McCabe, Donald, and Gary Pavela. “New Honor Codes
for a New Generation.” Inside Higher Ed. Inside
Higher Ed, 11 March 2005. Web. 20 March 2013.
The following is excerpted from an opinion piece published in an online publication focused on higher education.
Research confirms recent media reports concerning the high levels of cheating that exist in many American high
schools, with roughly two-thirds of students acknowledging one or more incidents of explicit cheating in the last
year. Unfortunately, it appears many students view high school as simply an annoying obstacle on the way to
college, a place where they learn little of value, where teachers are unreasonable or unfair, and where, since
“everyone else” is cheating, they have no choice but to do the same to remain competitive. And there is growing
evidence many students take these habits with them to college.
At the college level, more than half of all students surveyed acknowledge at least one incident of serious cheating in
the past academic year and more than two-thirds admit to one or more “questionable” behaviors—e.g., collaborating
on assignments when specifically asked for individual work. We believe it is significant that the highest levels of
cheating are usually found at colleges that have not engaged their students in active dialogue on the issue of
academic dishonesty—colleges where the academic integrity policy is basically dictated to students and where
students play little or no role in promoting academic integrity or adjudicating suspected incidents of cheating.
The Impact of Honor Codes
A number of colleges have found effective ways to reduce cheating and plagiarism. The key to their success seems
to be encouraging student involvement in developing community standards on academic dishonesty and ensuring
their subsequent acceptance by the larger student community. Many of these colleges employ academic honor codes
to accomplish these objectives.
Unlike the majority of colleges where proctoring of tests and exams is the responsibility of the faculty and/or
administration, many schools with academic honor codes allow students to take their exams without proctors
present, relying on peer monitoring to control cheating. Yet research indicates that the significantly lower levels of
cheating reported at honor code schools do not reflect a greater fear of being reported or caught. Rather, a more
important factor seems to be the peer culture that develops on honor code campuses—a culture that makes most
forms of serious cheating socially unacceptable among the majority of students. Many students would simply be
embarrassed to have other students find out they were cheating.
In essence, the efforts expended at these schools to help students understand the value of academic integrity, and the
responsibilities they have assumed as members of the campus community, convince many students, most of whom
have cheated in high school, to change their behavior. Except for cheating behaviors that most students consider
trivial (e.g., unpermitted collaboration on graded assignments), we see significantly less self-reported cheating on
campuses with honor codes compared to those without such codes. The critical difference seems to be an ongoing
dialogue that takes place among students on campuses with strong honor code traditions, and occasionally between
students and relevant faculty and administrators, which seeks to define where, from a student perspective, “trivial”
cheating becomes serious. While similar conversations occasionally take place on campuses that do not have honor
codes, they occur much less frequently and often do not involve students in any systematic or meaningful way.
1. When was the information created?
2. How old is too old?
3. Does the currency of the information matter?
1. Is the information related to the prompt?
2. Does the information support your stance?
3. Who is this written for?
Authority
1. Who or what created the information?
2. Who or what is publishing the information?
3. What credentials, education, affiliations, or experience does the information creator have to write on this topic?
4. What can we tell from the domain of the website where the information has been published?
Purpose
1. Why was this information created?
2. Was the information created to inform, teach, sell, entertain, or persuade you?
3. Is the purpose made clear?
1. The information was created on March 11, 2005.
2. The information is 16 years old.
3. The currency of the information may matter in terms of how relevant it is to current practices and beliefs about academic integrity. However, the underlying principles and arguments presented in the information may still be applicable.
1. The information is related to the prompt as it discusses the issue of cheating and academic integrity in high schools and colleges.
2. The information supports the stance that involving students in developing community standards on academic dishonesty, such as through honor codes, can help reduce cheating.
3. This information is written for readers interested in higher education, specifically the issue of academic integrity and the effectiveness of honor codes.
1. The information was co-created by McCabe, Donald, and Gary Pavela. It is not specified what credentials or experience they have in the field, but considering the publication is focused on higher education, it can be inferred that they have some expertise in this subject.
2. The information was published in Inside Higher Ed, an online publication focused on higher education. This indicates that the publication has expertise and credibility in the field.
3. The credentials, education, affiliations, or experience of the information creators are not explicitly mentioned in the excerpt. However, the fact that they are writing on this topic and their work is published in a reputable higher education publication suggests they have some expertise and credibility.
1. The information was created to inform and discuss the issue of cheating in high schools and colleges, as well as the effectiveness of honor codes in addressing this issue.
