Main Menu

Academic Integrity

Rubric for Faculty: How well do you and your course promote academic integrity?

The Code of Academic Integrity is designed to ensure that the principle of academic honesty is upheld. There are many ways that academic dishonesty can manifest in a University setting. The Code of Academic Integrity defines academic dishonesty in 4 categories:

  • CHEATING: fraud, deceit, or dishonesty in any academic course or exercise in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage and/or intentionally using or attempting to use unauthorized materials, information, or study aids in any academic course or exercise.
  • FABRICATION: intentional and unauthorized falsification or invention of any information or citation in any academic course or exercise.
  • FACILITATING ACADEMIC DISHONESTY: intentionally or knowingly helping or attempting to help another to violate any provision of this Code.
  • PLAGIARISM: intentionally or knowingly representing the words or ideas of another as one’s own in any academic course or exercise.

Download a pdf of the rubric below.

Criteria Most Successful Practices Baseline Practices Resources

Criteria Academic Integrity Definition

Most successful practices Review UMD Code of Academic Integrity including definitions for academic dishonesty.

Reflect on academic integrity and academic dishonesty in context of course design, expectations for students, and disciplinary norms regarding Academic Integrity.

Read the yearly OSC Report on Academic Integrity at UMD and assess findings in context of your course and discipline.

Baseline Practices Read UMD Code of Academic Integrity including definitions for academic dishonesty.

Be aware of the yearly OSC Report on Academic Integrity at UMD.

Resources• Code of Academic Integrity

• Course related Policy Page

• Office of Student Conduct (OSC)

• OSC Report on AI at UMD

Criteria Motives for Students’ Breach of Academic Integrity

Most successful practices Review and reflect upon motivations for academic dishonesty and student perceptions and understanding of the Code, including the impact of cultural differences and sensitivities on students’ perceptions.

Common motives for academic dishonesty include: antipathy for professor, it is easy to do, disinterest for subject, neutralizing attitude (cheating does not hurt anyone, low-stakes assignment etc.), perceived social norms (belief that peers cheat and cheaters are not reported), goal of high course grade vs learning, desperation, lack of understanding of assignment expectations and lack of knowledge of the Code.

Baseline Practices Know that there are various motives that lead to academic dishonesty.

ResourcesSources: 1, 2, 12,13, 21, 27, 28, 30, 34, 38, 39, 48. (See below.)

Criteria Campus Procedures Related to Academic Integrity

Most successful practices Recognize and reflect upon your role in referring a student to the OSC considering the following:

The impact of a student referral:
You will contribute to a history on academic conduct for this student and for the campus that may be used to inform future decisions and policies.
For undergraduate students found responsible, the normal sanction is an “XF” grade; however, you may suggest an alternate sanction or provide mitigating circumstances through the “recommendation option” in the online referral form
Students, whether found responsible or not, consider a hearing as a serious and solemn event, recidivism is extremely rare
Reporting students suspected of misconduct serves as a disincentive to other students and promotes academic integrity

Your role in the referral process:
Postpone posting grades on assignments or exams that are suspect
It is your decision whether or not you inform the student of referral. Once referred, a student will be contacted by OSC
You are expected to complete the online referral form and provide documentation. OSC will evaluate the evidence for reasonable cause

The outcome of a referral:
OSC contacts the student for a preliminary meeting
Students may admit responsibility and waive a honor review
Hearings are adjudicated by the Honor Board composed of trained students, faculty, and staff
Students may request a student defender from the Undergraduate Student Legal Aid office
Students may appeal the decision of the Honor Board

Your options to formally support academic integrity processes:
Serve on the OSC Honor Board
Serve on the Campus Senate Student Conduct Committee
Act as departmental liaison to OSC

Baseline Practices Be aware of your role, the role of OSC, and the implications to the student in submitting a referral to the Office of Student Conduct for example:

You may contact the OSC to discuss your concerns without filing any reports
Referrals and supporting documentation are submitted online to OSC
OSC contacts the student after referral
The normal sanction for undergraduate students found responsible is an “XF” but faculty may recommend an alternate sanction during the referral process

Resources

Office of Student Conduct (OSC)
OSC Faculty Guide
OSC online referral
Role of Attorneys
UMD Legal Aid


Sources: 32, 34

Criteria Communicating Importance of Academic Integrity

Most successful practices Announce in class that academic integrity is expected and students who do not uphold the UMD Code of Academic Integrity will be referred to the OSC. Repeatedly promote and model a culture where honesty is expected and enforced.

