K-State Honor & Integrity System

1800 Claflin, Suite 001
Manhattan, KS 66502

 

785-532-2595
honor@k-state.edu

 

Dr. Steve Starrett - Director
steveks@k-state.edu

 

Dr. Camilla Roberts - Associate Director
cjroberts@k-state.edu

Marcoux Dissertation Survey

Helene Marcoux Ph. D.
Associate Director of the Honor System
Department of Counseling & Educational Psychology
Assistant Professor

helene@k-state.edu

The following data was gleaned from a dissertation survey I conducted in the Spring 2001 semester. In a pilot study conducted in Fall 2000, I listened to two undergraduate faculty focus groups offer revisions to the questionnaire. I then conducted the survey with860Kansas State University teaching faculty. At questionnaire distribution time, there were no university frames identifying only faculty that had taught undergraduates--the population I wanted to survey. Therefore, each questionnaire had two qualifying questions: 1) Are you a full time faculty member at Kansas State University's main campus, and 2) Have you taught at least two sections of primarily(over 50%) undergraduate students in any of the last four academic semesters (Fall 1999, Spring 2000, Fall 2000, and Spring 2001)? Yes answers to both allowed the faculty member to continue answering questions. Those who answered "no" to either question were asked to return the questionnaire in the enclosed pre-addressed envelop unanswered.

A total of 513faculty returned the questionnaire, with 368faculty self-reporting that they qualified since they could answer "yes" to the two questions. The remaining 145faculty who returned the questionnaire disqualified themselves by sending the questionnaire back unanswered, as they were directed. A59.65 % response ratewas recorded.

In the questionnaire faculty respondents were encouraged to contact the researcher to self-report the handling of personal episodes with Honor Pledge violators.Thirteenfaculty responded to the request and were subsequently interviewed. Another 17 faculty were observed in their classrooms on the first day of classes during the semesters included in the study. The purpose of these nonparticipant observations was to gather data about faculty communication practices, both in written and oral forms.

I wish to thank all faculty who gave of their time to participate in this survey. I especially want to thank those faculty who donated further time in talking with me about their own experiences in dealing with students who are academically dishonest. When I finish the qualitative portion of the survey, I will add to the information found at this site.

 

Table 4.1

Survey Participant Profile by College
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(368 respondents)

College
Number of Participants
Percentage
Agriculture
54
14.7
Architecture, Planning, Design
23
6.3
Arts & Sciences
166
45.1
Business Administration
27
7.3
Education
22
6.0
Engineering
47
12.8
Human Ecology
28
7.6
Unknown
1
.3
Total
368
 


Table 4.2Survey Participant Profile by Rank, Tenure, Gender, Ethnicity, Citizenship
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(Item responses ranged from 353 to 366. Percentages are based on denominators of these item responses.)

Rank
Frequency
Percentage
Instructor
29
7.9
Assistant Professor
82
22.5
Associate Professor
109
29.9
Professor
145
38.9
     
Tenure
Frequency
Percentage
Tenured
253
68.8
Nontenured
100
27.2
     
Gender
Frequency
Percentage
Female
110
30.0
Male
256
69.6
     
Ethnicity
Frequency
Percentage
Caucasian
297
81.0
Asian
40
10.9
Mixed
14
3.8
Hispanic
6
1.6
Native American
3
.8
African American/Black
2
.5
     
Citizenship
Frequency
Percentage
US
339
92
Other
24
6.5


Table 4.3Faculty self-reports on whether or not they are familiar with Kansas State University's Undergraduate Honor System policy on student academic misconduct.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(364 respondents)

Responses
Frequency
Percentage
Yes
346
95.1
No
18
4.9


Table 4.4Faculty opinions on whether an instructor should take class time todiscusswhat constitutes academic dishonesty.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(348 respondents)

Responses
Frequency
Percentage
Strongly Agree
89
25.6
Agree
189
54.3
Disagree
62
17.8
Strongly Disagree
8
2.3


Table 4.5Faculty opinions on whether students generallycome to college knowingwhat constitutes cheating in the classroom.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(357 respondents)

Responses
Frequency
Percentage
Strongly Agree
41
11.5
Agree
215
60.2
Disagree
90
24.2
Strongly Disagree
11
3.1


