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