Model academic integrity: e.g. cite sources used for class materials/lectures; acknowledge the importance of respecting an author’s ideas within the context of the author’s discipline.

Discuss your strong support for Academic Integrity during class:
• Reveal why you support the Code of Academic Integrity indicating your dedication to student learning vs a mission to uncover acts of academic dishonesty
• Indicate where students will find information about the Code and the academic integrity tutorial
• Specifically indicate expectations of the Code highlighting sanctions and consequences for misconduct; e.g. students may be prohibited from participation in university activities
• Relate academic integrity expectations to course discipline, careers, and other real world situations
• Reveal examples of student behaviors and problematic trends in student work related to academic integrity. Note that all assignments (low and high stakes) are subject to academic integrity expectations
• Indicate expectations for academic integrity in relation to the course and specific assignments

Communicate expectations for academic integrity:
• To TAs, provide training using OSC materials or staff as resources
• On exams and assignments, ask students to write out the Honor Pledge statement. Note research finding that making a commitment to academic integrity in writing reinforces practice of academic integrity
• In the syllabus, provide specific expectations of academic integrity for the course and for assignments (low and high stakes) and link to the Code via the Course Related Policy Page
• Before each assignment, remind students of Academic Integrity expectations

Baseline Practices Announce in class that academic integrity is expected and students who do not uphold the UMD Code of Academic Integrity will be referred to the OSC.

Place a link to the UGST Course Related Policy Page in the syllabus and indicate in class that this page includes information about expectations for academic integrity.

Ask the students to write out and sign the Honor Pledge on exams and other assessments.

Train teaching assistants on expectations and responsibility for academic integrity.

ResourcesCode of Academic Integrity Course related Policy Page
Office of Student Conduct (OSC)
Request AI presentation
Resources for AI presentation
AI Tutorial

Sources: 12, 20, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 39, 48

Criteria Course/Assignment Design to Reduce/ Dis-incentivize Fabrication

Most successful practices Indicate your expectations for original work, respect for protection of author’s ideas and professional ethics. Indicate your interest in promoting student learning highlighting the value of doing the work versus fabricating the experience.

Design assignments/exams purposefully to reduce fabrication opportunities:
• Require sources and citations
• Focus on process vs one “right answer”
• Require students to show their work or explain their thought process
• Provide opportunities for partial credit
• Require writing of the honor pledge

Dis-incentivize fabrication of student academic work by reviewing student work carefully, scanning tests for regrade comparison.

Dis-incentivize fabrication of documents for excused absences: using the UMD policy for excused absence as a guide; consider the diverse experiences of students and the stress related to illness or circumstances beyond the student’s control. Meet with students regarding situations that may affect their academics and allow students opportunities to make up work or complete alternate assignments.

Baseline Practices Define fabrication and indicate that fabrication is academic dishonesty.

Provide clear expectations for student work and for grading.

Be aware of trends related to fabrication: lab work results, regrade, documentation of absence.

Follow UMD policy for excused absence, give clear policies for make up or late work.

Resourcesn/a

Criteria Course/Assignment Design to Reduce/ Dis-incentivize Academic Dishonesty

Most successful practices Indicate your interest in promoting student learning, defining facilitation in the context of independent and collaborative work.

Discuss trends related to facilitation that may lead to academic dishonesty: Indicate that sharing coursework with other students may breach academic integrity. Discriminate publication of original work from sharing of coursework with other students. Discourage students from sharing course materials or work.

Clearly indicate expectations for independent vs collaborative work: Provide detailed guidance on aspects of classwork that allow student collaboration. Indicate clearly stages of work where collaboration is expected/required vs not allowed. Lead class discussion or activity on collaboration scenarios to reveal do’s and don’ts. For team projects, follow practices that support individual accountability.

Require writing of the honor pledge on all work products.

Baseline Practices Define facilitation and indicate that facilitation is academic dishonesty.

Indicate that the copyright of the course materials is owned by the faculty course instructor and may not be shared.

