Of D. are also much more reasonable, allowing for proper investigation and variable sanctions, depending upon the severity of the infraction. Instructors and the administration are members of the team to assist with investigation and implementation of policies.
While West Virginia University clearly exemplifies the demonstration of a zero tolerance policy on the subject, regarding all infractions, within the defined terms as equally bad and therefore equally punishable. This puts instructors and students in peril of increased infractions due to the instructors' reluctance to report lesser incidences of the problem. Though the West Virginia University policy does have a clear outline of the handling procedures for the implementation of policy during cases of dishonesty or suspected dishonesty, the terms clearly remove the instructor's ability to limit sanctions to those which fit the crime. While the U. Of D. policies begin with ways to encourage academic honesty and also include a comprehensive way in which the punishment might be variable for the severity of the infractions.
Discussion
An appropriate and effective academic reaction to the present educational culture, which includes the pervasive inclusion of academic dishonesty, is absolutely imperative for the continued integrity of the academic environment. The problem seems to only be getting worse as more and more students are pressed for time and convinced of their own inability to reach their academic goals in a stressful environment. Opportunities to commit acts of academic dishonesty increase daily as the Internet becomes a more and more utilized and complicated source for academic research. Limiting student's use of Internet research cannot be the only answer as it also clearly exponentially adds to the availability of information for research. Ensuring...
www.udel.edu/judicialaffairs/ai.html
Bruhn, J.G., Zajac, G., Al-Kazemi, a.A., Prescott, L.D., Moral positions and academic conduct: parameters of tolerance for ethics failure. The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 73, No. 4, July/August, 2002.
Del Carlo, D.I. & Bodner, G.M., Student perceptions of academic dishonesty in the chemistry classroom laboratory, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 41, No. 1, p. 47-64, 2004.
Galles, G., Graves, P.L., Sexton, R.L. Walton, S.M., Monitoring costs and tolerance levels of classroom cheating, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 62, No. 4 (October, 2003).
Gomez, Dina S. "Student Cheating and Plagiarism in the Internet Era: A Wake-Up Call." NEA Today Apr. 2001: 42. Questia. 10 Nov. 2004 http://www.questia.com/.
Nicolay, J>a>, Group assessment in the online learning environment,
New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 19, Fall, 2002, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Pincus, H.S. & Schmelkin, L.P. Faculty perceptions of academic dishonesty. The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 74, No.2, March/April, 2003.
Sutherland-Smith, W., Pandora's box: academic perceptions of student plagiarism in writing, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, P. 1-13, 2004.
