The Ohio University Experience:

The Ohio University Experience:

Dennis Irwin, DeanMichael PrudichDavid KoonceMelissa Broeckelman-Post

Protocols for adjudicating alleged plagiarism and promoting academic honesty

2

y

x

Plagiarism, DefinedPlagiarism, Defined

1. Self-plagiarism is meaningless…it is poor citation

2. There must be intent to deceive

3. A discipline-specific common body of knowledge exists that is not normally cited specifically

4. Citation

a. Practices in the discipline

b. Expectations among the research group involved

3

y

x

Role of Ignorance (or Opinion?)Role of Ignorance (or Opinion?)

• Difference in definitions, especially

– Common work product among researchers

– Common body of knowledge

• Difference in due process perceptions

– Due process may be underway but embargoed

– “Obvious offenses” must still be adjudicated

4

y

x

Timeline and Decision PointsTimeline and Decision Points

• July 27, 2004: The first allegations (three) are sent back to the Russ College by the director of University Judiciaries.

• Early September 2004: The Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies (ADR) is verbally asked to review the allegations and make recommendations.

• October 14, 2004: The ADR formally advises the Dean to refer the cases to the department in question.

5

y

x

continued


• October 19, 2004: The Dean directs the Mechanical Engineering Dept. chair to provide, by February 1, 2005, recommendations for:

– 1. Actions, if any, to be taken against the former students involved

– 2. Procedures to prevent future occurrences.

• December 3, 2004: A former student writes to the Ohio Board of Regents stating his allegations concerning plagiarism.

6

y

x

continued


• January 26, 2005: Two Mechanical Engineering professors respond to the dept. chair with recommendations for action.

• February 3, 2005: The dept. chair notifies a former student that he had been found to have committed plagiarism and outlines possible penalties. The former student is given an opportunity to resubmit the offending thesis.

7

y

x

continued


• April, 2005 – September, 2005: Articles appear in student and community newspapers mentioning “about 30” allegations…no specifics supplied to Russ College. Editors asked to supply details.

• September 6, 2005: The Russ College begins requiring electronic submission and a statement of originality for all theses, begins using Turnitin.com to check theses, and begins briefing new graduate students on plagiarism.

• September, 2005 – December, 2005: Articles claiming more allegations continue. Office of Legal Affairs begins negotiating with accuser.

8

y

x

continued


• Late November, 2005: Legal Affairs forwards an additional ~6 cases to the Russ College. The College forms the Academic Honesty Oversight Committee (AHOC; at that time, as an ad hoc committee).

• Mid-January 2006: An additional number of cases of plagiarism are forwarded to the Russ College by Legal Affairs. The AHOC is made a standing committee.

9

y

x

continued


• March 14, 2006: The AHOC submits its report to the Dean. No mention of faculty culpability is contained. State and National media attention attracted.

• Late March, 2006: Chair of the Department of Mechanical Engineering steps down by mutual consent with the Dean and agrees to cease advising graduate students.

• May 30, 2006: Two independent senior faculty and staff members (Meyer-Bloemer) submit their independent report to the Provost. Its content is scathing and recommends significant actions against faculty advisors in the Department of Mechanical Engineering.

10

y

x

continued


• Early June, 2006: Additional actions are taken concerning faculty advisors and other actions are initiated.

• June 5-6, 2006: Gary Pavela visits Ohio University to consult on the issue and give a public forum on academic integrity. Confusion among the academic community regarding expectations becomes apparent.

11

y

x

continued


• July, 2006 – present:

– Administrative structure for adjudication approved by Trustees and adjudication initiated

– ALL Russ College theses/dissertations digitized

– Several legal actions taken by implicated faculty members against Dean, Provost, and Ohio University

– Allegations continue…

12

y

x

Internal CommunicationInternal Communication

• Up

– Board of Regents of Ohio

• Appointees with professional staff

– Board of Trustees of Ohio University

• Appointees with little academic experience

• Several layers of management between Trustees and Dean

• Down

– Early, Often, and Honestly

• There WILL be tension with legal advisors

– Faculty, staff, students, and accusers

13

y

x

External CommunicationExternal Communication

• Press Conferences

– Obtain highly professional advice…legal and media relations

• Press Releases

– Preferred mode of external communication

– Must be firm about due process

• Media

– Student media

– Local media

– State media

– National media (Wall Street Journal, NY Times, ABC News)

– “Trade” media (Chronicle of Higher Ed, ASEE)

14

y

x

CausesCauses

• Cultural

• Lack of faculty oversight

– Major advisor more interested in final results than in a quality work as a whole

– Insular examination committees

• “Culture of academic dishonesty”

– Seed is sloppiness

– Fertilizer is students becoming aware of sloppiness

• Failure of judiciary processes

– Few institutions are prepared to deal with former students

– Important that processes be developed immediately

15

y

x

Dean’s RoundtableDean’s Roundtable

• Role of culture

• Role of faculty oversight of graduate students

– Statement of responsibility

– Communicating it

• Role of university administrative mechanisms

• Importance of briefing higher administration

• Importance of standing by your definition of plagiarism

• “When will it go away?”

