╨╧рб▒с>■  LN■   K                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ье┴3 Ё┐МTjbjb^^ "dh<h<МN      lЦЦЦЦЦЦЦ>>>>> J$>Л╢ВВВВВВВВHJJJJJJ,A a╘vЦВВВВВv┌ЦЦВВВ┌┌┌ВЪЦВЦВH┌кJЇJЦЦЦЦВH┌n┌HЦЦHnб╥ж╣>>╛HHЛЛH5 ┌5 H┌├хKANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE HONOR SYSTEMAnnual ReviewArticle VI of our By-Laws requires the Honor System Director to provide an annual report to Student Senate, Faculty Senate and the Provost at the beginning of the subsequent fall semester. This report summarizes the activities of the Honor System for the academic year 2001-2002.During the 2001-2002 academic year, there were 63 reports of alleged Honor Pledge violations involving 103 KSU undergraduate students. (See Attachment #1) Thirty-six of those cases occurred during the fall 2001 semester and twenty-seven occurred during the spring 2002 semester. As a comparison, the total number of cases reported during the Honor SystemТs initial year 1999-2000 was twenty-five, while the total number of cases reported during academic year 2000-2001(the second year) was fifty-five involving 91 students. Although the number of cases brought before the Honor System appears to be leveling off, the reason may be due to the efforts of Helene Marcoux, Associate Honor System Director, who has developed a student organization called Honor and Integrity Peer Educators (HIPE) whose purpose is to inform the academic community about the Honor System, how it works, and suggest strategies for avoiding the pitfall of academic dishonesty.Of the 103 KSU undergraduate students alleged to have violated the Honor Pledge, seventy-five were male and twenty-eight were female, about a 3:1 ratio which is supported by national research suggesting that males are more likely to violate the Honor Pledge than are females. Of the 103 students, fifteen were found by Honor Council Hearing Panels to be not guilty; eight of the students were involved in the same case. That particular case proved to be troublesome to all involved and is perhaps best summarized by the Hearing Panel Chair who made the following statement prior to announcing the verdict of the Hearing Panel: УWe consider this matter to be a very serious case. Because such a large percent of the class is involved in these allegations does not necessarily justify any individualТs actions. When we deliberate, we are asked to consider certain issues. One question in particular we are asked to deliberate on is whether acceptance of the act would seriously erode KSUТs academic integrity. There is a fine line between miscommunication and intent to engage in academic dishonesty. We encourage each and every one of you to give serious thought and deep reflection upon the magnitude of the decisions you have made, for these decisions could have long term ramifications, especially important for seniors who expect to graduate within the next year. In our deliberations we could not find a single person who was entirely blameless.Ф Although the Hearing Panel found the participants to be not guilty, they did so with some misgiving.In another case, five students who happened to be friends and roommates turned in similarly written take-home assignments and were alleged by the Instructor to have violated the Honor Pledge by participating in unauthorized collaboration. The Honor Council Case Investigators, following their investigation, believed that the five did not collaborate on the assignment, though their report did not specifically state that. Following an Honor Council Hearing Panel decision that the five were guilty, the Case Investigators requested a meeting with the Honor System Director and Associate Director (both of whom were also troubled by the outcome of the case) to discuss a procedural clarification with respect to Case Investigation reports. The two Case Investigators, the Director and Associate Director, following a thorough discussion, determined that all Case Investigation reports should conclude with the clear statement that either sufficient evidence does exist to support the charge of an Honor Pledge violation, or sufficient evidence does NOT exist to support the charge of an Honor Pledge violation. Since the Case Investigators believed that sufficient evidence did not exist, the Director, after consulting with and gaining the agreement of the Associate Professor who reported the alleged Honor Pledge violation, decided to rescind the previous Hearing PanelТs decision. That action was based on Article II, section 6 & 7 of the By-Laws:6. Following the interview with the alleged violator, the Case Investigators recommend to the Director whether to proceed to an honor hearing.7. The Director determines whether to dismiss the case or proceed with an honor hearing conducted by a hearing panel. . . .In addition, the Director brought that decision to the attention of an Honor Council Hearing Panel, impaneled to hear Case #13. Prior to the hearing of that case, the Director, accompanied by one of the Case Investigators for Case #09, requested that the Hearing Panel for Case #13 review the DirectorТs decision to rescind the Hearing Panel decision in Case #09. Following the testimony of the Director and the Case Investigator, the Hearing Panel for Case #13 deliberated privately and agreed with the DirectorТs decision and with the procedural change for all future Case Investigations. Had Hearing Panel #13 not agreed with the DirectorТs decision, the Director would have impaneled a new hearing panel to hear Case #09 as an appeal of the previous decision. The decision to add the clarifying statement to the report of the Case Investigators