Ethics Center > Sample Efforts at Promoting Academic Values

Group Work in Economics: Jeff Sundberg
I have always assigned problem sets for my 200-level courses in economics and business.  I allow students to work together, in part for teaching reasons and in part to reflect reality, and I have always required them to write up their own answers. 

While students who work together are expected to have similar or identical answers, the physical similarity of the work handed in has made it clear that at least a few students merely copy the work of others.  This was even more blatant than usual in a course I taught this fall; one student even copied the spelling errors made by a foreign student who occasionally spelled words phonetically. 

After considering the problem, I decided that the goal of group work was to encourage students to work together as a learning process; having them each write individual responses to the question was less useful, especially for numerical problems.  Requiring them to submit multiple copies of the same answers was not a good use of their (or my) time.

I decided to change my policy to allow a study group to submit a joint set of answers, for which each student receives equal credit.  The students who submit the homework were each required to sign a statement verifying that each student listed did in fact participate in a discussion of the answers.  My hope was that this would encourage them to work together honestly, and put a little pressure on each other to be part of the group rather than a free-rider.  I also thought it might cause some alleged study groups to break up, once students were expected to sign their name to a statement listing the contributing members of the group.

After consultation with Lou Lombardi, Director of the Ethics Center, I put together the following statement:

Requirements for Submitting a Group Homework Assignment

While many students are most comfortable working on their own, it is often productive for students to work together on homework problems.  Different perspectives can lead to different approaches to problem-solving, and talking about a problem with another student is often a good way to develop better understanding about the topics and techniques of the course.  Students can benefit both by listening to others and by explaining concepts to others.  Group work can be a productive way to learn for those who participate as part of the group.

To recognize the collaborative nature of group work, students who work together may submit one homework assignment as a group.  Each student in the group will receive the same grade.  If students choose this option, the homework must have a statement attached from each student.  The statement, which each student must prepare and submit individually, must say:

“I have worked on this assignment as part of a group.  Each student listed below was part of the group; each of us contributed to our collective efforts.”

The student is then to list the name of those students who, in their opinion, made a good-faith effort to participate in the group’s work.  The statement must be signed by the student.

After the introduction of this policy, several interesting changes occurred.  A substantial minority of the class began turning in group assignments.  This included collaborations among students who had not previously worked together, suggesting that some students were more open to group work as a result of the change.  This may have been because they were concerned that group work might have been inappropriate before (despite my comments to the contrary), or because turning in their own work reduced their interest in working with others.  In any event, I believe that the new policy encouraged group work, which was one of my goals.

Another interesting change is that a couple of the students who had clearly been copying work done by others were not included in the new “official” groups.  I would like to think that the policy encouraged students to think about the dishonesty inherent in allowing copying, and that those students who had done so in the past were now more reluctant to pass their answers to someone else.

While I don’t think this has by any means solved the problem of students getting credit for work done by others, I believe that it has improved the situation.  I intend to do this again in the future.  The current policy required each student to submit their own signed pledge, listing the students involved in the group.  The goal here was to encourage each student to think about who had been productive, and to reduce the chances that one member added a friend’s name in order to get them credit.  Several groups turned in one statement signed by each member, instead of individual statements.  I am not sure what I think about this; I like the monitoring that is provided by having each student list the members of their group separately, but perhaps it is unnecessary.


Physics 111: Integrity concerning materials posted on the web: Nathan Mueggenburg
A few of us in the Physics Department have become a little worried about students in our classes passing information to future students, especially since we are now posting homework, quiz, and test solutions in electronic form on the web, where it would be easy to download and copy them.  Mike Kash and I expressed this concern to our students and had them sign a statement similar to the attached file.  Most of the students seemed surprised at the idea of passing materials to?future students.  They said that they hadn't considered it and they were?surprised that we were worried about it.

Statement for Physics 111:

Professor Mueggenburg:

I am a student in the PHYS 111 Introductory Physics II class taught in the spring of 2007.  I will not provide any course materials (notes, quizzes, quiz solutions, tests, test solutions, homework solutions, laboratory experiment handouts or experimental write-ups) in any form (hard copy or electronic) either directly or indirectly to anyone who was not in this particular class.  Distributing this information would be interpreted as academic dishonesty and could be referred to the Academic Honesty Judicial Board.

Signed,


Integrity Statements in Philosophy 325, Major Ethical Theories: Lou Lombardi
I had not previously asked students to include a signed statement on their work.  I have long had some reservations about the value of the exercise; it can become a mechanical act, perhaps adding little to the process.  Still, in conversations in the Academic Honesty Judicial Committee, students as well as faculty urged that the College move to such a policy.  The Curricular Policy Committee suggested that faculty give the process a try, and so I did, for Phil 325, in Spring 2007. 

Of course, simply adding the requirement to a syllabus would be of limited value, so (especially since this was a course on ethics) I included extensive class discussion, at the start and the end of the course, concerning the nature, reasons for, concerns about, and reactions to such a requirement.  Those conversations were fruitful.  I was encouraged to see that, even in an advanced course, little resistance was raised.  But there was a healthy skepticism, and this sparked some sophisticated analysis of the specific requirement as well as general efforts to promote academic integrity.  As I expected, it was such conversations that were most valuable.

To lessen the likelihood that signing the statement would become a meaningless, rote act, I allowed students to frame whatever integrity statement they liked.  I received a rather wide range, from the student who said simply, ‘I did not cheat!’ to the one who used my sample statement—and footnoted it!  Students often varied statements from week to week.  

Obviously, an integrity statement alone is not enough.  But as a basis for conversations about academic values and as part of more extensive efforts, a constant reminder about the importance of integrity can be valuable.  Perhaps, however, it is not important what the actual pledge says.  Indeed, it may well be that simply expecting students to sign their work is sufficient.