Academic Integrity

Home

Results of Faculty and Student Surveys

Results

SPSS was used for all statistical analyses. Almost all CCSU students surveyed have engaged in one or more forms of academic misconduct, but on the average, do so seldom or rarely.  Survey results showed that 89.5 % of respondents reported engaging in at least one of 16 academic misconduct behaviors at least once during their time at CCSU. This figure, however, does not indicate that individual students frequently engage in academic misconduct on the CCSU campus. With one exception (M = 2.11, see Behavior 10) specific academic misconduct behavior mean scores were all under 2 (“Seldom [once or twice],” 1 represented “Never”). Averaged together, the mean for the 16 academic misconduct behaviors was 1.49.

As shown in Table 1, the four academic misconduct behaviors with the highest means were: (a) unauthorized collaboration (Behavior 10, M = 2.11); (b) failure to cite material taken from another source (Behavior 13, M = 1.98); (c) without premeditation, allowing other students to copy from respondent’s exam paper (Behavior 6, M = 1.73); and (d) submitting the same paper to two professors without permission (Behavior 11, M = 1.70). The three academic misconduct behaviors with the lowest mean scores were: (a) stealing exams (Behavior 7, M = 1.13); (b) purchasing papers (Behavior 15, M = 1.15); and (c) students handing in the work of others as their own. (Behavior 8, M = 1.17).

In every instance, as predicted, students believed that others were more likely to engage in academic misconduct than they themselves were. The means for the perception of peer academic misconduct were greater than 2 for all behaviors (2 = “Seldom [once or twice]”). In four instances (unplanned cheating on exams, unauthorized collaboration, failure to cite sources, and using Internet material without citation) mean perception scores were over 3 (3 = “Occasionally several times]).” Paired samples t-tests confirmed that differences between mean perceptions of peer academic misconduct and the means for reported student academic misconduct behavior were all above the .05 level of statistical significance.

Faculty respondents also reported that more misconduct exists than students report. With one exception (copying source material without proper citation [Behavior 13]), however, the gap between reported behavior and beliefs about behavior was smaller for faculty than it was for students. In other words, even though faculty suspect more misconduct occurs than students report, their beliefs are not as far off the mark as student beliefs. The difference between faculty beliefs about student misconduct and reported student misconduct is statistically significant. Paired samples t- tests confirmed that all differences between faculty perceptions and actual reported levels of student misconduct were statistically significant (p < .05). Results of paired samples t- tests also indicated that, with three exceptions, the differences between student and faculty overestimates of student academic misconduct were statistically significant (p < .05). Faculty are more likely to agree with student beliefs about misconduct in three areas: (a) allowing copying during an exam (Behavior 6), (b) submitting someone else’s material (Behavior 8), and (c) copying from Internet Websites (Behavior 14).

Our results suggest that most faculty members accuse students of acts of academic misconduct very rarely if at all. For only 6 of the 16 academic misconduct behaviors surveyed (1, 2, 8, 10, 13, and 14) did at least 50% of the faculty respondents report accusing a student at least once in their career (“Once in my career” = 2, 3 = “Every few years”). The highest rates of accusation were for submitting another’s material as one’s own (Behavior 8, M = 2.50), copying material without proper acknowledgement (Behavior 13, M = 3.04) and copying from Internet Websites (Behavior 14, M = 2.76).* *Since a different scale was used for the faculty accusations of academic misconduct than for student academic misconduct behaviors and student and faculty perceptions, means of faculty accusations are not directly comparable to means of student behaviors and means of student and faculty perceptions of student academic misconduct.

 Concerning knowledge of the CCSU Academic Misconduct Policy, the mean faculty response of 2.46 was midway between “Very Little” and “Some.” This average was higher than the student mean response of 2.18 regarding their knowledge of the policy. Paired samples t-tests indicated that the difference between faculty and student knowledge of the CCSU Academic Misconduct Policy was statistically significant (p < .05).

All faculty respondents reported using strategies to deter student academic misconduct. Five strategies, in particular, were reported by over 50% of faculty respondents: (a) Supervise exams closely (81.8%); (b) Provide information on own policies (77.7%); (c) Design assignments that make it difficult to use unapproved sources (68.2%); (d) Provide information on CCSU policies (54.1%); and (e) Indicate penalties for misconduct in syllabus (51.0%). The methods most frequently used by faculty respondents to communicate their own academic misconduct policies to students were in-class discussion at the beginning of the semester (78.3%), in their course syllabus (64.3%), and before examinations (56.1%).

Return to the CCSU Student and Faculty Surveys

Go to the Results Tables

Back to Top

Academic Integrity Home Page