16

y

x

The Adjudication Process

17

y

x

Adjudication ProcessAdjudication Process

• Importance of having a process re: academic honesty by former students

18

y

x


• Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies (ADR)

• Academic Honesty Oversight Committee

Research Integrity Committee

–Outside faculty and students

• Academic Honesty Hearing Committee

19

Document Review/Adjudication FlowDocument Review/Adjudication Flow

Research Integrity Committee (University-wide faculty and students appointed by Dean Irwin; acts as grand jury)

Final adjudication

begins

Russ College Academic Honesty Oversight Committee (Russ College faculty appointed by Dean; reviews documents)

Meyer-Bloemer Review (tech transfer officer and one senior faculty, appointed by Provost; review documents, affirm AHOC’s findings, recommend action)

Research Integrity Committee (University-wide faculty and students appointed by Dean; acts as grand jury)

Final adjudication

begins

Case Preparation (Two Russ College senior faculty prepare cases for Legal Affairs)

University Judiciaries (Current students)

Academic Honesty Hearing Committee (Former students)

ADDITIONAL CASESResearch Integrity Committee (University-wide faculty and students appointed by Dean; acts as grand jury)

Final adjudication

begins

Case Preparation (Russ College senior faculty prepare cases for Legal Affairs)

INITIAL CASES

FINAL ADJUDICATION COMMITTEES

OR

20

y

x


• Accusation/discovery is made. Accusation must be credible and specific.

• The accusation triggers:

– A physical examination of the questioned material by the ADR.

– An electronic examination using TurnItIn.

• Results are presented to the RIC.

Process Initiation

21

y

x

Research Integrity CommitteeResearch Integrity Committee

• Standing committee appointed by Dean of the Russ College

• ADR serves as chair

• Composition:

– Three senior faculty (one non-Russ College)

– Three graduate students (all Russ College)

– ADR

22

y

x

Research Integrity CommitteeResearch Integrity Committee

• Acts as grand jury

• May dismiss cases or refer them to the AHHC for adjudication

• Referral by the RIC triggers:

– More detailed, but not exhaustive examination, of complete document by ADR with generation and interactive use of a TurnItIn report

– Preparation of a casebook and detailed charges

– Transmittal of casebook and charges to AHHC

Role and Process

23

y

x

Academic Honesty Hearing CommitteeAcademic Honesty Hearing Committee

• Appointed by the Provost

• Composition:

– Three senior faculty members (two from a “technical” area and one from humanities)

• One professor from physics

• One professor from electrical engineering (former University Ombudsman and current director of university-level scholars program)

• One professor from classics and religion/interdisciplinary arts

24

y

x


• Examines the casebook and charges

• Makes one of three initial determinations:

1. Dismisses the case

2. Recommends a re-write of the questionable material without a hearing

3. Recommends a hearing

– If outcome 2 or 3 is selected, former student is officially contacted and presented with charges

– In outcome 2, the student may accept the AHHC recommendation OR request a full hearing

Role and Process

25

y

x


• AHHC hearing is attended by:

– Former student (in person or via phone)

– Legal counsel for former student (if desired)

– AHHC members

– Preparer of casebook materials (usually the ADR)

– Representatives of University Legal Affairs

• Additional evidence relevant (documentation, testimony) may be presented

Process, continued

26

y

x


• AHHC hearing outcomes:

– Dismissal of case

– Requirement for re-write of the questionable material

– Degree revocation

• Former student may appeal AHHC decision to Provost and then President

Process, continued

27

y

x

Adjudication ChallengesAdjudication Challenges

• Locating former student

• Location of former student

• Elapsed time since writing was authored

• FERPA issues/student confidentiality

• Possibility of legal representation/action

• Paucity of case law in this area

28

y

x

Sampling Technique

29

Problem StatementProblem Statement

• Some Russ College theses and dissertations appear to contain plagiarism

• Uncited external material detracts from the credibility of the thesis and the Russ College

• How can the Russ College determine the extent of plagiarism in historical theses without review all documents?

