Academic Integrity in the Classroom and Professional Activities

Report
ACADEMIC
INTEGRITY
in the classroom and
in professional activities
Paul Craig
Linette Koren
Academic Integrity in the Classroom and in Professional Activities
Date: Thursday, May 26th
Time: 10:00AM - 12:00PM (Running Time: 2 hours)
Location: Salon B
Presenters: Paul Craig, Linette Koren
Personal integrity is a core essential in the academic community. Our existence is based on
the trust of parents who send their children to RIT, as well as the trust of our partners (such
as Rochester General Hospital and federal funding agencies) who support our professional
efforts. The demand for excellence by students and faculty also creates pressure to
produce, which can lead to a temptation to take shortcuts in our 'cut-and-paste' world. To
grow as an institution, RIT must maintain the highest standards of academic integrity, which
means we need to communicate those standards among students and faculty. We will
explore current norms for academic integrity as defined by the National Academy of Science
and consider how to apply those standards in our learning and teaching. ACTION for
Attendees: Please bring a printed copy of two or three class syllabi so that we can look at
them together in a pair-share setting toward the end of our session.
SCHEDULE
10:00
NSF policies on misconduct in research (Paul)
10:15
Case students on research misconduct (interactive)
10:30
Presentation on using EndNote Web (Linette)
10:50
High tech cheating (Linette)
11:20
Questions/comments on high tech cheating (interactive)
11:30
Preparing an effective syllabus designed to limit cheating (Paul)
11:40
Modifying your own syllabi to reflect these approaches
(Interactive)
NSF POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
NSF Office of Inspector General
(http://www.nsf.gov/oig/misconscieng.jsp)
Regulations can be found at 45 CFR 689
(http://www.nsf.gov/oig/misconscieng.jsp)
TYPES OF MISCONDUCT
Fabrication
Falsification
Plagiarism
Does not include honest error or differences of
opinion
45 CFR Part 689 – Research Misconduct
FABRICATION
making up data or results and recording
or reporting them
45 CFR Part 689 – Research Misconduct
FALSIFICATION
manipulating research materials,
equipment, or processes, or changing or
omitting data or results such that the
research is not accurately represented in
the research recordmaking up data or
results and recording or reporting them
45 CFR Part 689 – Research Misconduct
PLAGIARISM
the appropriation of another person’s
ideas, processes, results or words
without giving appropriate credit
45 CFR Part 689 – Research Misconduct
TURNITIN.COM
 Papers that have been submitted
 Papers pulled from the Internet
 Papers from paper mills
 An archived copy of the Internet
 Books, newspapers and journals
 Proprietary database
TURNITIN.COM DOES NOT FIND
Grant proposals that have been submitted to NSF,
NIH, DOE or similar sources
These organizations keep their own proprietary
databases
NSF Fastlane gives you access to abstracts only
NSF INVESTIGATION OF RESEARCH
MISCONDUCT
Inquiry – a fact-finding mission
Investigation - a formal development, examination
and evaluation of a factual record to determine
whether research misconduct has taken place, to
assess its extent and consequences, and to evaluate
appropriate action.
45 CFR Part 689 – Research Misconduct
RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
A departure from normal practices
Intentional
Knowing
Reckless
45 CFR Part 689 – Research Misconduct
NSF ACTIONS. GROUP I
A letter of reprimand
Special approvals required for submission
Additional institutional oversight
45 CFR Part 689 – Research Misconduct
NSF ACTIONS. GROUP II
Suspension of an active award
Special reviews of all requests for funding from the
individual or the institution
A correction to the research record
45 CFR Part 689 – Research Misconduct
NSF ACTIONS. GROUP III
Termination of an active award
Prohibit the individual from reviewing grants,
advising or consulting on grants for a specified of
time
Debar or suspend the individual or the
institution for a specified period of time
45 CFR Part 689 – Research Misconduct
BASIS FOR NSF ACTIONS
Seriousness of the offense
The degree to which the misconduct was knowing,
intentional, or reckless
An isolated incident or part of a pattern
Impact on the research record, subjects, other
researchers, institutions or the public welfare
Other relevant actions
45 CFR Part 689 – Research Misconduct
CASE STUDY #1
A graduate student, working on a project that involves extensive DNA sequencing,
provides his mentor with a computer generated sequence of a gene. The student tells
his mentor that the sequence determination has involved complete analysis of both
strands of the DNA molecule. Over the next several months, it is determined that not
all of the sequence data reflects analysis of both DNA strands. Indeed, follow-up work
by a postdoctoral in the laboratory reveals several mistakes in the sequence. The
student in question admits to misleading his mentor and, following appropriate
investigation, is convicted of scientific misconduct and dismissed from the graduate
program. The mentor realizes that the student presented some of the erroneous data at
a regional scientific meeting. Proceedings of the meeting were not published but
abstracts of all of the works presented were distributed to approximately 100 meeting
participants. In addition the student, with the mentor's permission, sent the sequence by
electronic mail to three other laboratories. What, if any, responsibility does the faculty
mentor have with regard to disclosing the above developments? What, if anything should
the mentor do about the prematurely released data? Under these circumstances, what
is the potential for harm coming from this incident of scientific fraud? Who might be
harmed?
http://research-ethics.net/topics/research-misconduct/#discussion
CASE STUDY #2
You are an editor for the Journal of Novel Diagnostics.Your recently
handled a manuscript that compared two new diagnostic tests for
detection of a genetic defect. Test 1 is marketed by Genetix, Inc. and test 2
is marketed by Probes Unlimited. The manuscript concludes that test 1 is
superior in terms of reliability and accuracy. Following peer review and
minor revision, you accept the paper and it appears in print. Shortly after
publication, you receive a letter from the Vice President for Research at
Probes Unlimited. She claims that examination of the methods section of
the paper reveals that the authors used test 2 in a manner that significantly
deviates from the instructions provided by Probes Unlimited. Moreover,
she claims that the senior author on the paper has previously received
research grants from Genetix, Inc. Is this "sloppy science" or scientific
fraud. What course of action do you take?
http://research-ethics.net/topics/research-misconduct/#discussion
CASE STUDY #3
Dr. Hickory submits a grant application to a federal funding agency. When he receives
the summary statement review of the grant application, he finds that it has been
criticized on several grounds and that it has received a score which will prevent the
application from being funded. He decides to do more experiments to generate
preliminary information and indefinitely postpones resubmitting the grant application.
Approximately 18 months later, Dr Hickory is asked to serve as an ad hoc reviewer for
a research grant submitted to a private foundation. The topical area of the grant is
closely aligned with Dr. Hickory's area of expertise. It turns out that the principal
investigator of this application, Dr. Poplar, was a member of the panel that previously
reviewed Hickory's above-referenced grant. In reading the introductory section of the
grant application, Dr. Hickory realizes that the structure and content of this section is
strikingly similar to his previously submitted unfunded grant application. In fact there are
several areas of the introduction where wording is virtually identical to his initial grant
application. Moreover, several of the experiments proposed in the application to the
private foundation are quite similar (but not identical) to the ones he had previously
proposed. Dr. Hickory wonders what he can and should do about this situation. He
comes to you for advice. What advice do you give him?
http://research-ethics.net/topics/research-misconduct/#discussion
OTHER RESOURCES
Organization
Link
NIH Office of Research Integrity
http://ori.hhs.gov/
U.S. Dept. of Education
http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/ot
her/2005-4/110205d.html
U.S. Dept. of Energy
http://management.energy.gov/policy_guidance
/626.htm
U.C. Berkeley
http://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/researchpolicies/research-compliance/researchmisconduct
ENDNOTE WEB
 EndNote Web is a citation management program that allows you to
collect, organize, format, and share your references
 Web-based for access wherever you are
 References can be imported directly from library databases or added
manually
 Citation style is easily changed
 In-text citations are also formatted if using MS Word (requires plug-in)
 http://infoguides.rit.edu/endnoteweb
HIGH TECH CHEATING
 Common Sense Media video
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z98zgsatwAw
WHAT IS HIGH TECH CHEATING?
 Cheating using gadgets and technologies such as cell phones,
MP3 players, calculators, and other PDA devices
 Using web sites that offer the means to cheat (paper mills,
textbook problem solutions, test sharing sites)
 Using technology (such as YouTube videos) to learn about and
then implement low tech solutions (soda bottles, t-shirts, baseball
caps, pens)
DO TEENS CONSIDER THIS CHEATING?
 Searching the Internet to find a teacher’s manual, or the publisher’s
solutions to problems from a text you are using? (N=1,013)