2. The information was created to inform and educate readers about the high levels of cheating, the reasons behind it, and the potential solutions.
3. The purpose of the information is made clear as it presents research findings, opinions, and arguments about the importance of involving students in addressing academic dishonesty through honor codes.
1. The information was created on 11 March 2005.
2. The information is 16 years old.
3. The currency of the information does matter as it may be outdated and not reflect current trends or research.
1. Yes, the information is related to the prompt as it discusses the high levels of cheating in American high schools and colleges.
2. The information supports the stance that academic honor codes can be effective in reducing cheating and plagiarism.
3. This information is written for readers interested in higher education and academic integrity, specifically those concerned about cheating in high schools and colleges.
Authority
1. The information was created by McCabe, Donald, and Gary Pavela.
2. The information is published in Inside Higher Ed, an online publication focused on higher education.
3. The information creators, McCabe, Donald, and Gary Pavela, are experts in the field of academic integrity. Their credentials and affiliations are not explicitly mentioned in the excerpt.
4. The domain of the website where the information is published, Inside Higher Ed, suggests that it is a reputable source of information on higher education.
Purpose
1. The information was created to inform readers about the high levels of cheating in American high schools and colleges and propose the use of honor codes to address the issue.
2. The information was created to inform and persuade readers about the effectiveness of honor codes in reducing cheating and plagiarism.
3. The purpose of the information is made clear as it presents research findings and argues for the adoption of honor codes in educational institutions.
To answer these questions, we need to analyze the given information. Let's go through each question step by step:
1. When was the information created?
To find out when the information was created, we need to look for specific dates mentioned in the text. In this case, the information was published on March 11, 2005.
2. How old is too old?
Determining whether information is too old depends on the context and the topic being discussed. For some subjects, recent information may be more important, while for others, older information may still be relevant. In the case of this educational topic, the information is around 8 years old (as of the given publication date was 2005), so it may be considered outdated in terms of current statistics and research on cheating in schools and colleges.
3. Does the currency of the information matter?
Yes, the currency of the information can matter, especially when discussing evolving topics or subjects where new research and updates constantly emerge. In this case, since the topic is about cheating in schools and colleges, it is possible that the prevalence and methods of cheating may have changed over time. Therefore, having more recent information might provide a more accurate understanding of the current situation.
Moving on to the next set of questions:
1. Is the information related to the prompt?
Yes, the information is related to the prompt. It discusses the high levels of cheating in American high schools and the carryover of cheating behaviors to college.
2. Does the information support your stance?
The prompt doesn't mention any specific stance, so it's difficult to determine if the information supports a specific viewpoint. However, the information provided is relevant to the discussion of cheating in education and the potential impact of honor codes on reducing cheating.
3. Who is this written for?
The information is an opinion piece published in an online publication focused on higher education, specifically Inside Higher Ed. It is likely written for educators, administrators, and students in higher education who are interested in understanding and addressing the issue of cheating.
Finally, let's address the authority and purpose of the information:
Authority:
1. Who or what created the information?
The information was created by McCabe, Donald, and Gary Pavela.
2. Who or what is publishing the information?
The information was published by Inside Higher Ed, an online publication focused on higher education.
3. What credentials, education, affiliations, or experience does the information creator have to write on this topic?
From the given information, we know that McCabe, Donald, and Gary Pavela have some level of expertise or knowledge on the topic of cheating in education. However, the exact credentials, education, affiliations, or experience of the authors are not mentioned in the provided excerpt.
4. What can we tell from the domain of the website where the information has been published?
The fact that the information is published on Inside Higher Ed, a domain specifically focused on higher education, provides some credibility to the information. It suggests that the publication is targeted towards professionals and experts in the field of higher education.
Purpose:
1. Why was this information created?
The information was created to inform readers about the high levels of cheating in American high schools and colleges and to discuss the potential effectiveness of honor codes in reducing cheating.
2. Was the information created to inform, teach, sell, entertain, or persuade you?
The information was created to inform and persuade readers by presenting the authors' viewpoint and supporting evidence on the issue of cheating in education and the role of honor codes.
3. Is the purpose made clear?
Yes, the purpose of the information is made clear through the discussion of the problem of cheating and the proposed solution of honor codes.
Overall, analyzing the information in this way helps us assess its relevance, reliability, and credibility for the given topic. It is important to consider the currency, authority, and purpose of the information when evaluating its usefulness and applicability to the prompt.