Contrast facilitation with collaboration.

In the syllabus and assignment instructions indicate when collaborative work is not allowed, when it is allowed, and/or expected.

ResourcesTeamwork Resources

Sources: 19, 30, 50

Criteria Course/Assignment Design to Reduce/ De-incentivize Cheating

Most successful practices Define cheating and indicate that cheating is academic dishonesty; stress your interest in promoting student learning, noting the value gained from doing your own work versus cheating

Design assignments assuming that prior exams and assignments are available to students:
• Search third-party websites for your course materials. If you find them, protect your copyright by contacting the source requesting removal, and telling your students your course material is copyrighted. Include a copyright statement on your syllabus, assignments, and exams
• Indicate if students may or may not use/share materials from prior versions of the course
Require writing of the honor pledge on all work products.

Design assignments /exams purposefully to reduce cheating opportunities:
• Create various versions of assessments (develop and use a question/answer bank)
• Modify assignments each semester
• Require students to show work or explain answer
• Provide assessment feedback to emphasize value of learning from incorrect answers
• Scan exams for use in regrade requests
• Require writing of the honor pledge

Dis-incentivize cheating:
• For exams: proctor, verify student identity; e.g. check IDs, complete visual check (assign seats), allow physical space between students (alternate with empty seats)
• Decrease stress by providing being clear and transparent information about testing procedures, schedules and make-up policies

Baseline Practices Define cheating and indicate that cheating is academic dishonesty.

Be aware and address the fact that prior exams and assignments are available to students via third party websites and collections maintained by former students.

Design assignments /exams to reduce cheating opportunities:
• Create different versions of exam; e.g. randomize question distractors or randomize order of questions, and distribute versions such that adjacent students receive distinct versions (color coding may help)

Dis-incentivize cheating:
• For exams: proctor and/or announce that students are expected to uphold the Code. Allow physical space between students (alternate with empty seat), verify student identity; e.g. require sign in, assign seats by section
• Decrease stress by being clear and transparent about testing procedures, schedules and make-up policies

ResourcesUMD Copyright Info

Sources: 14, 29, 30, 38

 

To view the entire Code of Academic Integrity, please visit this link: http://www.president.umd.edu/policies/docs/III-100A.pdf

Campus Resources:

UMD Office of Student Conduct: http://osc.umd.edu/OSC/Default.aspx

Office of Undergraduate Studies Course Related Policies: https://www.ugst.umd.edu/courserelatedpolicies.html

Academic Integrity Bibliography:

 