Table 4.6Faculty opinions on whether a teacher should givewritteninstructions about what constitutes academic dishonesty.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(358 respondents)

Responses
Frequency
Percentage
Strongly Agree
56
15.6
Agree
162
45.3
Disagree
120
33.5
Strongly Disagree
20
5.6
     


Table 4.7Faculty perceptions onhow oftenstudents ask questions about what constitutes cheating in the classroom.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(364 respondents)

Responses
Frequency
Percentage
Often
1
.3
Seldom
105
28.8
Never
258
70.9
     


Table 4.8Faculty self-reports onhowthey disseminate information about cheating to students.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(365 respondents)

Responses
Frequency
Percentage

Made verbal announcements to the total class

263
70.1

Placed a statement in my class syllabus

307
84.1

Conversed with one to two students (face to face)

83
22.7

In a phone conversation with a student

10
2.7

Conversed with a group of more than two students

19
5.2

Sent an e-mail message to the student(s)

23
6.3

Referred student(s) to policy inInside KSU

87
23.8

Referred student(s) to K-State's Honor System web page (www.ksu.edu/honor)

128
35.1

Other

30
8.2

Did not do any of the above

14
3.8
     


Table 4.9Faculty self-reports on theaverage timespent talking with students
in a typical class about what constitutes academic dishonesty.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(365 respondents)

Average Time in Minutes

6.4 minutes



Table 4.10Faculty self-reports onwhenthey disseminate information about cheating to students.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(364 respondents)

Responses
Frequency
Percentage

When I handed out the syllabus

301
82.7

Within the first week of classes

126
34.6

When I discussed an academic assignment

118
32.4

When a student asked specific questions about cheating

45
13.5

Before any student assessment (project, paper, quiz, test, exam)

113
31.0

Other

24
6.6

Did not disseminate information about cheating

15
4.1
     


Table 4.11Faculty self-reports on where they place the Honor SystemHonor Pledge.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(352 respondents)

Responses
Frequency
Percentage

Course syllabi

201
57.1

Course assignments

15
4.3

Course examinations (not including final)

35
9.9

Course final

24
6.8

Other

22
6.3

Did not put the Pledge on any of the above

129
36.6
     


Table 4.12Faculty self-reports on thenumberof cheating incident(s) occurring in their courses
during four academic semesters--Fall 1999 through Spring 2001.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(366 respondents)

Responses
Frequency
Percentage

No

188
51.4

Yes, and sanctioned violator(s)

83
22.7

Yes, and did not sanction violators(s)

24
6.6

I suspect, but don't know for certain

71
19.4
     


Table 4.13Faculty self-reports oftypesof cheating which occurred.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(366 respondents)

Types of Cheating
Frequency
Percentage

Plagiarism on any assignment

86
23.5

Unauthorized collaboration on any assignment

69
18.9

Copying exam answers

64
17.5

Copying another student's assignment and turning it in

69
18.9

Using unauthorized materials during a quiz

6
1.6

Using unauthorized materials during an exam

20
5.5

Using unauthorized materials during the final

8
2.2
     


Table 4.14Types of violations which occurred in classes with an enrollment of5 to 20 students.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(Item responses ranged from 365 to 366. Percentages are based on denominators of these item responses.)

Types of Cheating in

Classes with Enrollment of 5-20 Students

Frequency
Percentage

Plagiarism on any assignment

34
9.3

Unauthorized collaboration on any assignment

22
6.1

Copying exam answers

19
5.2

Copying another student's assignment and turning it in

21
5.7

Using unauthorized materials during a quiz

1
5.5

Using unauthorized materials during an exam

3
1.1

Using unauthorized materials during the final

3
8.2
     


Table 4.15Types of violations which occurred in classes with an enrollment of21 to 50 students.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(Item responses ranged from 365 to 366. Percentages are based on denominators of these item responses.)

Types of Cheating in

Classes with Enrollment of 21-50 Students

Frequency
Percentage

Plagiarism on any assignment

34
9.3

Unauthorized collaboration on any assignment

29
7.9

Copying exam answers

18
4.9

Copying another student's assignment and turning it in

21
5.8

Using unauthorized materials during a quiz

1
2.7

Using unauthorized materials during an exam

4
1.1

Using unauthorized materials during the final

3
8.2
     


Table 4.16Types of violations which occurred in classes with an enrollment ofover 50students.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(Item responses ranged from 365 to 366. Percentages are based on denominators of these item responses.)