has been an important procedural change for the adjudication process.The most frequent Honor Pledge violations involve either unauthorized collaboration on an assignment or plagiarizing. There were forty-two students alleged to have participated in unauthorized collaboration and forty-two students alleged to have plagiarized the work of others.The charge of unauthorized collaboration can be difficult for Honor Council Hearing Panels to adjudicate when the assignment guidelines are found to be ambiguous or are not articulated in writing and emphasized verbally. Students may be easily confused when confronted with differing sets of expectations in a variety of classes, especially with the realization that collaboration is stressed and encouraged more so in some disciplines than in others. Students often want to assist their struggling peers, however there have been numerous cases where struggling peers took advantage of that assistance and simply copied the helperТs work and turned it in as their own with the result being an Honor Council Hearing Panel had to sort out whether unauthorized collaboration was afoot or simply a case of one student plagiarizing the work of another. Since many students have become accustomed to collaborative academic projects as the norm, faculty need to state all assignment expectations clearly. Students need to avoid making convenient assumptions.Plagiarizing the work of others often involves finding an Internet source or sources, assembling a paper and claiming it as original work without complete and appropriate documentation. Most faculty suspicions can be aroused by an undergraduate paper which seems to be too scholarly, too learned and too well written. Many faculty have realized that a quick check on the Internet or through the Google search engine with a few key words or phrases will usually reveal the original source of the work. Most studentsТ first line of defense is to claim ignorance of how and when to properly document sources. Some claim to have never been taught how to document sources either in college or high school although KSUТs required Expository Writing courses now include instruction on how to properly document research. Some seem to believe that information found on the Internet is public information that doesnТt need to be documented. One parent of a student accused of plagiarizing from the Internet claimed, Уit was just common knowledge,Ф even though the article was technical and published in a scientific journal. Although faculty usually hold to the belief that college students should be held accountable to basic scholarly standards, it may also be wise to review those standards with students and provide satisfactory examples of the kind of scholarship that is acceptable. Again, assignment instructions should be in writing and re-emphasized verbally.Not all plagiarizing occurred from the Internet. Some students discovered that trusted roommates and/or friends who had convenient access to their computer or files could surreptitiously purloin a needed paper or assignment and turn it in as original work. When caught, the guilty students faced the scorn of both friend and instructor. Those caught blamed their actions on having gotten behind in their work, a lack of organizational skills, or having spent too much time on non-academic endeavors.Fourteen students engaged in some form of creative test cheating. One student was caught with crib notes written on a knee and thigh. A few students were found to be taking a test with a calculator programmed with unauthorized information. One student nearly got away with it but made the mistake of bragging to another student in the class who took exception to that kind of nefarious activity and informed the instructor who, after checking around, found other class witnesses as well. Some students attempted to cheat by copying text answers of students sitting nearby, not realizing that the instructors had prepared numerous variations of the same quiz. While correcting the exams, the instructors invariably noticed that although the students may have had all their answers wrong on the version of the exam they took, when their exam was compared to another version, the answers were nearly all correct, causing instructors to conclude that the student was likely copying from a neighbor. One student allegedly attempted to exchange a color-coded answer sheet so that it corresponded with the color of the student seated at the next desk. A test proctor noticed the exchange and informed the instructor who, at the conclusion of the test, compared the test of the student with the exam results of the student seated nearby and noted that they were identical. That case is presently being adjudicated.In five cases, students involved themselves in some fraudulent activity such as forging an instructorТs signature to check out equipment, or forging attendance logs and claiming to have been in class. The most serious case involved a classified employee who was also a KSU student who had access to grade change forms, using them to change personal grades in two courses from Fs to an A in one and a B in the other. One of the instructors recognized the forged signature and reported the incident to the Honor System Director. Following an investigation, an Honor Council Hearing Panel found the student guilty and recommended to the Provost that the student be expelled. The Provost agreed and expelled the student for one year, after which the student could apply for readmission. The Provost also instructed the employeeТs supervisor to take appropriate disciplinary action. In