Yes: Serious Offense: 36%

Yes: Minor Offense: 28%

No, but because not permitted: 20%

Just helping self or friend: 16%
IS THIS CHEATING?
 Take pictures of quiz/test questions to send to friends before they take
the quiz/test? (N=1,013)

Yes, serious offense: 51%

Yes, minor offense: 26%

No, but not permitted: 13%

Just helping self/friend: 11%
PAPER MILL SITES
 Oppapers.com
 Allfreeessays.com
 Term Papers Lab
 WriteMyEssay.com
 Cheathouse.com
TEXTBOOK SOLUTIONS
 Cramster.com
 Course Hero
Student Testimonials:
 I like that I ask questions and get help in a short time.
 Nothing but straight A's thanks to Cramster.
 Man I love Cramster. Step by step solutions rock my world!
 Cramster does a better job explaining than my professor!
 If Cramster ruled the world, all problems would be solved
TEST SITES
 Koofers.com
VIDEOS
YouTube videos are a high tech
means to show students
how to cheat in high tech
and low tech ways
 Soda bottles
 T-shirts
 Pens
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91lQK5SCzlQ
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZg_G8djiHY&feature=related
THE TECHNOLOGIES
 Smart phones have Internet access, voice recording and playback
options, notetaking apps, cameras, and text messaging capabilities
 MP3 players play more than music; they can have audio files of student
recorded data as well as lists
 Calculators are programmable and can hold text, formulas, and more
(TIs are used for SATs and AP exams)
 Wireless earphone and microphones allow for whispering questions
and answers
SMART PHONES
 have Internet access
 voice recording and playback options
 note taking apps
 cameras
 text messaging capabilities
MP3 PLAYERS
 Can store:
 audio files
 Data
SCIENTIFIC/GRAPHING CALCULATORS
 Can hold:
 Text
 Formulas
WIRELESS EARPHONES AND
MICROPHONES
 Can allow for:
Whispering of answers
PREVENTING HIGH TECH CHEATING
 Ethics
 Adopt or enforce an honor code
 Discuss all types of academic dishonesty in class
 State your policies clearly in syllabus
PREVENTING HIGH TECH CHEATING
 Best practices
 Require students show their work in exams; especially math and physics (offer
partial credit for this)
 Don’t give exams that require memorization which leads to the creation of “cheat
sheets”
 Don’t reuse exams – these end up in test bank web sites
PREVENTING HIGH TECH CHEATING
 Technological methods
 Use high-tech detection methods such as Turnitin.com
 Limit what is allowed to enter the exam room

no cell phones, iPods, PDAs, backpacks, etc.
 Turn off the wireless network in your classroom
PREVENTING HIGH TECH CHEATING
 Low tech methods
 Consider a dress code
 no baseball caps, zippered hoodies
 Establish a no food/drink policy
 no candy, gum, soda
 Share what’s happening in your classroom with others
EFFECTIVE SYLLABUS DESIGN
 Provide information
 State policies clearly
 Instruct about academic integrity policies and consequences
PROVIDING INFORMATION
 Course information
 Instructor information
 Textbook and other reading materials
 Course description and objectives
 Calendar and attendance policies
 Grading
Altman & Cashin, 1992
POLICIES
 Excused and unexcused absences
 Accessibility and academic accomodations
 American with disabilities act
 Academic Integrity Issues
UNC-Chapel Hill
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
 Define plagiarism – RIT library resources
 Duplicate submission
 Rules of collaboration – when is it okay or encouraged?
 Acceptable and unacceptable resources – can the students
use old exams when they are completing a take-home
exam?
 Consequences – university policies
UNC-Chapel Hill
AVOIDING PLAGIARISM
 Teach and demonstrate proper citations in the classroom
 Provide resources for citation software such as Endnote Web
 Written assignments
 Limited topics
 Require a proposal, outline and rough draft over the course of the term
 Regularly reinforce RIT’s policies on plagiarism
Craig, Federici & Buehler
LINKS
 University of Delaware Center for Teaching and
Learninghttp://cte.udel.edu/instructional-topics/designingcourses/designing-learning-centered-syllabus.html
 Cornell Center for Teaching
Excellencehttp://www.cte.cornell.edu/faculty/materials/CourseMaterials
Checklist.pdf
 University of Minnesota Center for Teaching and Learning
http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/teachlearn/tutorials/syllabus/resources/checkl
ist/index.html
 The Teaching Center at Washington University in St. Louis
http://teachingcenter.wustl.edu/preparing-syllabus-checklist
LINKS
 HB Altman, WE Cashin. IDEA Paper No. 27, Center for Faculty
Evaluation and Development. A Divison of Continuing Education, Kansas
State University. September, 1992.
http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/tea
chtip/writesyl.htm
 Honor in the syllabus. UNC-Chapel Hill.
http://honor.unc.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=
106&Itemid=149
 PA Craig, E Federici, MA Buehler. Instructing Students in Academic
Integrity. Journal of College Science Teaching 40: 50-55 (2010)

similar documents