Approximately 50 people were found to be allegedly cheating at the end of winter quarter 2000 in a class required of most engineering majors, and some of these students are still going through the process that determines if they are guilty of academic misconduct.Mark A. Lloyd, who has recently graduated, was grading papers for Engineering Economics 504, a class predominately consisting of juniors and seniors, when he began to suspect that some students were cheating. He reported his concerns to Robert Lundquist, the associate professor who was teaching the course.The reason for Lloyd’s suspicions and the results of Lundquist’s subsequent findings could not be commented on because some of the hearings on academic misconduct have not yet been held.Once Lloyd reported his suspicions to Lundquist, the professor verified that the cheating appeared to have taken place and reported his findings to the Committee on Academic Misconduct.
“University procedures require me to report a case like this,” he said.Lundquist has been at Ohio State for 19 years, and he said every quarter he reports someone for academic misconduct. Even so, he said, “Never have I seen anything like this.”He also noted that this incident was not an organized cheating effort.”For the most part, these people were acting independently,” Lundquist said.Academic misconduct is defined by the university as “any activity which tends to compromise the academic integrity of the institution, or subvert the educational process.”Katherine Kisker, coordinator for the Committee on Academic Misconduct, explained the process for both the instructor and the student.Faculty members are required to submit a written report notifying the committee of their concerns. The chair of that department is required to send a cover memo which shows that he or she is aware of the allegations, she said.Once the committee receives both of these items, the members review what is written and assess the charges.Kisker said that a letter, along with a copy of the code of student conduct and an outline of the university procedures, is sent to the student via certified mail.In the letter, the student is encouraged to meet with Kisker. In that meeting, Kisker reviews hearing procedures, tells the student what to expect, and answers any questions the student may have in an attempt to increase his or her degree of comfort.A date is set for the hearing, which both the professor and the student are required to attend.”The professor gives their side of the story, the student gives their side of the story then [as much information that can be obtained] is gathered by the panel through questioning,” Kisker said.The room in which the hearing takes place is not set up like a courtroom, as one might imagine. It is a small room with a large oval-shaped table. The student and the professor sit at one end next to one another, and the coordinator sits at the other end. Panel members line both sides of the table.The hearing panel includes at least two faculty members and one student, and examines the evidence in support of the allegations.If the student is found in violation, certain consequences, or sanctions, will follow.Kisker explained that the sanctions have two parts. The first part is a recommendation of a failing grade for the course or no credit for a particular assignment. The second part is the disciplinary sanction, which can include a letter of warning or placement on disciplinary probation, suspension or dismissal.The most common is disciplinary probation, which means that students can continue in their major program, but if they are reported again, a more severe sanction will follow, Kisker said.Based on a report released by the Committee on Academic Misconduct, a total of 222 hearings were held from summer 1998 to spring 1999. Out of the 222, 174 were found in violation.The most common charge was “giving and/or receiving aid in an unauthorized manner.” Following close behind was “copying the work of another.”The Department of Chemistry had the most occurrences with 42, History followed with 18 and Industrial Engineering was next with 15.Colleges with the most occurrences were University College with 71 and the College of Engineering with 55.In summer quarter 1998 there were 35 cases; the numbers then went from 50, to 65, then to 72 in spring quarter 1999.These statistics seem to represent a trend of increasing misconduct. However, Kisker said that this is an occurrence that happens every year. Cases are carried over from quarter to quarter to allow the student adequate time to be notified. This results in a build up of cases that causes an appearance of increasing academic misconduct.Concerning the nature of academic misconduct, Kisker said that it is “individualized to the course.” She said that some areas allow more collaboration, whereas others require a student to work independently.Kisker said that most students change after being found guilty of academic misconduct.”Many students take this as a learning experience,” she said. Kisker believes that from this experience, many begin to work with integrity and honesty while they continue to pursue their degree. Lundquist said he hopes for just that. “I hope that the students learn that it is better to do your own work that to cheat,” he said.