addition, the Honor System Director requested that the Provost form a committee to analyze how academic units administer Grade Change Report forms and recommend appropriate guidelines to protect the academic integrity of those forms. That process of internal examination is now underway and should be completed during fall 2002 semester.Honor Pledge violations were alleged equitably by faculty of all academic ranks. The following table shows the number of cases brought to the attention of KSU faculty by academic rank:Professors.....................13Associate Professors.....14Assistant Professors......16Instructors.....................11GTAs..............................9Total.............................63Seven of the eight undergraduate colleges reported at least one Honor Pledge violation. The following table shows the number of cases brought by each of the eight colleges:Agriculture..............................................0Architecture............................................2Arts and Sciences..................................39Business Administration.........................4Education..............................................1Engineering.........................................12Human Ecology....................................3Technology and Aviation......................2Total..................................................63Since all colleges require their students to take courses from the College of Arts and Sciences and since Arts and Sciences is the largest college, this data may be of little value.Honor Pledge violations were also recorded by classroom size in three categories. A small classroom was defined as one with 25 or fewer students. A medium size classroom was one with 26-99 students. A large size classroom was one with 100 or more students. The following table shows the number of Honor Pledge violations reported by classroom size:Small Classroom....................23Medium Classroom...............28Large Classroom...................12Total.....................................63Allegations of Honor Pledge violations seemed to increase as students proceeded closer to graduation; data, however, are too slight to form any reliable conclusion. The following table shows the number of alleged Honor Pledge violations by year in school:Freshmen............................17Sophomores........................25Juniors................................31Seniors...............................30Total.................................103During the 2001-2002 academic year, Honor Council Hearing Panels sanctioned 12 students with an XF in the course where they were alleged to have violated the Honor Pledge. The F indicates failure in the course; the X indicates the reason is an Honor Pledge violation. In all cases, faculty either left the sanction to the Hearing Panel or the student appealed a faculty XF sanction and lost the appeal.Faculty alone sanctioned 14 students with an XF and offered the students the right to appeal through the Honor System adjudication process. None did.Fourteen students were found guilty of an Honor Pledge violation and although not sanctioned with an XF, were required to enroll in and pass the Academic Integrity course, offered each semester by Associate Director Dr. Helene Marcoux.Honor Council Hearing Panels found 13 students to be not guilty of an Honor Pledge violation although in all cases, Case Investigators found that Уsufficient evidence did exist to support the charge of an Honor Pledge violation.Ф Although deliberations of Hearing Panels are private, not guilty verdicts could be due to ambiguous or conflicting evidence found in course syllabi and on the assignment in question, or simply due to what is judged to be insufficient evidence. Hearing Panels often discover conflicting and/or ambiguous information during questioning of the participants which Case Investigators did not previously uncover. It is only at the Hearing itself when all parties are in the same room together listening to the testimony of all the participants, that one is able to discern a sense of whether the allegation of an Honor Pledge violation has merit. Although the Director and Associate Director are present at hearings, neither participates unless addressed by the Chair to answer a procedural question. The Hearing Panel alone deliberates on the question of whether an Honor Pledge violation has occurred and if so, what the sanction should be. Regardless of how the Hearing Panel may have voted, whether it be 3-2, 4-1, or 5-0, all Hearing Panel members support the decision and are not to discuss the decision with anyone after leaving the hearing.One student was expelled by the Provost on the recommendation of an Honor Council Hearing Panel.Seven cases involving seven students have yet to proceed through the adjudication process since they were reported late spring semester. Those cases are now going though the investigation and hearing panel process and should be completed by the end of September. Three of the cases involve students with prior Honor Pledge violations which means Hearing Panels could consider whether suspension or expulsion would be an appropriate sanction.Former Graduate Assistant to the Honor System, Helene Marcoux, has been named by the Provost to be the Associate Director of the Honor System. During spring 2002 semester, Helene successfully defended her dissertation, УKansas State University Faculty Perspective, Opinions and Practices Concerning Undergraduate Student Dishonesty and Moral Development,Ф and is now Dr. Helene Marcoux. Her dissertation can be located at the Honor System web site. In addition