansen, B. (2003). Combating plagiarism. CQ Researcher, 13(2): Hard, S.F., Conway, J.M., & Moran, A.C. (2006). Faculty and student beliefs about the frequency of student academic misconduct. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(6): Lester, M.C. & Diekhoff, G.M. (2002). A comparison of traditional and Internet cheaters. Journal of College Student Development, 43(6):

References II McCabe, D.L., Trevino, L.K., & Butterfield, K.D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics and Behavior, 11(3): Miller, A.D., Murdock, T.B., Anderman, E.M. and Poindexter, A.L. (2007). Who are all these cheaters? Characteristics of academically dishonest students (pp. 9-32). In Anderman and Murdock.

Recommended Sources Anderman, E.M., & Murdock, T.B. (eds.). (2007). Psychology of academic cheating. Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier Academic Press. ASU Libraries. Academic integrity & plagiarism. The Center for Academic Integrity, Rutland Institute for Ethics, Clemson University. Stern, L. (2007). What every student should know about avoiding plagiarism. New York: Pearson/Longman. USS_01DBC.html USS_01DBC.html

Questions?