Types of Cheating in

Classes with Enrollment of Over 50 Students

Frequency
Percentage

Plagiarism on any assignment

25
6.8

Unauthorized collaboration on any assignment

22
6.1

Copying exam answers

28
7.7

Copying another student's assignment and turning it in

22
6.0

Using unauthorized materials during a quiz

3
8.2

Using unauthorized materials during an exam

7
1.9

Using unauthorized materials during the final

2
5.5


Table 4.17Type(s) ofsanctionsused.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(359 respondents)

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

Reported incident to Honor System Director

24
6.7

Gave a warning

75
2.1

Gave a failing grade on the test or assignment

69
1.9

Gave an XF in the course (F due to dishonesty)

17
4.7

Placed incident report in student's file (project, paper, quiz, test, exam)

21
5.8

Recommended suspension from University

1
.3

Recommended expulsion from University

0
0

Other

37
8.9

No sanction(s) given

36
1.4


Table 4.18When a student has been found cheating, an instructor should take time
todiscussthe episode with the student.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(367 respondents)

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

Strongly Agree
253
69.0
Agree
101
28.0
Disagree
8
2.2
Strongly Disagree
1
.3
No response
5
1.4
     


Table 4.19In general, students guilty of cheating and sanctioned (penalized)learnfrom the experience.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(367 respondents)

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

Strongly Agree
74
20.2
Agree
198
54.0
Disagree
61
16.6
Strongly Disagree
0
0
No response
34
9.3
     


Table 4.20In general, once a cheater--alwaysa cheater.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(368 respondents)

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

Strongly Agree
4
1.1
Agree
65
17.7
Disagree
229
62.2
Strongly Disagree
1
.3
No response
69
18.8
     


Table 4.21In general, I believepart of my jobas an instructor is to help students learn ethical behavior.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(368 respondents)

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

Strongly Agree

161

44.0

Agree

167

45.4

Disagree

32

8.7

Strongly Disagree

0

0

No response

8

2.2



Table 4.22Scenario 1-Talking about a test after it has been taken is cheating.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(360 respondents)

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

Yes

32

11.3

No

307

85.3

No response

21

5.8



Table 4.23Scenario 2-Using a book review for two different classes is cheating.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(354 respondents)

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

Yes
161
45.5
No
144
40.7
No response
49
13.8


Table 4.24Scenario 3-Using old tests such as those kept in Greek house is cheating.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(359 respondents)

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

Yes

70

19.5

No

272

75.8

No response

17

4.7



Table 4.25Scenario 4-Reusing lab reports in two separate semesters is cheating.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(357 respondents)

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

Yes
63
17.6
No
266
74.5
No response
29
8.1


Table 4.26Average years as self-reported, by rank,in teaching undergraduate students at KSU.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(365 respondents)

Rank

Average in Years

Instructor
11.24
Assistant Professor
3.15
Associate Professor
12.68
Professor
18.88


Table 4.27Types of undergraduate classes taught, as self-reported by faculty,
in four academic semesters from fall 1999 to spring 2001 at KSU?
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(365 respondents)

Type of Classes

Frequency

Percentage

Lower division

233
63.8

Upper division

323
88.5

Under 20 students in the class

223
61.1

21-50 students in the class

227
62.2

Over 50 students in the class

191
52.3

Required general education course

86
23.6

Introductory or survey course

175
47.9

Required course in a program

302
82.7


Table 4.28Faculty who self-report having receivedtraining or orientationin addressing academic dishonesty.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(367 respondents)

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

Yes
92
25.1
No
261
71.1
No response
14
3.8


Table 4.29Faculty self-reportingtypeof training or orientation received in addressing academic dishonesty.
Kansas State University Full-time
Undergraduate Teaching Faculty in 59 Departments
(364 respondents)

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

Workshop or Seminar
39
10.7
Faculty Handbook
41
11.3
Orientation
23
6.3
Other
27
7.4