References

  1. Akeley Spear, J., & Miller, A. N. (2012). The effects of instructor fear appeals and moral appeals on cheating-related attitudes and behavior of university students. Ethics & Behavior, 22(3), 196-207.
  2. Anderman, E. M., Griesinger, T., & Westerfield, G. (1998). Motivation and cheating during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 84.
  3. Alschuler, A., & Blimling, G. (1995). Curbing Epidemic Cheating Through Systemic Change. College Teaching, 43(4), 123-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1995.9925531
  4. Barnhardt, B. (2015). The “Epidemic” of Cheating Depends on Its Definition: A Critique of Inferring the Moral Quality of “Cheating in Any Form”. Ethics & Behavior, 26(4), 330-343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2015.1026595
  5. Bennett *, R. (2005). Factors associated with student plagiarism in a post‐1992 university. Assessment & Evaluation In Higher Education, 30(2), 137-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000264244
  6. Benson, J. (2015). Collaboration, Cheating, or Both?. In R.  Sternberg & S.  Fiske, Ethical Challenges in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences: Case Studies and Commentaries (1st ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Bertram Gallant, T., Anderson, M., & Killoran, C. (2011). Academic Integrity in a Mandatory Physics Lab: The Influence of Post-Graduate Aspirations and Grade Point Averages. Science And Engineering Ethics, 19(1), 219-235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9325-8
  8. Bisping, T., Patron, H., & Roskelley, K. (2008). Modeling Academic Dishonesty: The Role of Student Perceptions and Misconduct Type. The Journal Of Economic Education, 39(1), 4-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/jece.39.1.4-21
  9. Blankenship, K., & Whitley, B. (2000). Relation of General Deviance to Academic Dishonesty. Ethics & Behavior, 10(1), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1001_1
  10. Bombaro, C. (2007). Using audience response technology to teach academic integrity: “The seven deadly sins of plagiarism” at Dickinson College. Reference Services Review, 35(2), 296-309.
  11. Briggs, K., Workman, J., & York, A. (2012). Collaborating to Cheat: A Game Theoretic Exploration of Academic Dishonesty in Teams. Academy Of Management Learning & Education, 12(1), 4-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0140
  12. Broeckelman-Post, M. A. (2008). Faculty and student classroom influences on academic dishonesty. IEEE Transactions on Education, 51(2), 206-211.
  13. Bruton, S., & Childers, D. (2016). The ethics and politics of policing plagiarism: a qualitative study of faculty views on student plagiarism and Turnitin®. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 316-330.
  14. Carpenter, D., Harding, T., Finelli, C., Montgomery, S., & Passow, H. (2006). Engineering Students' Perceptions of and Attitudes Towards Cheating. Journal Of Engineering Education, 95(3), 181-194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00891.x
  15. Carpenter, D., Harding, T., & Finelli, C. (2010). Using research to identify academic dishonesty deterrents among engineering undergraduates.
  16. Corrigan-Gibbs, H., Gupta, N., Northcutt, C., Cutrell, E., & Thies, W. (2015). Deterring cheating in online environments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 22(6), 28.
  17. Creating a Culture of Academic Integrity and Professionalism. (2016). Journal Of Dental Education, 80(1), 3-4.
  18. Diekhoff, G., LaBeff, E., Clark, R., Williams, L., Francis, B., & Haines, V. (1996). College cheating: Ten years later. Research In Higher Education, 37(4), 487-502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf01730111
  19. Eplion, D. M., & Keefe, T. J. (2007). Practical tips for preventing cheating on online exams. Faculty Focus, 600136-1.
  20. Estow, S., Lawrence, E. K., & Adams, K. A. (2011). Practice Makes Perfect: Improving Students' Skills in Understanding and Avoiding Plagiarism With a Themed Methods Course. Teaching of psychology, 38(4), 255-258.
  21. Ewing, H., Anast, A., & Roehling, T. (2016). Addressing plagiarism in online programmes at a health sciences university: a case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(4), 575-585.
  22. Fifolt, M. (2014). Cheating Lessons: Learning from Academic Dishonesty. College and University, 89(3), 68.
  23. Gibelman, M., Gelman, S., & Fast, J. (1999). The Downside of Cyberspace Cheating Made Easy. Journal Of Social Work Education, 35(3), 367-376.
  24. Greer, K., Swanberg, S., Hristova, M., Switzer, A. T., Daniel, D., & Perdue, S. W. (2012). Beyond the web tutorial: Development and implementation of an online, self-directed academic integrity course at Oakland University. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(5), 251-258.
  25. Jordan, A. E. (2001). College student cheating: The role of motivation, perceived norms, attitudes, and knowledge of institutional policy. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 233-247.
  26. Leask, B. (2006). Plagiarism, cultural diversity and metaphor—implications for academic staff development. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 183-199.
  27. Leonard, M., Schwieder, D., Buhler, A., Bennett, D., & Royster, M. (2014). Perceptions of Plagiarism by STEM Graduate Students: A Case Study. Science And Engineering Ethics, 21(6), 1587-1608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9604-2
  28. Lupton, R., & Chaqman, K. (2002). Russian and American college students' attitudes, perceptions and tendencies towards cheating. Educational Research, 44(1), 17-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131880110081080
  29. Macfarlane, B., Zhang, J., & Pun, A. (2014). Academic integrity: a review of the literature. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), 339-358.
  30. Maxwell, A., Curtis, G., & Vardanega, L. (2008). Does culture influence understanding and perceived seriousness of plagiarism?. International Journal For Educational Integrity, 4(2).
