Florida State University employs an integrated academic honor code online and face to face through inculturation.
The academic honor code is in effect as described in the above recommendation.
learning effectiveness: Florida State University recommended employing an integrated honor code before launching its online program.
This is the document submitted to the University by the Policy Committee, 4/7/99. Recommendation:
Justification: In all cases where possible, policy and procedure addressing the remote student should coincide with existing policy and procedure for traditional on-campus, matriculated students. Therefore, prior to addressing policy and procedure for courses and degrees offered at a distance, it is important to review existing guidelines for appropriateness and fit. FSU's academic honor code is thoroughgoing and comparable in scope to codes from several other public and private universities. Therefore, it is suggested that the code be employed with minor additions that are particularly relevant to the distance learner. These are discussed specifically later in this document. A substantial body of administrative and legal literature exists that examines experimentally, logically, and legally, the behaviors of students in academic institutions vis a vis academic integrity. The most frequently cited practice that is positively correlated with decreased incidences of academic honor code infractions is the infusion of academic integrity in the institutions, formally and informally, as a pivotal cultural component. This can be operationalized by:
Suggested revisions to the existing honor code include:
A careful, team approach to this revision will likely reveal other opportunities for addressing remote learners as members of the university community and, therefore, responsible to themselves and the community to participate in teaching and learning processes with integrity. Seven points are cited as guideposts for "Planning" for integrity in academic communities (Pavela and McCabe, 1993):
It is widely recognized that academic integrity must be adopted, it cannot be imposed. (May and Lloyd, 1993; DiMatteo and Wiesner, 1994; and others) The strongest recommendation for development of this acceptance of academic integrity is, as stated earlier, prominent use, discussion of, and invocation of the honor code. That is, "students consistently indicate that they are less likely to cheat when they feel part of a campus community, when they believe faculty are committed to their courses, and when they are aware of the policies of their institutions concerning academic integrity."(Trevino and McCabe, 1999) Derek Bok concluded that an honor system, despite inherent drawbacks or complicating factors, might be the most effective approach to academic integrity in academic institutions. (Bok, 1990) Conclusion: Those who are intent on "Cheating" will do so. However, there is ample evidence to support the use of the academic honor code as an acculturation tool and as a frequent referent. The design of courseware, assessment activities, and communications systems among teachers and learners at a distance require special consideration, but are not insurmountable challenges. Tools and guidelines can be provided to address new teaching and learning modes. However, the institution should maintain its existing honor system and, as has always been the case, the choices of best teaching and assessment procedures are, and should remain, at the discretion of the faculty. There is no need for a separate code of academic integrity for remote learners. The existing code should be relied upon and fully integrated into student application, orientation, and assessment procedures.
Pavela, G. and McCabe, D. The Surprising Return of Honor Codes. Planning for Higher Education, Vol. 21 (1993) 27