to completion of this Herculean task, Helene also conceived of and developed a student organization known as Honesty and Integrity Peer Educators, or HIPErs, whose purpose is to educate the KSU academic community about our Honor System. Last year, HIPErs made 41 classroom presentations with class enrollments from 16 to 250 students. In addition, HIPErs participated in the Activities Carnival Table, made presentations to the Clovia Scholarship House, Faculty/GTA Excellence in Teaching Class, the Salina SGA, KSU Open House Day and two Transfer Day Orientations involving more than 150 students each. In addition, the Director and Associate Director are regularly invited to make presentations to the Athletic DepartmentТs first year athletes and Academic Staff as well as to specific teams. Also, the Director and Associate Director regularly appear before Faculty Senate and their Executive Committee, Student Senate, DeansТ Council, the Salina Faculty and a variety of departmental meetings throughout the campus community in addition to an appearance before the Manhattan Rotary Club. All requests for a presentation of any length are always granted. To schedule a presentation, please email or call the Honor System office, 532-2595.We believe the KSU Undergraduate Honor System has so far been successful for three reasons:1. The Honor System retains the full philosophical and financial support of the Provost, the chief academic officer of KSU, as well as the University President;2. The Honor System operates autonomously, making decisions which cannot be modified or overruled by any other person or entity within the University; and3. The Honor System is governed by the Honor Council, which is made up of equal numbers of student and faculty members who serve for staggered, two-year terms. Student members are appointed by the Student Body President with the approval of Student Senate; faculty members are appointed by their respective deans with the approval of the Provost and the Faculty Senate President. The Honor Council evaluates the performance of both the Director and Associate Director annually and informs the Provost of their recommendations.The Honor System Director and Associate Director serve at the pleasure of the Provost. At the request of the Director, the Provost has this year provided a one-half time secretarial position for the Honor System that will be most helpful in keeping our office organized.Though both the Provost and the Graduate School Dean have separately indicated that it is their expectation that the Undergraduate Honor System will eventually include the Graduate School, at this time, little or no progress has been made in that direction.The KSU Honor System web site has developed into an extensive and useful guide to many topics related to issues of academic dishonesty and has hosted over 15,000 visitors since October 1999. We believe it is the most comprehensive and useful web site of any academic institution in the country.Questions or comments can be directed to , or please visit us in our office, Fairchild Hall 215.Respectfully Submitted,Phil AndersonHonor System DirectorSeptember, 2002[\П╬у69Оьw}їМT¤·°°°°6БCJ5Б3AB[\  ОП╧╨56чшxyЎўТУкл╠ ═ З&И&А(¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ў¤¤¤¤¤ў¤ў¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤Д╨^Д╨3AB[\  ОП╧╨56чшxyЎўТУкл╠ ═ З&И&А(Б(. .╙2╘2О3П3▒3═3ъ341424W4X455B5|5▓5ф56T6З6╢6╖6ё6Є6и7й7 9 919S9x9y9ж9з9и:й:╨:ї:;H;I;s;t; = =б=в=О>П>ЄCєCTDUDFF╤L╥L.M/M╤M╥MnNoNАPБPСQТQФRХReА(Б(. .╙2╘2О3П3▒3═3ъ341424W4X455B5|5▓5ф56T6З6╢6╖6ё6Є6¤¤¤¤¤¤¤°°°°°°°°¤¤°°°°°°°°°°°$a$Є6и7й7 9 919S9x9y9ж9з9и:й:╨:ї:;H;I;s;t; = =б=в=О>П>ЄCєCTD¤¤¤¤°°°°°°¤¤°°°°°°°¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤$a$TDUDFF╤L╥L.M/M╤M╥MnNoNАPБPСQТQФRХR═S╬S>T?TWTXTfT|TМT¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ў¤ў¤ў¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤Д╨^Д╨ХR═S╬S>T?TWTXTfT|TМT■ 1Рh░╨/ ░р=!░"░#Ра$Ра%░ i(@ё ( NormalCJmH <A@Є б< Default Paragraph FontМNd       аzЩ   аzЩ   аzЩ   аzЩ   аzЩ   аzЩ   аzЩ0 hA'Є0Ь:/GМN╖d╟╢VвМT+А(Є6TDМT,./0ХRМT-1є·ї·Y_ХЪ..Е8М8H@O@НAФAwB}B┌BрB?CECПCХCОNz~щяYf├╬┴├╝!─!┼-╩-с-ч-Т5Ц5c=e=є=R>╧G╨GIoI|NЖNОN   Valued Gateway Client,C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\2001-2003annualreport.docHelene Marcoux3Mac:Temporary Items:AutoRecovery save of 2001-2003aHelene Marcoux,Mac:Desktop Folder:2001-2003annualreport.docHelene Marcoux&Mac:Temporary Items:Word Work File A_3Helene Marcoux,Mac:Desktop Folder:2001-2003annualreport.doc @МNHM┌ [ХМN` @GРTimes New Roman5РАSymbol3Р Arial"qИЁ╨hфciЖШdiЖЙ] ╞@!К!Ёа┤┤ББ20ЛO^2ГЁ  2KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE HONOR SYSTEMValued Gateway ClientHelene Marcoux■  рЕЯЄ∙OhлС+'│┘0мРШ╘р ( @L h tАМФЬд'3KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE HONOR SYSTEMCANSValued Gateway ClientY alualuNormalGHelene MarcouxC3leMicrosoft Word 9.0n@vА#@°ЬZ┬@шDy│Z┬] ╞@■  ╒═╒Ь.УЧ+,∙о00 hpРШаи ░╕└╚╨ 'Kansas State UniversityК!ЛO╧ 3KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE HONOR SYSTEM Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./012■   456789:■   <=>?@AB■   DEFGHIJ■   ¤   M■   ■   ■                                                                                                                                                                                                   Root Entry         └FА▐РЪЙZ┬OА1Table        3WordDocument        "dSummaryInformation(    ;DocumentSummaryInformation8            CCompObj            X                        ■                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ■      └FMicrosoft Word Document■   NB6WWord.Document.8