  31. Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The Dishonesty of Honest People: A Theory of Self-Concept Maintenance. Journal Of Marketing Research, 45(6), 633-644. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633
  32. McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Treviño, L. K. (2003). Faculty and academic integrity: The influence of current honor codes and past honor code experiences. Research in higher education, 44(3), 367-385.
  33. McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(3), 294-305.
  34. McCabe, D., & Trevino, L. (1997). Individual and Contextual Influences on Academic Dishonesty: A Multicampus Investigation. Research In Higher Education, 38(3), 379-396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/a:1024954224675
  35. McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics &Behavior, 11(3), 219-232.
  36. Menk, K. B., & Malone, S. (2015). Creating a Cheat-Proof Testing and Learning Environment: A Unique Testing Opportunity for Each Student. In Advances in Accounting Education: Teaching and Curriculum Innovations (pp. 133-161). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  37. Newton, P. (2016). Academic integrity: a quantitative study of confidence and understanding in students at the start of their higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 482-497.
  38. O'Malley, M., & Roberts, T. S. (2011, August). Plagiarism in science education: Preventing cheating via online auctions. In Proceedings of The Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (formerly UniServe Science Conference) (Vol. 17).
  39. Park, C. (2003). In other (people's) words: Plagiarism by university students--literature and lessons. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 28(5), 471-488.
  40. Prescott, L. (2016). Using collaboration to foster academic integrity. Open Learning: The Journal Of Open, Distance And E-Learning, 31(2), 152-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2016.1169162
  41. Pulfrey, C., & Butera, F. (2015). When and why people don’t accept cheating: self-transcendence values, social responsibility, mastery goals and attitudes towards cheating. Motivation And Emotion, 40(3), 438-454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031-015-9530-x
  42. Reisinger, K., Rutledge, P., & Conklin, S. (2016). Study Drugs and Academic Integrity: The Role of Beliefs About an Academic Honor Code in the Prediction of Nonmedical Prescription Drug Use for Academic Enhancement. Journal Of College Student Development, 57(1), 65-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2016.0011
  43. Rettinger, D., & Kramer, Y. (2008). Situational and Personal Causes of Student Cheating. Research In Higher Education, 50(3), 293-313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9116-5
  44. Selwyn, N. (2008). 'Not necessarily a bad thing …': a study of online plagiarism amongst undergraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation In Higher Education, 33(5), 465-479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930701563104
  45. Shu, L., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. (2011). Dishonest Deed, Clear Conscience: When Cheating Leads to Moral Disengagement and Motivated Forgetting. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(3), 330-349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167211398138
  46. Singh, S., & Remenyi, D. (2016). Plagiarism and ghostwriting: The rise in academic misconduct. South African Journal Of Science, Volume 112(Number 5/6), 36-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2016/20150300
  47. Staats, S., Hupp, J., Wallace, H., & Gresley, J. (2009). Heroes Don't Cheat: An Examination of Academic Dishonesty and Students' Views on Why Professors Don't Report Cheating. Ethics & Behavior, 19(3), 171-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508420802623716
  48. Stearns, S. A. (2001). The student-instructor relationship's effect on academic integrity. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 275-285.
  49. Stephens, J., Young, M., & Calabrese, T. (2007). Does Moral Judgment Go Offline When Students Are Online? A Comparative Analysis of Undergraduates' Beliefs and Behaviors Related to Conventional and Digital Cheating. Ethics & Behavior, 17(3), 233-254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508420701519197
  50. Sutherland-Smith, W. (2013). Crossing the line: Collusion or collaboration in university group work?. Australian Universities' Review, The, 55(1), 51.
  51. Trushell, J., Byrne, K., & Simpson, R. (2011). Cheating behaviours, the Internet and Education undergraduate students. Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(2), 136-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00424.x
  52. Voelker, T. A., Love, L. G., & Pentina, I. (2012). Plagiarism: What Don't They Know?. Journal of Education for Business, 87(1), 36-41.
  53. Whitley, B., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2001). Academic Integrity as an Institutional Issue. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 325-342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1103_9
  54. Whitley, B., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2001). Academic Integrity as an Institutional Issue. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 325-342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1103_9
  55. Yardley, J., Rodríguez, M., Bates, S., & Nelson, J. (2009). True Confessions?: Alumni's Retrospective Reports on Undergraduate Cheating Behaviors. Ethics & Behavior, 19(1), 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508420802487096
  56. Zimbardo, P., Butler, L., & Wolfe, V. (2003). Cooperative College Examinations: More Gain, Less Pain When Students Share Information and Grades. The Journal Of Experimental Education, 71(2), 101-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220970309602059
Back to Top