30

Developing the Sampling MethodologyDeveloping the Sampling Methodology

• Testing the pervasiveness of plagiarism in theses proved more complex than anticipated

• Typical method for testing proportions is with a binomial distribution

– Or, for large samples, a normal approximation to the binomial

31


• Sample size proved to be the problem2

2

2

4e

zn

continued

32


• Acceptance sampling:

– Checks if a proportion exceeds a limit

– Screens a large population with a small sample

– Developed in WWII by the military as a standard (MIL-STD 105E)

– Adopted by most standards organizations

continued

33

Acceptance Sampling ProtocolAcceptance Sampling Protocol

1. Determine the “Acceptable Quality Level” (AQL)

2. Set the inspection level

3. Determine the lot (population) size

4. Find the sample size code

5. Determine if sampling should be single, double or multiple

6. Choose the appropriate MIL STD105E table

1. Sample size

2. Acceptable number of defects

7. Extract the sample and analyze

34

Determining the “Acceptable Quality Level” (AQL)

Determining the “Acceptable Quality Level” (AQL)

• “…the proportion of the population you will accept with defects”

– Based on discussions with Dr. Don McCabe (Rutgers University)

– His survey of engineering graduate students

• Set at 10% (very conservative)

35

Determining the Sample SizeDetermining the Sample Size

• Population size: 1,474

• AQL: Set at 10%

• Inspection level standard (level II) yields unacceptably high sample size of 125

– Special levels for systems with high inspection costs, like destructive sampling; we chose the S-4 level

• Inspection type was chosen as normal level

36

Sample Size CodeSample Size Code

37

Sample Size and LimitSample Size and Limit

38

Choose Appropriate MIL STD105E TableChoose Appropriate MIL STD105E Table

• Sample size: 32

– Choose 32 documents (not currently under investigation) at random

– Internet-available random number stream was used

• Acceptable number of defects: 7

– If plagiarism was found in 7+ theses, we would reject the 10% hypothesis

39

Extract the Sample and AnalyzeExtract the Sample and Analyze

• All theses and dissertations were scanned into PDF and loaded into Turnitin

• = 32 selected theses not currently under investigation

• Scanned and reports were reviewed by the RIC

40

RIC ResultsRIC Results

• At most, 3 of the 32 sample documents might contain plagiarism

• No evidence exists to challenge the assertion that ≤ 10%

• Those documents were prepared as cases and heard by the AHHC

41

y

x

Building the Culture

42

y

x

Starting Points Starting Points

• Initial class research project

• Academic Honesty Advisor, Russ College of Engineering and Technology

• Ohio University Academic Integrity Committee

43

y

x

Underlying AssumptionsUnderlying Assumptions

• Real, sustainable cultural change must come from within through a bottom-up approach

• Some of the best ideas emerge and shared understanding develops through open dialogue

• A lot of “plagiarism” is unintentional and results from not having a shared understanding of expectations

• Academic dishonesty is a symptom of other concerns, not an isolated problem

44

Contributors to Prevalence of Academic Dishonesty

Contributors to Prevalence of Academic Dishonesty

Education Culture

Faculty Lack of awareness about: Prevalence of academic dishonesty Means used to cheat or plagiarize

and strategies for prevention University policies and structures

for dealing with cheating/plagiarism Importance of reporting academic

dishonesty

Unwillingness to report and/or punish cheating/plagiarism

Emphasis on product (research results) over process (writing and research skills, assignment expectations)

Teaching is not valued as highly as research and publication

Students

Lack of knowledge about: Standards of academic integrity Writing and research processes and

proper source citation University policies and

consequences for academic dishonesty

Acceptance of academic dishonesty and perhaps even encouragement by peers to engage in dishonest behaviors

See college education as a means to an end (degree=job) instead of an end in and of itself (education valued for learning)

Believe that it is unlikely that plagiarism will be caught or punished

45

y

x

Honor Councils Honor Councils

• Faculty and Student Academic Honor Councils

• Charters

• Statements of Student and Faculty Responsibility

• Honor code

• Other initiatives

46

y

x

Faculty Education and CultureFaculty Education and Culture

• Ohio University Day of Discourse

• Faculty workshops:

– Complicating the Conversation

– Defining the Problem and Setting Standards

• Faculty Brown Bag series

• Meetings with individuals and departments

• Guest lectures (Gary Pavela, Tim Dodd)

47

y

x

Student Education and CultureStudent Education and Culture

• University mailings and orientation

• ET 502: Technical Writing Seminar

• Town hall discussion

• Student workshop: Defining the Problem and Setting Standards

• Pizza and feedback on Statement of Responsibility

• Graduate courses on teaching

48

y

x

Other Tools Other Tools

• Academic misconduct statements required in syllabi

• Student Code of Conduct

• Electronic Submission of Dissertations and Theses

• TurnitIn used in the Russ College

• Russ College academic integrity Web site

49

y

x

ResearchResearch

• University-wide surveys each year

• Focus groups, interviews, and written qualitative responses

• Russ College student survey in Fall 2006

• Dissertation plans

www.ohio.edu/engineering/integrity

The Ohio University Experience:

Documents

Transcript of The Ohio University Experience: